So if you can't slam Putin, bring back Stalin from the Grave, he is still scary.

a reply to: DJW001

Has not Russia been the country that has benefited most from the instability there?

If you are calling the instability in Eastern Europe a benefit, that is your perogative.

Russia isn't "benefitting" from NATO expansion. You can deny that as the primary threat to Russia if you like. I'm sure Putin and the rest of Eurasia would see it differently…

NATO expansion

So what Stalinist Russia did doesn't matter anymore? Let us forget how men can turn into monsters when given the right conditions, because this would be too inconvenient in any pro-Russia comments. Perhaps some people like to keep in touch with History. You know, so to learn from our mistakes.

a reply to: swanne

History is just that and should stay in the text books unedited but it should not be dragged out every time some government needs the "Fear Factor" or a News report is hunting ratings as usual.

It kind of detracts from the current facts and that is just why it is regurgitated on a regular basis by the media and governments all the time. (the media is an important branch of the government)

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: intrptr

If you are calling the instability in Eastern Europe a benefit, that is your perogative.

Russia used the instability as an excuse to snatch Crimea. That sounds like a benefit to me.

a reply to: DJW001

Russia used the instability as an excuse to snatch Crimea. That sounds like a benefit to me.

They already owned it. Sevastopol (in the Crimea) is the home of their vitally strategic Black Sea Fleet, they been there for centuries.


More to the topic…

Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of “Putin’s Russia.”

Link

a reply to: intrptr

They already owned it.

And yet they gave it to Ukraine, so that does not give Russia the right to take it back. You know like if you give something to a neighbor that you don't need anymore then decide you want that back from your neighbor...you just can't go over to his house and take what you gave him back.

And the fact they had the lease until 2042 there was no way they were going to lose the base in Crimea so that was a lie told by Putin to back one of his reason for going into and annexing Crimea.

Link

SO now one man's opinion is what were going to use as fact...okay then.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

They can't "give or take back" what they already occupy. Besides, the Crimea referendum happened after what happened in Kiev. Same with the referendums in Eastern Ukraine. They happened because people don't want any part of what happened in Kiev.

We still call Hawaii Hawaii but we took it, own and occupy it.

Same everywhere there are US bases, runways and ports. These are vitally strategic resources to further US "interests".

Pick the log out of US eye before you go accusing "Putin" of stealing Crimea…