Walk like a Putin

[DC Tom]

 

No question. Though, some of the red-baiting going on in the press makes it sound like his end game is world domination. I don't think it is. I don't even think it's to reestablish the old soviet empire -- at least not with tanks and troops.

 

Tell that the the Ukraine.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Tell that the the Ukraine.

 

What choice did the west give Putin? Since Clinton tore up the Malta deal in the 90s, NATO has been encroaching on Russian borders for almost 30 years. This accelerated (as you know) under 44 and with the deployment of the missile defense systems throughout Europe. The west forced Putin's hand, or broke the camel's back depending on how you wish to phrase it, when it financed (with $5b US) and backed the coup which ousted the pro-Russian (yet, democratically elected) government and supported in its place literal neo-nazis who may or may not (but definitely did) start the coup by massacring 22 people in Odessa in February of '14.

 

The western media won't touch that story, because they can't, but there's ample concrete evidence in the form of leaked transcripts, voice recordings and emails that prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Had Putin sat on his hands, he would have had a new NATO member a mere 6 hour drive from Moscow, lost their Black Sea bases, and had the Baltic flanked by NATO members in Turkey and the Ukraine. It would have been a strategic nightmare for Russia. Viewed in that light it's much more accurate to describe Putin's actions in the Ukraine as a stabilizing measure in a geo-political sense. It blocked Ukraine from joining NATO, removed a neo-fascist government that had been brutalizing its way to power (backed by western money and training), and prevented a powder keg from being created just hours from the capital of the world's second largest nuclear power.

 

The full on Russian invasion never happened -- and never was going to happen. Russia wants strategic balance restored, and they are certainly willing to fight for it, but it's clear from their actions in the Ukraine that global domination isn't their end game.

 

 

(A lot of first hand evidence can be found in this doc here, source the information presented rather than relying on the doc itself:

) Edited August 1, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

That's a wholly one side slanted view of what happened. Coincidentally, spoken from a Putin apologist.

 

It's as if Georgia and Kyrgystan never happened and all Vlad wanted to do in Ukraine is to get along, and his dirty mitts never touched the country until the bad bad US orchestrated a coup.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's a wholly one side slanted view of what happened. Coincidentally, spoken from a Putin apologist.

 

It's as if Georgia and Kyrgystan never happened and all Vlad wanted to do in Ukraine is to get along, and his dirty mitts never touched the country until the bad bad US orchestrated a coup.

 

You're response is as predictable as your vote will be this November. HRC thanks you in advance.

 

That's a complete oversimplification and ignores any western culpability to the point of absurdness. But again, considering your chosen belief in regime change, this is pretty much all you got. Oversimplification to the point of absurdity and outright falsehoods. The west got caught with its hand in the cookie jar -- pushing regime change by once again working with the worst elements of humanity because they believed they could control them. They thought Russia would back down. They were wrong.

 

If Putin wanted to take all of the Ukraine, he could have. He didn't.

[GG]

 

You're response is as predictable as your vote will be this November. HRC thanks you in advance.

 

That's a complete oversimplification and ignores any western culpability to the point of absurdness. But again, considering your chosen belief in regime change, this is pretty much all you got. Oversimplification to the point of absurdity and outright falsehoods. The west got caught with its hand in the cookie jar -- pushing regime change by once again working with the worst elements of humanity because they believed they could control them. They thought Russia would back down. They were wrong.

 

If Putin wanted to take all of the Ukraine, he could have. He didn't.

 

What's predictable? That I'm setting the record straight that Russia is the leading meddler?

 

US got more involved in Ukraine after Ukrainian leaders reached out to the West. This far predates Clinton & Uland, but you wouldn't know that information from your Russian sources. Funny how you're fully buying into Russia's account of the events. Maybe because Putin has murdered every reporter who dared to tell the truth.

 

That's some company that you and trump defend.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What's predictable? That I'm setting the record straight that Russia is the leading meddler?

 

 

What's predictable is you're ignoring the actual content of the discussion by talking about something else entirely and acting as if they're the same discussion. It's what you do when you got nothing. Which has happened more and more lately.

