General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The liberal delusions that provoked putin
Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia -- a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.
Officials from the United States and its European allies contend that they tried hard to assuage Russian fears and that Moscow should understand that NATO has no designs on Russia. In addition to continually denying that its expansion was aimed at containing Russia, the alliance has never permanently deployed military forces in its new member states. In 2002, it even created a body called the NATO-Russia Council in an effort to foster cooperation. To further mollify Russia, the United States announced in 2009 that it would deploy its new missile defense system on warships in European waters, at least initially, rather than on Czech or Polish territory. But none of these measures worked; the Russians remained steadfastly opposed to NATO enlargement, especially into Georgia and Ukraine. And it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.
Sticking with the current policy would also complicate Western relations with Moscow on other issues. The United States needs Russia’s assistance to withdraw U.S. equipment from Afghanistan through Russian territory, reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, and stabilize the situation in Syria. In fact, Moscow has helped Washington on all three of these issues in the past; in the summer of 2013, it was Putin who pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by forging the deal under which Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons, thereby avoiding the U.S. military strike that Obama had threatened. The United States will also someday need Russia’s help containing a rising China. Current U.S. policy, however, is only driving Moscow and Beijing closer together.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)Putin is following Aleksandr Dugin's road-map for Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it...
newthinking
(3,982 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)joshcryer
(62,515 posts)But I don't disagree, I just think the Eastern Bloc shows that buffer states aren't sustainable. If Donbas succeeds in breaking away, it'll become a failed state eventually. If Russia was thinking logically it'd want a trilateral economic agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and EU. Territory doesn't win economic wars, smart economics do. But there's a reason Russia couldn't sign on to the EU accord, it would've bit the oligarchs in the behind (it had three major elements, 1) Ukraine becomes an agricultural behemoth, 2) Ukraine adopts agricultural and environmental standards 3) Ukraine's financial sector must meet EU standards for transparency. The first one isn't a big deal but the other two hurt the oligarchs.
karynnj
(60,172 posts)No western country started this by putting military forces in ukraine.
It is true tthat western policy was to encourage countries to increase their ties to the west and when ukraine wanted to do that, it triggered the known ŕussian paranoia about having buffer states around it. Note that the pro Russian president himself ran on in reign European ties. That fact is usually lost in the pro Russian telling.
You could say that allowing Russia to control the surrounding countries might lead to fewer conflicts, but those countries have the right to choose not to be linked just to russia.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)The US did not put forces into Ukraine but did encourage separatists to oust the actual elected President in favor of a fascist who is more to there liking.
Similar to Chile when the CIA fomented a coup against Salvador Allende. No troops were used but the job was done. Remember Henry Kissinger's comment that the Chilean people could not be allowed to choose a form of government that the US found unacceptable.
The Monroe Doctrine updated to apply to the entire globe.
AS to controlling surrounding countries, Russia has one foreign military base, in Ukraine, versus the 700-1000 US bases all over the world.
karynnj
(60,172 posts)You ignore the actions of Russia and believe the CT of covert us actions. It is clear that in the election won by the pro Russian president both main parties were for improving European ties. There were protests when the president after a trip to Moscow backtracked on the that
There is no reason to argue that the US was behind the protests.
Then there was the agreement that the president signed that could have ended the problem. It is as easy to see u late that russia was then unhappy and pushed the president to resign and move to russia. Note that given the agreement, the west was not the side unhappy then. The president leaving created the chaos that russia then used to grab crimea. It is very hard to see the events as a coup. Note there were a few days of utter confusion.in Kiev before the Parliament voted on how to go forward given the president has fled the country taking many possessions with him.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)or was behind the removal of the previously elected President. I observed that the CIA has done this in the past, (Iran, Chile, Haiti, Italy, Greece) and that it could have been a similar situation here.
As to Poroshenko having fascist ties, check this link and do more research. (There are more links available)
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine
The US has a habit of jumping into things for power projection purposes while attacking any other country that attempts to do the same thing. Thus my point about the number of foreign military bases comparing the US to Russia,
karynnj
(60,172 posts)You are ignoring all the specifics in Kiev because of us actions elsewhere back to Chile over 30 years ago.
I said nothing about fascism and I suggest you give the same scrutiny to the even more prevalent fascism in Russia.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)has no bearing on what MAY be happening today is to ignore history. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it is a good saying to remember. As well as the saying "if you do not know history everything is a mystery".
The US, through the CIA and other agencies, has been behind many conflicts all over the world. There is an abundance of evidence to support this. Ignoring the evidence is ignoring reality. It can be done but the consequences are not good.
