It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia declares war on Ukraine. Live updates from inside Ukraine

page: 591
367
<< 588  589  590    592  593  594 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GarrusVasNormandy
a reply to: ALoveSupremeThis idea that Ukrainians suddenly became enraged by Yanukovych reluctance in joining EU is quite simply a big pile of BS, with all due respect. Ukrainians were peacefully divided in their opinions, which means that both the EU and the Russian options were seductive.


No, I agree with you. That has been my point entirely. The general populace peacefully disagreed and/or were apathetic. That is why only hundreds of mostly student protestors went to Maidan to protest the treaty's refusal.

It was only after the attack on this group by Berkut the evening of 30 November that tens of thousands went to the square the first week of December. I am not sure if I would characterize that as 'gradual' although admittedly the numbers continued to grow over the following weeks and months steadily.

The Maidan crowd was really different from that moment onward. It became much more a reaction against corruption and authoritarianism (until the right wing nationalist joined). The pro-EU element persisted of course, but Maidan became a broader based people's revolution drawing support from normally apolitical people. This is when it reached a critical mass in my opinion which is also drawn from close observation.

You are a bit more conciliatory about Yanukovych, however. His ignoring the presence of the Maidan protestors, literally refusing to meet with their leaders or address the situation in press conferences for numerous weeks grew resentment within the movement. The nationalists got increasingly impatient with the moderates who wanted to leverage the Maidan's popular political capital in negotiations.


edit on 12-5-2014 by ALoveSupreme because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

First of all, I praise the way you have been debating in this thread, with me and others. It's actually refreshing to have a conversation going more than one post and doing a facepalm or two.


The rest of your post could actually be a part of my previous post, I seem to misjudged your opinion and we agree.


You are a bit more conciliatory about Yanukovych, however.


I'm merely a reasonable pacifist with a soft-spot for neutrality. lol


His ignoring the presence of the Maidan protestors, literally refusing to meet with their leaders or address the situation in press conferences for numerous weeks grew resentment within the movement. The nationalists got increasingly impatient with the moderates who wanted to leverage the Maidan's popular political capital in negotiations.


Knowing what we know today, it was a bad call. But, between you and me, were his actions that wrong? Using the Occupy example again, nobody wanted to meet with their leaders that were known to be more extreme in their views, nor did anyone give attention to the anarchist section of the movement. Did Anonymous get a high-ranking meeting in the White House?... *rhetorical questions*

Why should we blame Yanukovych for something that any Western country would do(ignoring far-right/left/nationalist groups)if put in the same situation? Hell, most people would demand harsh government action if any of those groups started to occupy squares in any Western country.

For the sake of democracy those groups have the same right to exist as any other, but morally, we all know that nobody will vote for them or give them support, apart from a few supporters. I mean, there's no secret there are nazi groups (or neonazi, as they are now called) all around us. It's even in our pop culture in movies and such...

That's what has been pulling me to this situation. What's so different about Ukraine that suddenly everything snaps and turns into a world crisis, and then two world super-powers bark at each-other in a way we have not seen in decades?

...no coincidences.


(post by thekingofthebirds removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Had Parliament been patient enough until elections, which were months away, i propose this all could have been avoided.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GarrusVasNormandy
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Especially when I witnessed this type of crap in countries like Egypt. Like I said, I don't believe in coincidences, and to me, it's not a coincidence that the type of crap that happened in Egypt (just as an example) happened exactly the same way in Ukraine, two countries so far apart in culture and historical background that it's stupid to even assume things would play out the same way in both countries.

Anyone who knows me from these boards knows that I'm almost anti-conspiracy, and for someone like me to state that this Ukraine thing has CIA written all over it, it's because it stinks so high that anyone who looks into it falls on it's butt looking up.


I completely agree with you that the parallels between this situation and the one in Egypt in 2011-2012 are most striking.

However, it is not like the CIA or any other intelligence agency can completely orchestrate movements like these. They can only push and support elements and thereby agitate/suppress certain factors.

In the case of Tahir square, the CIA definitely did not support the eventual rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, as this would have run completely contrary to Western and Israeli political interests. However, it is very believable that they played a role in supporting the military's subsequent ousting of the Morsi government.

So why do you think the CIA would want to destabilize Ukraine?

While Ukraine's joining the EU is definitely in western interests, destabilization or partition of the country is most certainly not. There simply is not that much to gain by the West taking on another poor Eastern European nation and the disruption of the natural gas pipelines through Ukraine could have catastrophic short term economic effects for EU countries. If anything, the CIA wants Ukraine to remain stable and secure.

