The true reason behind the Crimean conflict

a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?



Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?

Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

amazing action, wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: DJW001
That is the opposite of what Putin wants. Putin hates Europe. He blames it for the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he intends to rebuild as a new Russian Empire.

yeah thanks for your opinion, your opinion is very valuable on ATS

yeah, Putin wants Europe destroyed, and yet he gets most of gas and oil money from Europe

Yeah Putin wants this, Putin wants that.

Thank you so much for informing the rest of us what Putin had for breakfast and what he wants.

originally posted by: FootBig

originally posted by: DJW001
That is the opposite of what Putin wants. Putin hates Europe. He blames it for the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he intends to rebuild as a new Russian Empire.

yeah thanks for your opinion, your opinion is very valuable on ATS

yeah, Putin wants Europe destroyed, and yet he gets most of gas and oil money from Europe

Yeah Putin wants this, Putin wants that.

Thank you so much for informing the rest of us what Putin had for breakfast and what he wants.

nice!
you reminded me when I insinuated that DW and Putin are close friends on a thread about Ukraine - updates.

funny, you noticed the same.

on topic I would like to say that both East and West are playing for their interests, just Russia has some more right to do so and they have proven it with Crimea.

a reply to: FootBig

Thank you so much for informing the rest of us what Putin had for breakfast and what he wants.

But Mr. Putin has been telling us what he wants from Day 1. On the one hand, he said this:

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself....

[Edit for brevity. --DJW001

Above all else Russia was, is and will, of course, be a major European power. Achieved through much suffering by European culture, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy have for many centuries been our society's determining values.

For three centuries, we – together with the other European nations – passed hand in hand through reforms of Enlightenment, the difficulties of emerging parliamentarism, municipal and judiciary branches, and the establishment of similar legal systems. Step by step, we moved together toward recognizing and extending human rights, toward universal and equal suffrage, toward understanding the need to look after the weak and the impoverished, toward women's emancipation, and other social gains.

I repeat we did this together, sometimes behind and sometimes ahead of European standards.

archive.kremlin.ru...

Now he is saying this:

In his first major speech since returning to the presidency, Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday called on Russians “not to lose ourselves as a nation,” urging them to look for guidance in Russia’s historic and traditional values — and not in Western political models — as it charts its post-Soviet development.

www.nytimes.com...

It sure sounds to me like he is rejecting the European "Enlightenment" tradition in favor of an inward looking Russian traditionalism. Why do you suppose that is? I submit he blames the adoption of European liberal democratic institutions by Gorbachev and Yeltsin for the collapse of the Soviet Union. He resents the EU for successfully welding different cultures together into a quasi-functional economic unit while his Eurasian Union can't even raise any enthusiasm. He also feels compelled to demonstrate that he is not afraid of NATO, which is why his annexation of Crimea was so unsubtle.

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?

Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

amazing action, wouldn't you agree?

So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?

Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

amazing action, wouldn't you agree?

So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.

it's never wrong to compare Putin with Hitler, I see the lesson given by Media has been learned!

good job soldier!

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?

Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

amazing action, wouldn't you agree?

So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.

it's never wrong to compare Putin with Hitler

If the shoe fits....

a reply to: DJW001
I agree, Putin is guilty. He didn't risk WWIII and didn't ordered the green men to help eastern-ukrainians who voted against the "f*ck the EU" Victoria appointed CIA-junta.

Eastern-ukrainian "terrorists", spring 2014.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: demus

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn

However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.

They did roll in, remember?

Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.

amazing action, wouldn't you agree?

So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.

it's never wrong to compare Putin with Hitler

If the shoe fits....

like I said, media told you Putin is like Hitler so why wouldn't it "fit" right?

believe whatever you want to believe, if you want to believe Putin is like Hitler so be it.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, I read all that, but I seem to have missed the part where he wants to rebuild the soviet union. Could you point it out for me?

ETA. Nice example of Godwin's law btw.

a reply to: DJW001

Surely Putin, whose popularity is the highest it ever has been, which says a lot for the man who has been in power for so long, is highly intelligent and knows that the EU can pay for his gas and commodities he wants to sell and it has huge markets and vica versa etc so a failed or bad relationship with the EU is unlikely despite the rudeness going on in the media and name calling etc to bother him.

Russia has sorted itself out earlier than most countries and I doubt he only blames the EU as you suggest, as with most things its a group of things coming together that usually bring something down.

The bad press/propaganda is hardly likely to please him but he holds supreme power in his country and the power of Veto and its the fact he says No to the USA, UK and EU on certain actions that one should remember many people all round the world are quite grateful for, especially his not going along with some or our country's war posturing. If the people love him enough to want to leave Ukraine one shouldn't be surprised, despite all the undercurrents that the USA and UK are involved in with Ukraine. The Crimeans themselves voted as they wanted - I don't see the problem.

a reply to: maghun

I agree, Putin is guilty. He didn't risk WWIII and didn't ordered the green men to help eastern-ukrainians who voted against the "f*ck the EU" Victoria appointed CIA-junta.

And again you fail to understand that the new president of Ukraine was a democratically elected president that was not backed by the US, and the parliament is left over from Yanukovich so how you get the CIA appointed government is just laughable.

So those very well armed and very well trained men that took over public buildings in the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine were just locals that found their weapons and military gear at the local army surplus store?