My point about Poroshenko and the evidence linking him to fascist movements was made to caution us against supporting someone without knowing who that someone is. Remember that we supported Saddam Hussein when it was in our geostrategic interest. When he was no longer useful we dropped him.
We did the same thing with the Kurds, the same thing with the Afghanis, the same thing with Al-Qaeda. Shall I continue?
The US supports fascists and dictators when it suits our power projection.
karynnj
(60,172 posts)It is just as wrong to assume that this was a coup when the known facts suggest that it wasn't. The point that it identified as the coup is when the pro Russian president left.
However consider the situation at that moment. There was an agreement signed by the president that increased their ties to europe. Ask yourself who was unhappy at that point. At that point both the US and Europe were actually pleased with the deal.
On the other hand, the president was in a horrible position. Russia was unhappy with the agreement he signed and his corruption had been outed. Many corrupt oligarchs were also unhappy.
What we know is the president left the government and that led to complete chaos. Then consider who used that chaos noting they were also unhappy with the status quo. It is easier to use known facts to conjecture that russia intentionally destabilized ukraine because they were against the agreement
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)but note that all Empires use basically the same methods. The difference is that under Mikhail Gorbachev the USSR abandoned its empire. Gorbachev correctly recognized that the costs of empire were bankrupting the USSR. The US still maintains the fiction that its empire is affordable. That explains why the US spends more on its military then the rest of the world combined. Also explains why the Empire is bankrupting the US.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)promising the anti-government protesters that the 'US would support them', and caught on tape, BEFORE the coup, planning the future AFTER the toppling of Yanukovich.
It was not in Russia's interests to see him ousted. He had changed his mind regarding going with the EU and accepted the loan offered by Russia.
So who benefited from his ouster? Those who wanted Ukraine to accept the IMF loan, which he had done up to around Dec of 2013. But when he felt that Ukr was not going to be accepted into the EU without the imposition of draconian terms and rules, he became angry, seeing those demands as a disrespect for Ukraine.
Coincidentally, right after that decision, John McCain and Victoria Nuland, neocon showed up to egg on the protesters who were demanding that Yanukovich step down, promising them that 'We will support you', and then caught on tape planning for the future, even predicting the new 'leader', Yatze, AFTER the ousting of Yanukovich.
There is no way to deny the role played by the US, unless of course the neocons were acting on their own, in the eventual, tragic results of what should have been left to an election. Yanukovich left because his life was in danger. Russia would have preferred him over the pro-IMF govt that succeeded him. Qui bono? At this point it certainly isn't the people of Ukraine.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,808 posts)I know, I know. Pesky little details, right?
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Why is it that every time that anyone says anything in Russia it must be "Putin's Mystic" while we clearly understand here that not everyone who says anything here represents "America" or "Americans".
This kind of info-tainment really is counterproductive, but it has been occurring constantly in our press and even on this site.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)In Europe:
Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".
United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
In the Middle East and Central Asia:
The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the (subsidiary) axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … (like) the Iranians and the Kurds".
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Half the damn things in Dugin's roadmap are policy. With Ukraine however it's backfiring, Armenia in particular wants to reevaulate where it stands. Any sense of connecting with Poland is gone completely.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change"
without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. These actions were sometimes accompanied by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.
1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Russia
2 During the Cold War
2.1 Soviet Russia
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Iraq 1960–63
2.9 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–89
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Venezuela 2002
3.3 Iraq 2002–03
3.4 Iran 2005–present
3.5 Somalia 2006–07
3.6 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Now that's "American Exceptionalism" at its finest. For most Americans, it's either complete denial or deliberate ignorance. Especially after the last 20 years, people should worry about their own glass houses.
Stay Tuned for when Putin air drops "Trainers" into Canada or Mexico.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)or you would have needed much more space. Remember that the US only does these things for the best of reasons. Right?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)and the rest of it, e.g. putting Estonia into Germany's sphere of influence...
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)Estonia may be a stretch but they certainly aren't pro-Russia now after Ukraine.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)or you're saying that Russia funds ukip? I thought people like this guy did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Wheeler
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)Not necessarily complete.
Yes UKIP has ties to Russia. Their top guy is a Putin fan.