Motivation wise, Russia has much more to lose by a Western-oriented Ukraine than the West has to gain by the same:

The mere possibility of losing its Crimean military bases is unacceptable to Russia, thus the near immediate incursion into Crimea by its military forces. Also, the important military-industrial infrastructure in Eastern Ukraine upon which Russian national security currently depends is also a huge consideration.

Fear of 'fascists' and talk of protecting 'ethnic Russians' are just agitation talking points meant to appeal to the emotions of the masses. This is a much more effective agitation technique than say, talking about strategic stakes and foreign policy analysis.

Russia simply has much more to gain through destabilization and partition of Ukraine than the west.

I would therefore offer that the events we are seeing unfold are much more likely to be the initiatives of the GRU + SVR (and their private mercenary contractors) rather than the CIA.
edit on 12-5-2014 by ALoveSupreme because: typos are easy to make when you have nails and a touchcreen



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GarrusVasNormandy
a reply to: ALoveSupreme
Knowing what we know today, it was a bad call. But, between you and me, were his actions that wrong? Using the Occupy example again, nobody wanted to meet with their leaders that were known to be more extreme in their views, nor did anyone give attention to the anarchist section of the movement. Did Anonymous get a high-ranking meeting in the White House?... *rhetorical questions*


Interesting point.

Admittedly, I do not know that much about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Was it ever as large or as 'mainstream' as Maidan grew to be?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

So where from here? It is in best interests of Kiev junta to tag behind Yulia Tomashenko and go to Kremlin to seek some forgiveness in return for various actions and deeds that makes Russia feel more comfortable and secure regarding the regional geopolitics.

After the referendum, the case for Russia's involvement is strong and it won't be an invasion anymore. It would be providing 'stability' type help to the new republics which have come to existence as a result of popular democratic voting.

Where ever these AngloSaxons poke their noses, there is chaos, calamity and social destruction.

Just watched CNN clip on Homs, Syria. Now that fighting has been curtailed people are returning to the devastated city. Why the fighting ended? because AngloSaxon interests lost out and backing to the rebels stopped.

Biggest threat to human peace on earth is AngloSaxon nose poking and Islamic fanaticism. Both of these need to be put under containment and global progress will find smooth going.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

So where from here? It is in best interests of Kiev junta to tag behind Yulia Tomashenko and go to Kremlin to seek some forgiveness in return for various actions and deeds that makes Russia feel more comfortable and secure regarding the regional geopolitics.

After the referendum, the case for Russia's involvement is strong and it won't be an invasion anymore. It would be providing 'stability' type help to the new republics which have come to existence as a result of popular democratic voting.

Where ever these AngloSaxons poke their noses, there is chaos, calamity and social destruction.

Just watched CNN clip on Homs, Syria. Now that fighting has been curtailed people are returning to the devastated city. Why the fighting ended? because AngloSaxon interests lost out and backing to the rebels stopped.

Biggest threat to human peace on earth is AngloSaxon nose poking and Islamic fanaticism. Both of these need to be put under containment and global progress will find smooth going.


So this is a uniquely 'Anglo-Saxon' problem?

That does not sound biased... not at all.


Anyway, this so called 'referendum' at gunpoint is highly suspect. Nobody, and I mean nobody in International diplomacy will consider it as legitimate except for Russia.

Let them have international observers if they want to claim some kind of legitimacy.

That should be the next step. But I am sure Russia would not allow that to happen in a million years.

The reason -- they know that annexation to Russia does not have majority support in central and eastern Ukraine.
edit on 12-5-2014 by ALoveSupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: all2human


however what is glaringly obvious is the clear lack of support and loyalty from the general population towards an untrustworthy government, who in the past casted votes just to have their elected leader violently removed and replaced


That will be for History books to tell, if I'm honest. There is simply too much noise of information for us to decide or place blame. For all we know, Yanukovych did nothing wrong and we are all being played.

I'm not stating Yanukovych did nothing wrong, I'm just throwing the hypothesis into the air for the sake of argument.


who's first order of the day was to make enemies with Russia(a historical ally)plunge them into debt and call them to arms and because thats not working hire a 3rd party army.


I disagree with a lot of things in that sentence.