 

No one, not me, is saying Russia and Putin are innocent actors.

 

What is being discussed is our own foreign policy blunders, specifically in the Ukraine.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive positions. You can believe Putin to be a bad actor and still criticize the government despite what you might believe.

 

Again, Hillary thanks you in advance. It's this kind of logic that she's counting on from her supporters.

 

 

US got more involved in Ukraine after Ukrainian leaders reached out to the West.

 

False.

 

 

This far predates Clinton & Uland, but you wouldn't know that information from your Russian sources.

 

False. And who's relying on Russian sources? The facts offered are easy enough to authenticate yourself -- which is exactly why I suggested people do that.

 

Funny how you're fully buying into Russia's account of the events. Maybe because Putin has murdered every reporter who dared to tell the truth.

 

That's some company that you and trump defend.

 

You just can't help yourself from making stuff up when you're trying to deflect.

 

Try to stick with what people are actually saying, not what you think they're saying.

[GG]

 

What's predictable is you're ignoring the actual content of the discussion by talking about something else entirely and acting as if they're the same discussion. It's what you do when you got nothing. Which has happened more and more lately.

 

No one, not me, is saying Russia and Putin are innocent actors.

 

What is being discussed is our own foreign policy blunders, specifically in the Ukraine.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive positions. You can believe Putin to be a bad actor and still criticize the government despite what you might believe.

 

Again, Hillary thanks you in advance. It's this kind of logic that she's counting on from her supporters.

 

 

False.

 

 

False. And who's relying on Russian sources? The facts offered are easy enough to authenticate yourself -- which is exactly why I suggested people do that.

 

 

You just can't help yourself from making stuff up when you're trying to deflect.

 

Try to stick with what people are actually saying, not what you think they're saying.

You have a trumpian knack for ignoring things you wrote, and then pretending that you never wrote then on the first place.

 

All your posts about the Russia Ukraine conflict begin with the allegedly staged coup by Clinton and Nuland, but totally ignore the fifteen years that led up to it, and Russian meddling in a sovereign country.

 

I don't recall seeing a post from you challenging Putin's belligerence to reclaim the Soviet empire, and you take it at face value that Putin only does things to prevent a western advance. In the past, you'd be called a useful idiot.

 

BTW if Hillary is the neocon that you claim she is, why was there a need for a reset button? Why did she facilitate massive investments in Russia? Why did the Clinton Foundation take in millions by greasing the skids with Putin cronies?

 

Oh, that's right she's not a neocon and got duped by Putin like everyone else has.

 

You know who isn't duped by Putin? Neocons.

Edited August 1, 2016 by GG

[/dev/null]

You have a trumpian knack for ignoring things you wrote

In Rhino's defense, considering the status of his career he's used to people ignoring what he wrote

[....lybob]

 

What choice did the west give Putin? Since Clinton tore up the Malta deal in the 90s, NATO has been encroaching on Russian borders for almost 30 years. This accelerated (as you know) under 44 and with the deployment of the missile defense systems throughout Europe. The west forced Putin's hand, or broke the camel's back depending on how you wish to phrase it, when it financed (with $5b US) and backed the coup which ousted the pro-Russian (yet, democratically elected) government and supported in its place literal neo-nazis who may or may not (but definitely did) start the coup by massacring 22 people in Odessa in February of '14.

 

The western media won't touch that story, because they can't, but there's ample concrete evidence in the form of leaked transcripts, voice recordings and emails that prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Had Putin sat on his hands, he would have had a new NATO member a mere 6 hour drive from Moscow, lost their Black Sea bases, and had the Baltic flanked by NATO members in Turkey and the Ukraine. It would have been a strategic nightmare for Russia. Viewed in that light it's much more accurate to describe Putin's actions in the Ukraine as a stabilizing measure in a geo-political sense. It blocked Ukraine from joining NATO, removed a neo-fascist government that had been brutalizing its way to power (backed by western money and training), and prevented a powder keg from being created just hours from the capital of the world's second largest nuclear power.