It just seems an awfully big coincidence that UKIP gained power, as an anti-EU party, and, that's what Dugin wanted to happen. I'm not saying it was 100% manufactured, but I would be shocked that this just happened by chance. So many things Dugin writes about are happening, in the process of occurring.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Farage was educated at Dulwich College, a public school in south London.[17] On leaving school in 1982, he decided not to go to university, but to work in the City, trading commodities at the London Metal Exchange.[15] Initially, he joined the American commodity brokerage firm Drexel Burnham Lambert,[17] transferring to Credit Lyonnais Rouse in 1986.[17] He joined Refco in 1994, and Natexis Metals in 2003.[17]
Active in the Conservative Party from his school days, Farage left the party in 1992 in protest at John Major government's signing of the Treaty on European Union at Maastricht.[20][21] He was a founding member of UKIP in 1993.
muriel_volestrangler
(103,266 posts)...
Farage's comments emerged just days after the Eurosceptic MEP said the European Union had "blood on its hands" for encouraging rebellion in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. While stressing he did not approve of Putin's annexation of Crimea, he said EU leaders had been "weak and vain", adding: "If you poke the Russian bear with a stick he will respond."
...
Farage was questioned for GQ by Labour's former director of communications Alistair Campbell, in his first interview in his new role as the glossy monthly's "arch-interrogator".
Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin.
"The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/farage-i-admire-putin
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
"As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin.
"The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
While stressing he did not approve of Putin's annexation of Crimea, he said EU leaders had been "weak and vain", adding: "If you poke the Russian bear with a stick he will respond."
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Your analysis reminds me of how evangelists adapt the bible to make it look like events unfolding are the end times.
So dugan had a grasp on geopolitics.
And Russia has godly powers to even influence British feelings about the Euro-Union.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)It could be all a coincidence.
stonecutter357
(12,822 posts)
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Especially the reminder of President Putin's assistance with the situation in Syria, since that fact has fallen down the memory hole of the American public, disappearing into the distant mists of time of 18 months ago. Good post.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Damn, the agendas of some around here get more transparent daily.
MasochisticHistorian
(8 posts)Ukraine had them, and when Britain and the US promised that they would back Ukraine up if needed Ukraine agreed to give them all back to Russia. So question for everyone which is more important,
1. keeping the promise
2. profiting from lies and poor diplomacy.
And really Putin traded help in Syria for us not bothering as much with Ukraine for a bit.
If it's all our fault, maybe we should take over and fix everything.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,808 posts)Let's see, Putin waits until the Ukrainian government is substantially weakened by crisis and unable to mobilize its armed forces and seizes Crimea. And somehow it's the West's fault.
Gotcha.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I agree
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)since the West caused the crisis, yes, by any logical and reasonable standard, it is indeed the West's fault
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,808 posts)Even if one were to subscribe to the belief that the US had some direct hand in the regime change last year (still unproven), the situation in the east of the country undoubtedly developed as a result of the situation that arouse in Crimea less than a week after Victor Yanukovych choppered out of Kiev.
That's right. It took less than a week for Putin to move in on Crimea. He claims (after the fact, of course--he denied he was invading when in fact he was invading) he was moving to protect Russian interests. But was there actually any exigent circumstances within that one week's time period that demanded Russia seizing the entirety of the Crimean peninsula? There was no attack on ethnic Russians living in Crimea by Ukrainian forces. There was no attack on Russian forces stationed at the naval bases in Sebastopol. All Russia can come up with was a measure in the Ukrainian parliament that would have made Ukrainian the sole official language of Ukraine, a measure that was ultimately vetoed by the interim government. I mean, really?
Logic and reason dictates that this was an opportunistic land grab by Putin--that he knew the Ukrainian government was at its very weakest just having gone through a revolution, and that it was not prepared to have any type of response whatsoever to having a portion of its territory seized. The Ukrainian army was in shambles after years of neglect and was in no shape ready to respond.
Why did Putin act so quickly? What was he supposedly reacting to? Every single sign points to this being Putin taking advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to take land that he viewed as Russian by birthright.
Had Putin not invaded Crimea, I honestly think that Ukraine at this point would not anywhere close to this turmoil in its borders, and would probably be in a slow reconciling and unifying process.
enough
(13,508 posts)in the video in this DU thread from yesterday.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017245149
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They're countries with the right to choose whoever the fuck they want to ally with, and if Russia doesn't like it, tough shit.
And before anyone tries it, yes, I think the Monroe Doctrine is as equally despicable.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Never change, faux anti-imperialists.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter future harassment of Cuba. An agreement was reached during a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Fidel Castro in July and construction on a number of missile sites started later that summer.
The United States established a military blockade to prevent further missiles from entering Cuba. It announced that they would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the USSR.
After a period of tense negotiations an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba without direct provocation. Secretly, the US also agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter MRBMs, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union but were not known to the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Namely by leaving them out of the negotiations.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)minor powers don't "choose".
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)to respect the territorial integrity of a smaller country after nuclear weapons were removed from its soil.