First, I do not think that Russia was made out to be an enemy. The line is very thin, but the Crimea crisis didn't erupt out of nowhere, they didn't make Russia an enemy, but they did clearly side with EU and the West immediately. Russia, with the information that a government can obtain provably felt threatened and the next logical step for them was to grab Crimea.

Ukraine's new government was provably seeking that sweet sweet support from western money-cows that helped other nations become independent and flourish. They were provably thinking of cases like post-WW2 Germany.

That, assuming they are not controlled directly or indirectly by some western folks.

The second thing I disagree is with the "historical ally".

Before WW2 Ukraine actually had a chance of becoming an independent country, but it was soon after grabbed again by the Soviet Union, mostly using WW2 as a reason for it.

If you read into WW2 you will understand why it is extremely complicated for Ukrainians to swallow the Russian pill.

During WW2, and after Hitler decided to poop on his agreement with Stalin, his (Stalin's) first move was the usual Russian tactic of burning land and resources so the invading army would starve and have difficulty moving forward (scorched earth tactic). Add to that the fact that most Russian territory back then was quite simply a vast desert without any usable roads, and you see why the Nazi war machine suddenly crippled on the Eastern front.

Now, if you burn land, resources, houses, cattle and even people, you will gain a military strategic advantage, as cruel as it might be. But who was burned?

Look at a map, consider that Ukraine was a part of the USSR, and try to figure out who was hurt with Stalin's decision of sacrificing territory to gain a military upper-hand. We are talking about - historical estimates - 5 million deaths, just in Ukraine.

In a ironic twist of historical facts, the Nazi's were actually considered liberators by the Ukrainians at first, to the point where Ukrainians were willing to join up the Nazi fight and kick some Stalin's butt. That was right until the moment when the Nazi's thought "screw these inferior northern peasants" and decided to give them the old concentration camp treatment, something they already knew from the starvation Stalin had put them through. After that, the small nationalist groups were left to fight both the Soviets and the Nazis.

Oh, and by the way, the Nazi's also did the scorched earth thing when they were retreating, so Ukraine was literally burned twice, like many other territories.

So... Yep... It is quite tricky for the average Ukrainian to figure this one out if they are looking at History for guidance.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7


So where from here? It is in best interests of Kiev junta to tag behind Yulia Tomashenko and go to Kremlin to seek some forgiveness in return for various actions and deeds that makes Russia feel more comfortable and secure regarding the regional geopolitics.


What exactly has Kiyev done to Russia that it has to apologize for? It was Russia that seized Ukrainian territory, remember?


After the referendum, the case for Russia's involvement is strong and it won't be an invasion anymore. It would be providing 'stability' type help to the new republics which have come to existence as a result of popular democratic voting.


Well, at least you admit that it is currently an invasion. The referenda held in the "independent republics" this week-end were a farce. Furthermore, the ballot was worded in such a way as the outcome does not necessarily indicate that Russia is welcome. As I predicted earlier, the self appointed governors seem to be inclined towards "unaligned" absolutist city states with themselves in charge.


Where ever these AngloSaxons poke their noses, there is chaos, calamity and social destruction.


Racist much?


Just watched CNN clip on Homs, Syria. Now that fighting has been curtailed people are returning to the devastated city. Why the fighting ended? because AngloSaxon interests lost out and backing to the rebels stopped.


Actually, CIA has only now started shipping arms to vetted groups. Stay tuned.


Biggest threat to human peace on earth is AngloSaxon nose poking and Islamic fanaticism. Both of these need to be put under containment and global progress will find smooth going.


How do you suggest they be contained? Are you limited to anti-Anglo-American and anti-Muslim hatred, or do you hate Jews as well?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
More on the infighting among the pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk...



One day following a local separatist referendum, the commander of the Donbass People’s Militia, the paramilitary wing of the Donetsk Republic Organization, Igor “Strelkov” Girkin has declared himself “Supreme Commander” of the fledgling rebel territory. In his decree, in addition to giving himself absolute authority over all military and security structures and demanding sworn allegiance within the next 48 hours, he declares outright war against Ukraine and all military or police units stationed in the province. Girkin then lists Ukrainian and U.S. officials who will be ‘prosecuted’ for ‘perpetrating massacres’ (including CIA director John Brennan), and concludes his declaration by requesting military assistance from the Russian Federation.


ukrainianpolicy.com...


I decree:

1. Reassign myself as the Supreme Commander of the DPR, and all permanently stationed military units on the republic, including security, police, customs, border guards, prosecutors and paramilitary structures.