 

The full on Russian invasion never happened -- and never was going to happen. Russia wants strategic balance restored, and they are certainly willing to fight for it, but it's clear from their actions in the Ukraine that global domination isn't their end game.

 

 

(A lot of first hand evidence can be found in this doc here, source the information presented rather than relying on the doc itself:

)

The U.S., Russia, China and others have been engaging in a zero sum war for (resources, power, influence)- no direct shooting so far thankfully but every other avenue is open - The Ukraine coup is part of this and in some ways it was brilliant because Russia was !@#$ed either way ,on the other hand is !@#$ing with a country that can effectively end civilization really that smart, Russia can't really win the game but they could kick over the board anytime they want to - another thing it was part of a foreign policy that pushed Russia and China closer together and while it was always Zbigniew Brzezinski dream to ring fence China and Russia until China invaded Russia for resources, what we have now is a Russia China relationship that is closest it's been since the 1950s.

 

Separately China and Russia have a lot of problems but together they are a hell of a foe, Putin is trying pretty hard to peel off any European country it can from a U.S. directed agenda and China going to treat the China Sea the same way Israel treats the West Bank .

[starrymessenger]

 

There are conflicting accounts regarding just what assurances were given to Gorbachev at the time of German reunification and later to Yeltsin concerning Nato expansion.

According to Secretary Baker there were neither assurances nor guarantees, but there is also substantial evidence that the Russians were given comfort on the issue and they may be right in thinking that their reasonable expectations were disappointed at a time when they were unable to do anything about it. Maybe a promise was broken, but of course the Russians too break promises all the time, for example the guarantee of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as provided in the memorandum of December, 1994. I wonder if Putin would have invaded the Ukraine if it was still loaded with nuclear weapons or indeed if Russia's Ukranian cronies had not systematically deteriorated its conventional military capabilities following the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Regardless of what has been said and done, it bears mentioning that Nato is a defensive alliance. It does not pose a military threat to Russia in the absence of Russian military aggression against a member state. And why is it that former Soviet republics would seek membership in Nato? Were they really planning to invade Russia or were they worried that their newly acquired freedoms might again be trampled under the Russian jackboot as soon as the Kremlin rediscovered its mojo. And why shouldnt sovereign nations be allowed to enter into whatever alliances or agreements they regard as aligned with their national interest? Because their aspirations are somehow incongruous with an outdated map of an empire that no longer exists?

Having said that the Russian reaction to recent developments in the Ukraine is understandable (if not justified) and the case is an interesting example of how history and geography condition a People's perceptions. There are no natural barriers insulating Russia from Europe. The Ukraine in particular is a verdant plain and highway leading directly to the heart of Russia, Moscow. A highway that has been travelled by invading armies looking to enslave the Russian People. As it happens, Russia is the place where those invading armies have gone to die, due to the legendary endurance of the Russian footsoldier and the Russian People who together have written some of the most heroic pages in the book of human history. If Hitler proved anything it might just be that the Slavs are the master race.

Just look at a map of Europe. Ukraine is huge. Add that piece to the former Soviet republics that have melted through the Kremlin's grasp and you might understand how, in comparison to what was previously its reach, the loss of Ukraine would be a pill too hard for a proud people to swallow. The fact that the Ukrainians themselves are a Slavic nation with a large ethnic Russian population only makes matters worse.

As for Putin, I don't think he is that hard to figure out. He doubtless sees himself as the successor to Peter, Catherine and Alexander the First. Why shouldnt he. He is the President of Russia after all. I'm sure that animates his sense of duty. He was also a witness to the destruction of the most recent Russian empire of which, professionally speaking, he was an agent. He may be forgiven his bitterness.

Thing is though that Putin is not merely the promoter of Russian interests, he is also a product of Russian political culture. If he was going to achieve anything he was going to have to buy into the Russian way of doing things and the Russian way of doing things reflects systemic instability (and the need to struggle against it) and paranoia. Putin is at once the master and the slave of Russia.

