Crimea parliament votes to join Russia

Musburger, thank you for the post and links.

I got through the first three and had to stop. I has shaking after the Paul Craig article. It was deja vu all over again. My job--geopolitical research the past 20 years. The Paul Craig material hit all the beats.

Some of the topics I've dealt with in the past have weighed so heavily on me I went to acupuncture here in Austin (AOMA) almost weekly for four years. Maybe I've got enough balance now I can handle these current events.

Again, thank you for the post and links. The Paul Craig piece in particular. I was so impressed a true journalist has come forward and spoken.

EDIT: Okay, have watched the video. On target. Thanks again.
 
Thanks, Musburger. Nothing at all surprising in that timely piece.

The April issue of a geopolitical-financial newsletter by Richard J. Maybury (U.S. & World Early Warning Report -- I'm his assistant and have been for 20 years) takes a look at Nato expansion. Here is a map that goes with the article. Telling.

Nato-Europe3map_zpsa8c708cb.jpg
 
The NATO map pretty much says everything when you look at this from Putin's perspective. It would be like having Russian bases in Mexico, Canada, and the Caribean.
 
I agree with you Musburger that this is how Putin sees the situation. My bigger question is why does the relationship between Russia and the West have to be adversarial? Do Russians assume that everyone else is their enemy? Do they not want to be involved with the West except where they can manipulate the other countries to do things they want? I know all countries behave like this on some level, but the Europe - Russian economic relationship is mutually beneficial in many ways. Why can't that dictate the nature of the relationship instead of distrust, fear, and aggression?
 
Much of the conflict resolves around energy. Energy is bascally all of Russia's economy. Europe depends on the energy supplied by Russia and Russia depends on the income paid by Europe.

Europe would like to have alternate energy sources so as not to be dependent on Russia. Qatar, for example, has plenty of gas, but there is not a pipeline connection where they can export to Europe. It was their desire to run a pipeline through Syria, but Assad, an ally of Russia, refused. Coincidentally (wink, wink), massive revolts broke out in Syria where jihadists and weaponry were supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia (both allies of the US).

According to the US, Assad is a human rights violator and needs to be removed. But the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar leaders are even worse human rights violators doesn't stop the US from selling them billions worth of military weaponry.

Russia tried Western style democracy under Yeltsin, but because the rule of law did not exist, the country fell into anarchy and the already low living standards even got worse. Under Putin, a semblance of law has been restored. He is very popular, and the country is doing better overall. But now that Putin is in power, the US no longer has as much sway over Russia. Hence the continued pressure by the US on former USSR Satellite states to join NATO.

Our foreign policy meddling has backfired on us in Iraq and Afghanistan. LIbya, under dictator Ghadaffi, actually possessed the 2nd highest living standard in Africa. Now the country is in shambles and Al Qeda flourishes there. Our miscues in Eastern Europe are going to backfire on us as well.
 
/// what musburger said

Given complexities of it all, and individual beliefs in each major culture and part of the world (thanks to generations of events, and the nature of media) a possible solution might be a threesome of power sharing by US, Russia and China. A balanced affair where each offsets the other two, and so on.

Otherwise, might have to place a call to Klaatu.

KlaatuGort.jpg
 
I guess I am not shocked or surprised that some leaders in Ukraine who don't want to follow Russia would speak in military type terms. What has Putin done by bringing in the army into Crimea? He has instigated fear and retaliation. If a "foreign power" sent troops here and were close to my home, I would be saying and thinking the same things. I expect most of you would too.
 
Who here speaks Ukrainian and can confirm what's being said?

If that's what's being said I think I'd tend to agree with that approach.
 
The odds of that "tape" being Russian propaganda are probably 90% +. The amount of internet trolls and just outright lies coming from the Kremlin are amazing.

You should never lose sight of who is the bad actor in all this.

It is Russia. Period. There should not even be a debate.

Now what, if anything, we should do about it is another question, but this sort of ******** is intended to distract everyone from the actual bad actor in all this.
 
What is crazy is the rules (or lack thereof) that other countries play by compared to the United States. Russia invades another sovereign nation in fatigues and masks and acts like it is not them. Putin says, they're not Russian soldiers so I cannot command them to do anything. Really? Would the US ever pull a stunt like that? And how would the rest of the world react if we did?
 
I agree with the import of this piece. It's what a lot of people try to say, try to point to, but is very hard to get across.

The quote inside by George Kennen says it the best: "There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

How Vladimir Putin became evil "The US and UK condemn him for Crimea but supported him over the war in Chechnya. Why? Because now he refuses to play ball" --The Guardian, 28-March

In reply to:
 
Why did Ukrainian nationalists fight for the Germans in WW II? Why does this part of the story always get left off?

Ukrainian nationalists were not Nazis. They were patriots who wanted Ukraine free from a Stalin who had killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930's.

It is so convenient for the Russian's to ignore this very important part of the history of Ukraine.

Why do we need to ignore it too?

The truth of the matter is that Ukrainian nationalism has its roots in the 1930's not 1940's and was anti-totalitarian. The Nazis hunted and murdered many pro-independence Ukrainian partisans just as the Soviets did later in the war.

Russians are great at propaganda and are doing a number on the Western press. It is both interesting and pathetic to watch.

I think the entire story should be told and then people should decide. I also think that Russia is very clearly the bad actor in all this. There really is no doubt. Crimea may have genuinely desired rejoining Russia, but a free and fair referendum was not held.
 
The propaganda runs both ways. The western press does not explain the Russian perspective nor does it cover the fractious parties within western Ukraine currently struggling to obtain power. On balance, the Russian perspective appears more legitimate than the US perspective with respect to Ukraine.
 
I know some people from Ukraine. Their opinion is that Russia used propaganda in order to justify sending troops to Crimea. It was all based on a pretense. Russian interests in Crimea reported of the Ukrainian desires to ban Russian from being spoken and that the new government was going to deal oppressively on ethnic Russians there. The problem is that none of it was true and much of the message was never delivered to Crimea itself. It was a message to the international community. The people in Ukraine heard these reports from international news and were confused because that was never a concern. This is coming from people living in Eastern Ukraine where there is much Russian sympathy. I think Russia needs to start telling the truth and then we can worry a little bit about how the US is portraying poor little KGB trained Putin.
 
I have also heard the same thing from friends in Ukraine. They were astounded both that we were falling for the Russian version of things and that we would not help militarily.

I told them not to expect any military assistance from the US. I think the line in the sand for the US is NATO and not one step beyond.

I also told them that I thought the US and EU would provide significant economic assistance to Ukraine, but that they needed to get their corrupt government under control.
 
So what I am talking about is what people living through the situation are saying. You are sending links from the moscowtimes. Sorry. I am going to pay more attention to my sources.
 
Its likely most of the people living in Ukraine are unaffected in their immediate, day-to-day, environment. It's a political struggle. Unless they make a habit of visiting the government complex in Kiev, or they are involved with the security apparatus, how would they recognize what is going on?

For example, prior to Snowden, how many Americans were cognizant of the massive, multi-billion dollar complex still under construction in Utah for the purpose of assimilating data on US citizens as well as people throughout the world? How many Americans are still unaware? If it doesn't directly cross your path, as far as the average person is concerned, it doesn't exist.
 
Comparing Russian ******** to DHS/NSA ******** isn't helping your case there.
tongue.gif


Plus, it's pretty disingenuous to point out it doesn't "directly affect them". It wouldn't directly affect me if Canada had enough military strength to boss the US around and marched into Michigan to annex it, but that would hardly mean Canada was in the right.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top