2. Entering into the territory of the DPR forces of the counter-terrorist operation (CTO) under Ukrainian rebels who are neo-Naz0 groups (the so-called “National Guard”, the Right Sector,” Lyashko’s Battalion, etc.) are subject to detention and, in the case of armed resistance, will be destroyed on the spot.

3. Law enforcement agencies will prosecute the leaders of the Kyiv junta and other persons involved in instigating, organizing or perpetrating massacres in the territory of the DPR: Igor Kolomoisky, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, Andriy Parubiy, Arsen Avakov, Yulia Tymoshenko, Oleksandr Turchynov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Oleh Lyashko, A. Artemenko, and U.S. citizens John Brennan, Victoria Nuland, and Jen Psaki.

4. All the soldiers and officers of the armed forces, internal security forces, the Security Service, the Interior Ministry and other paramilitary structures of Ukraine from now on will be considered to be illegally within the territory of the DPR. Within 48 hours they are required to swear allegiance to the DPR or leave the country. All will come under the command of the DPR authorities and will be guaranteed the preservation of military and special ranks, salaries and social security (assuming nothing to do with the commission of serious and very serious crimes).

5. Given the urgency of the situation in the country, the Kiev junta unleashed genocide on the Donetsk population, and the threat of intervention by NATO, I refer to the Russian Federation with a request for military assistance to DPR.

I. Strelkov



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7




After the referendum, the case for Russia's involvement is strong and it won't be an invasion anymore. It would be providing 'stability' type help to the new republics which have come to existence as a result of popular democratic voting.



If they put military boots on the ground in a sovereign country without that countries permission is called an invasion although Russia tries to change the meaning of the word.

Are you serious, a result of popular democratic vote...One like we saw in Crimea that we all know was a farce.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ALoveSupreme


However, it is not like the CIA or any other intelligence agency can completely orchestrate movements like these. They can only push and support elements and thereby agitate/suppress certain factors.


Yes, true. Most people visualize a complex force of spies or government agents working together to do this or that. It's actually very simple, and most of the times it's down to one or two individuals, which also helps keeping the secrecy of operations.

What's so genius - in an evil way (I think?) - is that they don't orchestrate this things. They merely steer them so that the end result is favorable.

For instance, people might think that the CIA is controlling X country and deciding it's operations there.

While it could be true, most provably, the only thing the CIA does is to go there with an agent and tell someone of power - who is already there and established in the country - and said: "hey, we have some 100 or 200 million dollars we could spare to bribe you. Do you mind allowing our influence around here? We promise to keep you in power for more years and a wealthy paycheck when you leave, as long as you keep quiet about it.".

The whole South America region is a fountain of examples of the CIA doing just that. Middle East also comes to mind...

It basically answers the question why the West bothers itself so sharply about some countries, but others just whistle by.

And it has to be that way. People seem to forget that, in order to get the amount of influence people claim the CIA has today, the amount of CIA operatives would outgrow the U.S. population. lol


So why do you think the CIA would want to destabilize Ukraine?


Using the CIA as an example, but it's only to focus the attention on one point. Most provably, if there is action being done in the field, it's being done by agencies from the MI5 to the CIA. We are talking about major economical gains, so I would assume a whole bunch of nations would be in it.

Personally, I believe this has something to do with IMF and EU. They found a way to clean economies by putting the weaker nations through hell by paying what they have no business in paying the first place.

I don't think they want to destabilize Ukraine, I think that the chaos is a unwanted byproduct. Their influence was provably directed into electing a pro-EU government and allowing the rest of the pieces to fall into place. If they are doing destabilization is to counteract the actions of pro-Russian groups.

I think it's more of a "we can't let them win" kind of thing, rather than a "do this so we can win" type.


Motivation wise, Russia has much more to lose by a Western-oriented Ukraine than the West has to gain by the same:

The mere possibility of losing its Crimean military bases is unacceptable to Russia, thus the near immediate incursion into Crimea by its military forces. Also, the important military-industrial infrastructure in Eastern Ukraine upon which Russian national security currently depends is also a huge consideration.


All correct, but if I may add:

Russia has already been losing since 1991. They were in shambles and still crashing while the U.S. was cashing in both the absence of a direct competitor (China was still nowhere to be seen) and the joys of victory ($) after the Cold War.