The Russians are a great People who have for a long time been poorly governed and that is largely the fortuitous result of geography and history. Democratic institutions have never taken root in that country as they did in the UK, in France and in America. What you then wind up with is the rule of a gang the members of which need to be bought. It is inefficient and corrupt. Who can blame the youth of the Ukraine for wanting something better.

[Ozymandius]

Rhino, hopefully you can take a compliment. Even though I disagree with your theories like half the time (especially about Trump), I appreciate that you think for yourself. One day this independence of thought will lead you to the right answers as to what's going on in this world. You're on the cusp most of the time, I'd say.

[Deranged Rhino]

I missed this yesterday, apologies:

 

You have a trumpian knack for ignoring things you wrote, and then pretending that you never wrote then on the first place.

All your posts about the Russia Ukraine conflict begin with the allegedly staged coup by Clinton and Nuland, but totally ignore the fifteen years that led up to it, and Russian meddling in a sovereign country.

 

I don't recall seeing a post from you challenging Putin's belligerence to reclaim the Soviet empire, and you take it at face value that Putin only does things to prevent a western advance. In the past, you'd be called a useful idiot.

 

Not true, but again, you don't like to read what's actually written before you jump to conclusions.

 

My initial comment was that over the past two years Putin has been one of, if not the most stabilizing geopolitical force in the world and that should be terrifying. You may consider that ignoring history but it's not. It's acknowledging there's been a shift in Moscow due to a multitude of reasons -- chief among them our current foreign policy or lack thereof.

 

Tom responded by pointing out the Russians invaded the Ukraine within that period. Which is true.

 

My answer pointed out that, despite the hype by the western media (which is every bit as propagandized as Putin's as we're learning with each and every leak), the west forced the issue in the Ukraine with our moves behind the scenes. Put aside the question of whether or not the coup was western backed (it was, but I'll concede it for the purposes of this conversation), what did the west think it would gain by not only bringing Ukraine into the EU but NATO? Both of which were actual talking points before the flare up. That would have cut Russia off from it's largest navel base, it's entire Baltic Fleet, and have left the Black Sea flanked with two NATO members.That's an aggressive plan, one that was clearly in motion. How is that a good strategy in the modern world? How is it anything other flicking the nose of a country with the second most nuclear weapons?

 

Disagree all you want about who started the fuss in the Ukraine -- but that's not the issue really being discussed. It's just what you latched onto because you believe regime change is done by wishing for a better life for people and refuse to acknowledge that the US has done dirty deeds more than once in the past.

 

The larger issue being discussed is that the west has been a destabilizing force in recent history: Iraq, Syria, Libya -- that excludes "controversial" events in the Ukraine and Afghanistan because it was a **** show well before we got there. Russia has done it's share of destabilizing as well, despite your interpretation I've never denied this and have a long history posting critical things about Putin in many, many threads. Hell, I started half of them. However, there's been a marked change in their approach over the past 24 months or so. Evidence of this is abundant, starting with the fact they didn't take all of the Ukraine when they easily could have and everyone in the west was predicting it.

 

So, if you care to address the actual issue being discussed, I'd be happy to hear it. What was the long term play for the West? What would you think the US would have done had the roles been reversed?

 

BTW if Hillary is the neocon that you claim she is, why was there a need for a reset button? Why did she facilitate massive investments in Russia? Why did the Clinton Foundation take in millions by greasing the skids with Putin cronies?

Oh, that's right she's not a neocon and got duped by Putin like everyone else has.

You know who isn't duped by Putin? Neocons.

 

You really want to go down with that ship, don't ya? Too bad. You're pretty open minded and sharp on most topics, but you're dead wrong on the viability of the neocon agenda. It's never going to work, it's only going to continue the cycle of contained regions of conflict for profit... which is what the neocons really want anyway. They've convinced you it's for the greater good but it's not. It's for their good. They don't want change. They don't want democracy and freedom for the people they claim to be liberating. They want new markets. New wars. New ways to make more money.

 

It's funny you can lecture people about being had by Putin while you're still clinging to a philosophy that has been proven to be an utter failure over the past two decades.

 

 

In Rhino's defense, considering the status of his career he's used to people ignoring what he wrote

 

This is very true.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Dante]

That's a wholly one side slanted view of what happened. Coincidentally, spoken from a Putin apologist.