All you have to do is look at the thing with a little bit of perspective and common sense. When the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact fell some fomer Soviet republics and satelite states went with the west some went with Russia. Over the next couple of decades the states that went with West saw massive economic growth, peace and stability. The states that went with Russia saw little growth and found themselves now allowed by Russia to reach out to the West because doing so would trigger Russian intervention. Suddenly Russian minorities would claim to be persicuted and Russian peace keepers would arrive to carve off a piece of the country and keep a armed force in country.

What has happened in Ukraine is not new nor unique. The Wests lack of reaction to Russia intervention in Moldova and two interventions in Georgia no doubt gave Putin the idea that he could shove Ukraine back in line as well. This time the West had no major distractions and responded.

Russia actions in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are some examples of how Russia deals with its form states. Armenia and Azerbaijan are another example. When Azerbaijan began driffiting West Russia made large scale weapons sales to Armenia, when Armenia began shifting West Russia sold arms and sign agreements with Azerbaijan. Russia sells weapons to both and tells weaker Armenia that Russia troops have to stay to protect them from Azerbaijan who is then sold Russian weapons.

Russia occupation of Crimea is right in line with their actions in other former soviet states to keep them in line. However, Russias tactics are only a band aide in stopping them from leaving. When all you have to offer is threats and interventions it is no wonder that these states want to leave Russias sphere.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: maghun

I agree, Putin is guilty. He didn't risk WWIII and didn't ordered the green men to help eastern-ukrainians who voted against the "f*ck the EU" Victoria appointed CIA-junta.

And again you fail to understand that the new president of Ukraine was a democratically elected president that was not backed by the US, and the parliament is left over from Yanukovich so how you get the CIA appointed government is just laughable.

So those very well armed and very well trained men that took over public buildings in the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine were just locals that found their weapons and military gear at the local army surplus store?

democratically elected or US picked?

a reply to: MrSpad

are you trying to deny referendum has taken place in Crimea?

are you trying to say Crimeans want to leave Russia?

a reply to: demus

Could you please indicate the time signature on this video where she "admits" that the United States has spent five billion dollars to "subvert" Ukraine? At 7.40 she boasts to her audience of Ukrainian lobbyists that the United States has spent five billion dollars developing the Ukrainian economy and encouraging the growth of civil liberties and democracy. What sort of political system can be "subverted" by human rights and democratic institutions?

a reply to: DJW001

Ask nuland about democratic molotov's in Ferguson!

nunland-democracy:



Result:

originally posted by: MrSpad

Russia actions in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are some examples of how Russia deals with its form states. Armenia and Azerbaijan are another example. When Azerbaijan began driffiting West Russia made large scale weapons sales to Armenia, when Armenia began shifting West Russia sold arms and sign agreements with Azerbaijan. Russia sells weapons to both and tells weaker Armenia that Russia troops have to stay to protect them from Azerbaijan who is then sold Russian weapons.

I do not disagree with your assessment, but disagree with your proposition.

Putting it differently ... you are basically saying "Russia is annexing nations, keeping them in line ... using military force ... bad, bad, bad russians". You forgot the "WE", as in "WE have been using military force all over the world, defiling human beings, mass murdering civilians, firebombing ..." and blah blah.

This part of it all isn't relevant. You want to "blame Russia". Well, you're just one sighted ... The topic of "Putin is like Hitler" ... "Hillary Clinton is an Angel" ... etc, is not really an interesting rhetoric. It's sort of pathetic. It's sort of like saying ... "hey, I'm jewish and Hitler murdered me ... so now I have the right to go and do the same thing to everyone else".

It's "reducto ad absurdum" ... reduculous rhetoric ...

What this thread is about, is to go to the heart of things. The reasons behind the scene ... such as information that Russia is keeping Ukraine from developing their own gas. Etc, the real economic playground that is taking place.

Having said that, I'll finish it by saying that the US/EU is just as much to blame as the Russians. The Russians biggest blame, is that they didn't keep their own in check, and didn't make big enough "threats" to make sure the conflict didn't get out of hand. The US is to blame, for having fuelled the site and Kerry's words in the article I pointed out, gives a good reason as to why they are doing it.

Questions I'm asking is, why isn't Putin interested in "halting" the conflict. He can go in with his army and stop it, within 24 hours ... annex the entire eastern Ukraine, like so many say he wants. And then, give the entire west the middle finger ... what're we going to do. But, he isn't ... that's kinda odd, in my book of things.

So, what's the gameplay ... what are the wins, what are the odds ... obviously Russia thinks it's lost customers in Europe. Obviously, that was what the US intended ... saying "Russia wants to annex Crimea", is just BS ... because Krutchev, being the Soviet Union, had no right to give away Russian territory, anymore than he had Moldovan or Georgia. Saying otherwise is just ... idiotic, to say the least. Same rule, applies to both sides ... it's not "We had the right to take kosovo from serbs, but Russia has no right taking it's own territory from Ukraine" ... that's kinda biased philosophy. Irrelevant.

The question here ... now what ... what are the two sides playing for an end game. And when I say two sides, I am not referring to Ukraine. As they are victims from both sides of the conflict, being east and west. Russia vs. US/EU.

What is the endgame ... what are the players playing for.

a reply to: maghun

So you admit that Nuland never actually "admits" that the United States spent five billion to SUBVERT Ukraine. The entire case for US involvement there is based on lies. The case against Russia is self evident. The situation in Ferguson is entirely off topic, a clear desperation move to derail the thread.