However, Putin is solely responsible for digging that giant out of the swamp again, and the West has been very foolish in constantly dismissing Russia as a post-Soviet wasteland. It's far from that. Anyone who cares to read what Putin has achieved - especially if tainted by western propaganda - will be surprised by the leap that Russia has done in just a decade. Their military isn't a disgrace, and although it is still a shadow of Cold War standards, it's still growing, and WW2 has shown that a country that wants to go to war, will go to war in a matter of months.

Russia still is an industrial country, something the West has lost a lot recently and is vital in a worst case scenario.

Having said that, Russia has seen - with a provably helpless feeling - the West grabbing influence from the Pacific to the Middle East. There are very few countries in the world who won't bark to the sound of Uncle Sam.

Egypt, in my opinion, had a warning backstage between US and Russia. Syria, also in my opinion, was a red line not to be crossed, and a situation where Russia simply didn't budge. Result? Look at how Syria is today. Compare what happened to Syria (Russia backed) to what happened in Libya (alone for grabs). One was done in a year, the other still keeps going and Assad is still in power.

It's also not a coincidence that Syria also has Russian ports.

Ukraine is simply that unacceptable barrier. People argue when I state this, that Poland is a clear case of Russia allowing western influence. But Russia always made severe warnings about Poland having US defense systems and it's involvement in NATO.

Ukraine, in my opinion, is simply the line that Russia will not, by any means, accept to be crossed. If Ukraine falls to the West it means that the West could as easily put a NATO flag in Moscow, definitely ending their "world dominance" status of independence, or rivalry.

To the West, Ukraine is another stone in a path that is being built since the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Complete dominance of the World stage.

Going back to the initial part of the post, I recall the events that lead to Putin's arrival to power:

Gorbachev was responsible for a more close relationship with the US, culminating in the famous words by Reagan "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (referring to the Berlin Wall). Considering that Gorbachev was seen with good eyes by the West and was very cooperative with Reagen (one of the main reasons for Russia to slow down military development), and considering that Boris Yeltsin was an easily manipulated drunk (and a joke of a leader) who was pulled out of power before his mandate was over, I could see the possibility of the post-USSR leadership being somewhat controlled by the West.

They did everything right enough so that Russia would fall to it's knees, but not die altogether.

And why I have this opinion? Because of Yeltsin, who was supposed to bring Russia to the modern days of global markets, but failed miserably to do just that. The same global markets and paradigms that suit the West so well...

He was pulled out of power, and who stepped in? Your friendly Russian badass, Vladimir Putin. And with that in mind, consider everything Putin and Russia has been doing. I would be concerned too, and I don't even have a bad opinion of Putin (AKA not worst than any other politician).

This is why I think that considering the Ukraine crisis a simple "civil unrest" is foolish.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7




AngloSaxons !! please, enough is enough, leave other people alone, we do not want your meddling in our issues,


If they quit asking for help that would be no problem, but that just isn't going to happen.

And the AngloSaxon remarks are really not necessary, as it doesn't help your argument one bit.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GarrusVasNormandy
a reply to: ALoveSupreme


However, it is not like the CIA or any other intelligence agency can completely orchestrate movements like these. They can only push and support elements and thereby agitate/suppress certain factors.


Yes, true. Most people visualize a complex force of spies or government agents working together to do this or that. It's actually very simple, and most of the times it's down to one or two individuals, which also helps keeping the secrecy of operations.

What's so genius - in an evil way (I think?) - is that they don't orchestrate this things. They merely steer them so that the end result is favorable.

For instance, people might think that the CIA is controlling X country and deciding it's operations there.

While it could be true, most provably, the only thing the CIA does is to go there with an agent and tell someone of power - who is already there and established in the country - and said: "hey, we have some 100 or 200 million dollars we could spare to bribe you. Do you mind allowing our influence around here? We promise to keep you in power for more years and a wealthy paycheck when you leave, as long as you keep quiet about it.".

The whole South America region is a fountain of examples of the CIA doing just that. Middle East also comes to mind...

It basically answers the question why the West bothers itself so sharply about some countries, but others just whistle by.

And it has to be that way. People seem to forget that, in order to get the amount of influence people claim the CIA has today, the amount of CIA operatives would outgrow the U.S. population. lol


So why do you think the CIA would want to destabilize Ukraine?


Using the CIA as an example, but it's only to focus the attention on one point. Most provably, if there is action being done in the field, it's being done by agencies from the MI5 to the CIA. We are talking about major economical gains, so I would assume a whole bunch of nations would be in it.