 

It's as if Georgia and Kyrgystan never happened and all Vlad wanted to do in Ukraine is to get along, and his dirty mitts never touched the country until the bad bad US orchestrated a coup.

The US has no right to question anyone at this point. After blowing up Iraq, Libya and Syria causing all kinds of refugees. Funding fugging ISIS or Al Kaeda or whatever they call them now to slaughter thousands, Putin looks like a 60s peacenik to me.

Bush, Barry and that Chairman Mao dressing witch are all criminals.

[GG]

I missed this yesterday, apologies:

 

 

Not true, but again, you don't like to read what's actually written before you jump to conclusions.

 

My initial comment was that over the past two years Putin has been one of, if not the most stabilizing geopolitical force in the world and that should be terrifying. You may consider that ignoring history but it's not. It's acknowledging there's been a shift in Moscow due to a multitude of reasons -- chief among them our current foreign policy or lack thereof.

 

Tom responded by pointing out the Russians invaded the Ukraine within that period. Which is true.

 

My answer pointed out that, despite the hype by the western media (which is every bit as propagandized as Putin's as we're learning with each and every leak), the west forced the issue in the Ukraine with our moves behind the scenes. Put aside the question of whether or not the coup was western backed (it was, but I'll concede it for the purposes of this conversation), what did the west think it would gain by not only bringing Ukraine into the EU but NATO? Both of which were actual talking points before the flare up. That would have cut Russia off from it's largest navel base, it's entire Baltic Fleet, and have left the Black Sea flanked with two NATO members.That's an aggressive plan, one that was clearly in motion. How is that a good strategy in the modern world? How is it anything other flicking the nose of a country with the second most nuclear weapons?

 

Disagree all you want about who started the fuss in the Ukraine -- but that's not the issue really being discussed. It's just what you latched onto because you believe regime change is done by wishing for a better life for people and refuse to acknowledge that the US has done dirty deeds more than once in the past.

 

The larger issue being discussed is that the west has been a destabilizing force in recent history: Iraq, Syria, Libya -- that excludes "controversial" events in the Ukraine and Afghanistan because it was a **** show well before we got there. Russia has done it's share of destabilizing as well, despite your interpretation I've never denied this and have a long history posting critical things about Putin in many, many threads. Hell, I started half of them. However, there's been a marked change in their approach over the past 24 months or so. Evidence of this is abundant, starting with the fact they didn't take all of the Ukraine when they easily could have and everyone in the west was predicting it.

 

So, if you care to address the actual issue being discussed, I'd be happy to hear it. What was the long term play for the West? What would you think the US would have done had the roles been reversed?

 

 

You really want to go down with that ship, don't ya? Too bad. You're pretty open minded and sharp on most topics, but you're dead wrong on the viability of the neocon agenda. It's never going to work, it's only going to continue the cycle of contained regions of conflict for profit... which is what the neocons really want anyway. They've convinced you it's for the greater good but it's not. It's for their good. They don't want change. They don't want democracy and freedom for the people they claim to be liberating. They want new markets. New wars. New ways to make more money.

 

It's funny you can lecture people about being had by Putin while you're still clinging to a philosophy that has been proven to be an utter failure over the past two decades.

 

 

 

This is very true.

And again, your perspective starts in 2013, which is a very odd period to begin with, but would support your contorted view of what's happening there.

 

You may ascribe all evils to US foreign policy to a group of neocons who held the Executive's ear for 3 years, but facts are that US foreign policy has been fairly consistent over the last 120 years or so. And that consistent approach to use the military might to keep trade routes open has worked pretty well for the world. There have been periodic moments where the US has stepped back from a global leadership position, and the results have been catastrophic, yet predictable.

 

 

US had no issues with the former Republics until Putin came to power and reconstituted the KGB. Yes, your force of stability in Eurasia confiscated private property, broke contracts and treaties, clamped down on free press and then threatened Europe by withholding gas supplies. This was Bush's awakening from looking deep into Putin's eyes, and place missiles in Central Europe. It's not like he wasn't welcomed by the leaders in Poland, Czech and Hungary. The Baltics are on constant alert on their borders and Putin has done everything he can to destabilize those countries. Maybe you can remind me of the historic, cultural and language links between the Baltics and Russia?