Now, are you done arguing might makes right, or do you have any other imperialist talking points to bandy around?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Simply saying the same thing over and over again, lacking any objective source, illustrates your position as irrational and without a sound premise.
Try reading the introduction (if nothing else) to Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers-- minor powers do choose.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm guessing you're intoxicated and are unable to hold the difference between an objective premise and a subjective allegation (or simply very young and sophomoric, believing that bumper-stickers are a valid replacement for rational thought--- but I'm guessing drunk).
"Then why do you keep doing it?"
As an assist, let me allow you your next cogent argument point-- "I know you are, but what am I?" which seems to parallel your body of work to date.
The following will certainly help you: find out the critical differences between 'objective' and 'subjective'; read an introductory work to modern history; and realize that any conclusion must be predicated by and founded on, supportive statements.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because they were fed up with Russia's domination and attempted eradication of their nations and cultures.
And now, a lot of those "minor powers" have chosen to join NATO and tell their former Russian masters to fuck off.
That's been the case throughout history: the fall of nearly major empire has had as one of its major causes independence movements in its territories.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)with the collapse of the USSR.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Only President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were present in the Vatican Library on Monday, June 7, 1982... But Reagan and the Pope spent only a few minutes reviewing events in the Middle East. Instead they remained focused on a subject much closer to their heart: Poland and the Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe. In that meeting, Reagan and the Pope agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the dissolution of the communist empire. Declares Richard Allen, Reagan's first National Security Adviser: "This was one of the great secret alliances of all time."
The operation was focused on Poland, the most populous of the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and the birthplace of John Paul II. Both the Pope and the President were convinced that Poland could be broken out of the Soviet orbit if the Vatican and the U.S. committed their resources to destabilizing the Polish government and keeping the outlawed Solidarity movement alive after the declaration of martial law in 1981.
Until Solidarity's legal status was restored in 1989 it flourished underground, supplied, nurtured and advised largely by the network established under the auspices of Reagan and John Paul II. Tons of equipment -- fax machines (the first in Poland), printing presses, transmitters, telephones, shortwave radios, video cameras, photocopiers, telex machines, computers, word processors -- were smuggled into Poland via channels established by priests and American agents and representatives of the AFL-CIO and European labor movements. Money for the banned union came from CIA funds, the National Endowment for Democracy, secret accounts in the Vatican and Western trade unions...
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_holy_alliance.php
SidDithers
(44,329 posts)
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ukraine, what's left of it after the civil war is over, can now look forward to what Greece, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Ireland, all once sovereign nations, suffered at the hands of the draconian rules that will be imposed on them for the loan that will enslave them for decades to come.
Their social programs, if they have any, will be destroyed.
Unemployment will soar.
Their national assets will be sold off to the oligarchs for pennies on the dollar.
Same old MO they practiced first in Third World countries. Then moved on to second and first world nations.
Greece has finally made a stab at getting out from under their draconian oppression.
I see the rules of the IMF are being laid out even as we speak, for Ukraine.
Wolfowitz, where is he now after HIS stint at the World Bank?
We can only watch, as we have done with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else they have their sights set.
I feel sorry for the people of Ukraine, but not for the coup government and their extremely wealthy member of the 1% 'leader'.
stonecutter357
(12,822 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)those pesky international organizations (perhaps even the right wing' favorite enemy "One World Government" which rob countries of the "sovereignty". Ahh, for the 'good old days' of the highly 'sovereign' countries in the 1930's. The world was such a better place back then.
And there was no 'coup' in Ukraine. Yanukovich signed an agreement to remain as president pending elections one day. He controlled the military and security forces facing a group of protesters who had shown their limited power by holding on to exactly one public square in a large European city. Something tells me his military and security forces could have handled such an unimposing force.
Instead, the day after signing the agreement to remain in office he (either unilaterally or with 'guidance' from some other source) decided that leaving Ukraine made more sense than living up to the agreement he had just signed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)roll over in his grave if he saw the criminal elements he wanted to stop, working so hard to privatize his public programs and take over any that they could profit from.
Funny that you would attach FDR's vision to the likes of Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocons.
If he were alive today, THEY would the 'haters' whose hatred he welcomed.
There WAS a coup in Ukraine, and denying is just plain silly..
Coincidentally it was backed by a bunch of Neocons. See Victoria 'Our Guy Yatze' Nuland's Neocon creds. And what a 'coincidence' that her guy, Yatze was installed AFTER the coup.
Please, the world got to hear the plotters on tape. It's like denying the sky is blue at this point.
pampango
(24,692 posts)are opposed by a bunch of protesters whose claim to fame was the ability to control one tiny part of a large city. I realize that calling it a 'coup' provides legitimacy for things done in response but calling it a "coup" does not make it so.