Personally, I believe this has something to do with IMF and EU. They found a way to clean economies by putting the weaker nations through hell by paying what they have no business in paying the first place.

I don't think they want to destabilize Ukraine, I think that the chaos is a unwanted byproduct. Their influence was provably directed into electing a pro-EU government and allowing the rest of the pieces to fall into place. If they are doing destabilization is to counteract the actions of pro-Russian groups.

I think it's more of a "we can't let them win" kind of thing, rather than a "do this so we can win" type.


Motivation wise, Russia has much more to lose by a Western-oriented Ukraine than the West has to gain by the same:

The mere possibility of losing its Crimean military bases is unacceptable to Russia, thus the near immediate incursion into Crimea by its military forces. Also, the important military-industrial infrastructure in Eastern Ukraine upon which Russian national security currently depends is also a huge consideration.


All correct, but if I may add:

Russia has already been losing since 1991. They were in shambles and still crashing while the U.S. was cashing in both the absence of a direct competitor (China was still nowhere to be seen) and the joys of victory ($) after the Cold War.

However, Putin is solely responsible for digging that giant out of the swamp again, and the West has been very foolish in constantly dismissing Russia as a post-Soviet wasteland. It's far from that. Anyone who cares to read what Putin has achieved - especially if tainted by western propaganda - will be surprised by the leap that Russia has done in just a decade. Their military isn't a disgrace, and although it is still a shadow of Cold War standards, it's still growing, and WW2 has shown that a country that wants to go to war, will go to war in a matter of months.

Russia still is an industrial country, something the West has lost a lot recently and is vital in a worst case scenario.

Having said that, Russia has seen - with a provably helpless feeling - the West grabbing influence from the Pacific to the Middle East. There are very few countries in the world who won't bark to the sound of Uncle Sam.

Egypt, in my opinion, had a warning backstage between US and Russia. Syria, also in my opinion, was a red line not to be crossed, and a situation where Russia simply didn't budge. Result? Look at how Syria is today. Compare what happened to Syria (Russia backed) to what happened in Libya (alone for grabs). One was done in a year, the other still keeps going and Assad is still in power.

It's also not a coincidence that Syria also has Russian ports.

Ukraine is simply that unacceptable barrier. People argue when I state this, that Poland is a clear case of Russia allowing western influence. But Russia always made severe warnings about Poland having US defense systems and it's involvement in NATO.

Ukraine, in my opinion, is simply the line that Russia will not, by any means, accept to be crossed. If Ukraine falls to the West it means that the West could as easily put a NATO flag in Moscow, definitely ending their "world dominance" status of independence, or rivalry.

To the West, Ukraine is another stone in a path that is being built since the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Complete dominance of the World stage.

Going back to the initial part of the post, I recall the events that lead to Putin's arrival to power:

Gorbachev was responsible for a more close relationship with the US, culminating in the famous words by Reagan "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall" (referring to the Berlin Wall). Considering that Gorbachev was seen with good eyes by the West and was very cooperative with Reagen (one of the main reasons for Russia to slow down military development), and considering that Boris Yeltsin was an easily manipulated drunk (and a joke of a leader) who was pulled out of power before his mandate was over, I could see the possibility of the post-USSR leadership being somewhat controlled by the West.

They did everything right enough so that Russia would fall to it's knees, but not die altogether.

And why I have this opinion? Because of Yeltsin, who was supposed to bring Russia to the modern days of global markets, but failed miserably to do just that. The same global markets and paradigms that suit the West so well...

He was pulled out of power, and who stepped in? Your friendly Russian badass, Vladimir Putin. And with that in mind, consider everything Putin and Russia has been doing. I would be concerned too, and I don't even have a bad opinion of Putin (AKA not worst than any other politician).

This is why I think that considering the Ukraine crisis a simple "civil unrest" is foolish.


Lovely response with so many good points. Bravo!


I only have one small technical correction to make -- an 'agent' is a person coerced, paid, or otherwise seduced by an intelligence officer. They do not actually work for the intelligence agency (CIA,SVR,etc.)


(post by thekingofthebirds removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thekingofthebirds

A YouTube video montage of Illuminati conspiracy items with rap music. I assume yours?


edit on 12-5-2014 by ALoveSupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme
a reply to: thekingofthebirds

A YouTube video montage of Illuminati conspiracy items with rap music. I assume yours?



I'd say you are right.



new topics

top topics



 
367
<< 588  589  590    592  593  594 >>

log in

join