 

You also ignore the role Russia played in poisoning Yushchenko right before the elections to ensure that his puppet was elected. That didn't quite work out for him so he ratcheted up the screws. He's had puppet regimes start wars in every former republic that was leaning westward. A huge number of battle tested ISIS and Al Qeda military leadership hails from Chechnya and Dagestan. Quite the export industry Putin has created.

 

So while he can make a valid argument for keeping Crimea as a Russian protectorate that's separated from Russia proper, just like they've done for centuries in Kaliningrad, there's no such claim to Ukraine because the majority of Ukrainians hate Russians. And he revival of the NeoNazis in Ukraine is more of a nationalist movement that was more accepting of Axis troops at the start of the invasion, because they saw them as liberators from the Russian yoke. They clearly misjudged that situation.

 

So you can't selectively pick a convenient date where the US suddenly decided that Ukraine matters a lot and decided to stage a coup. It's totally plausible that the US helped light a spark for the demonstrations, but it wasn't the US that got hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets.

 

But it's good to know that you value a strong man who enforces stability onto a willing population, no matter the true cost. Surprised you're not aligned with Ozy in supporting the orange pumpkin. But good to see that Ozy has got your back on this issue.

[Deranged Rhino]

And again, your perspective starts in 2013, which is a very odd period to begin with, but would support your contorted view of what's happening there.

 

 

No, the conversation that was ongoing started in 2013, not my perspective. Difference.

 

You're already twisting things to fit a pre determined narrative in your head... but continue:

 

 

 

You may ascribe all evils to US foreign policy to a group of neocons who held the Executive's ear for 3 years, but facts are that US foreign policy has been fairly consistent over the last 120 years or so.

 

I don't ascribe all evils to the neocons. I also don't think everything the US does is evil. Never said that or even anything close to that.

 

I said, and believe, the neocon philosophy to be bunk because it is fundamentally incompatible with how our political system works in reality. The people pushing that agenda are smart enough to realize that fundamental truth, which makes me immediately suspicious that they must have other motives besides "wishing" other people a better life. And, they do.

 

That's a huge difference from what you're projecting onto me, but again, you want to have an entirely different conversation.

 

...And that consistent approach to use the military might to keep trade routes open has worked pretty well for the world. There have been periodic moments where the US has stepped back from a global leadership position, and the results have been catastrophic, yet predictable.

 

 

US had no issues with the former Republics until Putin came to power and reconstituted the KGB. Yes, your force of stability in Eurasia confiscated private property, broke contracts and treaties, clamped down on free press and then threatened Europe by withholding gas supplies. This was Bush's awakening from looking deep into Putin's eyes, and place missiles in Central Europe. It's not like he wasn't welcomed by the leaders in Poland, Czech and Hungary. The Baltics are on constant alert on their borders and Putin has done everything he can to destabilize those countries. Maybe you can remind me of the historic, cultural and language links between the Baltics and Russia?

 

You also ignore the role Russia played in poisoning Yushchenko right before the elections to ensure that his puppet was elected. That didn't quite work out for him so he ratcheted up the screws. He's had puppet regimes start wars in every former republic that was leaning westward. A huge number of battle tested ISIS and Al Qeda military leadership hails from Chechnya and Dagestan. Quite the export industry Putin has created.

 

So while he can make a valid argument for keeping Crimea as a Russian protectorate that's separated from Russia proper, just like they've done for centuries in Kaliningrad, there's no such claim to Ukraine because the majority of Ukrainians hate Russians.

 

Now we're getting somewhere even though you're somehow operating under the misguided assumption that I'm a Putin supporter...

 

I do not, and have not, denied Russia has been an aggressive actor in the past, the recent past. What's we're discussing is that they've seemingly shifted geopolitical strategy in the past 24 months -- starting with the decision not to take the Ukraine when a) they could have and b) everyone expected them to. They've been the most stabilizing force in the Middle East as well in recent months seemingly out of the blue. I don't say these things to laud Russia, but to question Russia.