You would have to believe that Yanukich cooperated with those who were intent on ousting him. Otherwise, no leader would have left with the array of forces he had behind him facing such paltry opposition. Perhaps it is no wonder that Putin has such a distaste for him.
It sounds like you want US involvement in the UN, IMF, World Bank and the WTO (among others) to end. You have good company with the right wing of the republican party which stretches all the way to the John Birch Society. Perhaps you support the concept of these international organizations (unlike those on the far right) but not their current leadership and policies?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)BEFORE the coup too place. John McCain and Nuland among others, were right there promising US Support to the anti-Government protesters.
You ARE correct about one thing. IF the protesters were acting alone, the President of Ukr would not have been ousted. But when a super power, represented by TWO US SENATORS and members of the STate Dept are promising to support those protesters, that dramatically changes the picture.
I want the US OUT of all these conflicts.
Don't try to read my mind, I can speak very clearly for myself.
I want the NEOCON factions in this country OUT of the business of the US. OUT of these organizations, such as the World Bank, in positions of power, ANYWHERE in the world, representing this country.
Now let me try to read your mind. It sounds like you support Wolfowitz and his neocon friends who currently appear to be STILL driving US Foreign Policies.
What were they doing in Kiev right before the coup?
Were they doing what Netanyahu and Boehner were plotting regarding Obama's policies on Iran, attempting to undermine them?
I don't know, but wherever these war criminals show up, WAR appears to be what follows. Thankfully so far, the President and his allies, which include Russia btw, have stopped them from interfering in Iran where he and his allies are attempting to resolve the Iran issues PEACEFULLY.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Everything that happens, everywhere in the world is not the product of the great and mighty (exceptional) United States. People in the streets of their own countries actually have some impact at times.
McCain promises (and threatens) all kinds of things to all kinds of people in many places. I doubt Yanukovich thought "I have to get out of here. John McCain is in the crowd."
There was not coup. And McCain? Who knows. The guy goes everywhere and never stops talking. I do not grant him the power to shape events by his mere presence.
Again. If Yanukovich thought that McCain made the protesters much scarier, he was probably right to leave. He was not cut out to be a president. Or perhaps Yanukovich was in on the deal? Why else would he leave with so much support behind him and so little danger.
Yanukovich should have called Mr. Assad (or Mr. Putin who would probably have had some suggestions) if he needed advice from someone who has received threats from McCain and practically every other US politician. And he remains in power today with the support of Russia. I suspect Mr. Putin would have been even more anxious to support Yanukovich than he has Assad given proximity and the big Russian naval base.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ukr, and promise US support after they toppled their Government? Yanukovich knew that both the EU and the US were backing the protesters in their demands that he either go along with the IMF offer, or the writing was on the wall.
There WAS a coup in Ukraine no matter how many times you deny it.
It's not the first coup or attempted coup backed by the US, so I'm not sure what you find so outrageous about the fact that once again we were behind yet another coup.
Only Empires are 'everywhere'.. Why are WE everywhere?
Oh yes, Rove told us why: 'We are an Empire now' ...
And when did the people of the US make that decision? Most still think they are the antithesis of an Empire. So who made the decision to change this country from a Democracy to an Empire?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,808 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)communication, got over that at around 13.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,808 posts)To date, you haven't been able to show that there was an actual coup in Ukraine beyond spewing out some sort of convoluted mess involving John McCain, Victoria Nuland and cookies.
Frankly, I'd hardly expect anything more at this point.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)...therefore the US is responsible for this as well."
Yeah, that doesn't hold water.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)In case you may have missed this- John Pilger
John Pilger - Logan Symposium London- 5th Dec 2014
“The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order.”
— Vice President Joe Biden, April 5, 2013
2banon
(7,321 posts)Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. 
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)Sabrina, glad to see you're still here, posting the truth! 
2banon
(7,321 posts)This issue ain't all that complicated.
I continue to be stunned by the arrogance and willful ignorance of the McCarthy Cloned Boot Licker Brigade here across the spectrum.
Last March, when this "crises" just emerged, Leon Panetta's opening remarks at his policy institute conference (to commemorate WWI) was: "We Lost Crimea" .
it was the most egregious jaw dropping evidence of supreme arrogance and hypocrisy - mirrored Dubya's assassin "Evil Axis" war speeches prior to invasion of Iraq.
Apparently, too many have not learned ANYTHING at all from history.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)But "liberal delusions"? I'm afraid Mearsheimer lost me there.