 

Disagree as I do with 43's policies, 44's have been a continuation of all its worst elements while piling on even more stupidity -- including taking aggressive postures backed only by empty words in places like Syria and the Ukraine. The point I'm harping on, the actual topic I'm discussing is why the west forced Putin's hand in the Ukraine. We can disagree on the origin of the coup all night long -- put that aside, as I said I'll concede that point to you for the sake of a conversation -- but what you're still not addressing is what was the strategic goal from the west's perspective of threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU? They had to have known Putin could not allow it, just from a realistic national security perspective. Did they expect Putin would do nothing?

 

These are questions I have, because to me it seems really short sighted and frankly an outdated approach to geo-political security.

[meazza]

Someone photoshop a picture of Jordan crying on gregs face.

[GG]

If you want to know why Ukraine is important both to the west and Russia, simply look at a map and then overlay the natural gas pipelines.

 

Using 2013 is a red herring. Putin stated meddling in Ukraine in 2003, which led up to all of this.

Edited August 3, 2016 by GG

[Deranged Rhino]

If you want to know why Ukraine is important both to the west and Russia, simply look at a map and then overlay the natural gas pipelines.

 

Using 2013 is a red herring. Putin stated meddling in Ukraine in 2003, which led up to all of this.

 

I'm not ignorant of its historical and geographical importance. The question is why did the west take such an aggressive stance at that juncture specifically and not in 2007, '08, '09... etc. Regardless of what Putin was doing -- and he was doing plenty -- actively working to bring Ukraine into the EU and threatening to bring them into NATO were both aggressive policies to undertake -- and seemingly short sighted. What other outcome could they have possibly expected other than a decisive response from Russia?

 

What was the larger view?

[ALF]

Ukraine, once one of Russia’s biggest foreign gas buyers, had a debt of more than $29 billion before Tuesday’s bill, according to Gazprom. Naftogaz has demanded almost $26 billion from Gazprom in Stockholm arbitration,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/russia-boosts-ukraine-gas-bill-to-32-billion-after-supply-stop

Ukraine is a massive country with 45M population.

I would have tried to strike a deal with Putin , erase natural gas bill, long term contract at very good rate.

Add in the cost of Chernobyl disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

In exchange for Crimea and eastern territory now a costly war zone.

Edited August 3, 2016 by ALF

[GG]

 

I'm not ignorant of its historical and geographical importance. The question is why did the west take such an aggressive stance at that juncture specifically and not in 2007, '08, '09... etc. Regardless of what Putin was doing -- and he was doing plenty -- actively working to bring Ukraine into the EU and threatening to bring them into NATO were both aggressive policies to undertake -- and seemingly short sighted. What other outcome could they have possibly expected other than a decisive response from Russia?

 

What was the larger view?

 

Huh?

 

After looking through Putin's eyes, Bush realized he was duped. By the end of his term Russia & its proxies had invaded Georgia, blew up Dagestan & Chechnya, threatened the Baltics which returned the nightmares to central Europeans. Russia was also working behind the scenes to make sure that US engagement in Iraq & Afghanistan would be much more difficult, and probably cost a lot of US lives.

 

So it's no wonder that Bush changed tack completely and adopted a more aggressive posture against Putin's efforts to reboot USSR (which could never even attempt to claim that "at least they got the trains to run on time").

 

The Clinton/Obama reset started with them courting Medvedev, and they pulled back all the plans that Bush had put in place (to the consternation of many). That backfired completely after Putin resumed control, and it's not even the necons who are arguing that. Yet, Obama's foreign policy team still held out hope and even laughed at Romney's assertion that Russia was our No. 1 geopolitical foe.

 

So the question you should be asking is why would disparate US administrations have no problems with Russia when it was headed by Yeltsin and Medvedev, yet during Putin's two leadership stints across two US administrations with polar opposite worldviews, the end result was the same, despite an accommodating approach by the US at the outset?