guess we are even

I didn't, so there. The OP has a valid concern

Let me guess, Clinton supporters will keep this on the front page for a while just from making comments to me, some ugly comments too I might add

A lot of us did, including many who had to undergo duck-and-cover drills in school. I never had to do that, but I was reminded of the Cold War every time I went to the library because it was a designated "fallout shelter"- a constant reminder that nuclear war was just over the horizon. It's time to finally drive a stake through the Cold War's heart.

she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

War becomes a ritual, death a sacrament.

Total security is the driving force in the US. Total security is the goal of the totalitarian state, because total security is the only way totalitarianism can be sustained. There is a strange attractor that must be countered.

détente |dāˈtänt| (also detente)
noun
the easing of hostility or strained relations, esp. between countries.

The tension on the crossbow is relaxed but always in readiness. The nuclear weapons of the former USSR are still aimed at targets in the US and Europe, probably at China and Japan, Conversely the nuclear weapons of the US, France and Britain are still aimed at cold war targets.

Putin is playing the same old chess game of causing conflicts to substitute for real war which would be M.A.D. mutual assured destruction.

He has been flexing his muscles in Europe with aerial, naval, submarine and groundforce feints testing the defenses of our allies. If anyone thinks that Putin is harmless or our friend, they need to reconsider.

For the US the cold war never did end. The delusional asshats who establish our foreign policy saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a green light to do whatever we want wherever we want with no opposition.
The first thing we did on the fall of the Soviet Union was to send over "experts" to advise them on restructuring their economy. That didn't work out well for the people of Russia but it sure created a lot of oligarchs.
But that wasn't enough, the government was still too independent so in come the NGO's You know the ones NED, USAID, IRI, and all the rest to try and undermine the government for not being able to fix the clusterfuck that we helped create and the government was ill prepared to handle.
Add to that the coercion of the former Soviet states by playing on their dissatisfaction with a former communist government that was never really so much communist as authoritarian and left them with nothing but the shitty end of the stick. Come, play with the NATO/EU team and all your problems will fade in the distance.
I don't think there is anyone we can elect to serve in Washington that has what it takes to fight the foreign policy nutjobs that have had the same stupid counterproductive policies since WWII. Whether or not Clinton actually believes that crap or not, I can't know, but if she's only listening to the same idiots that are considered serious foreign policy wonks in Washington? Just expect more of the same.
Just my opinion.

I do have to say your interpretation of my statements show a wonderfully imaginative interpretation of the world.
I can't wait to hear from the rest of the staunch defenders of US, EU, nd NATO policies.

eom

I guess you'll have to look elsewhere for a Poot-licker candidate.

You missed this part.

Well forget it then. Just forget it.

You missed this part.

clarify what you would find to be acceptable verbiage. You don't want him so much as criticized, but he should not be able to do whatever he wants...

As a gay person, I know to watch my back around your crowd.

Most left wingers prefer diplomacy to warfare. And some would even be asking themselves what danger does Russia and Iran pose to the security of the US...

obligations along with diplomacy.

That was Sept 11 because of a member state being attacked. In this case there's no member state being attacked, so NATO's using the 'Sit around and watch and talk about it' Article. And Iran? It poses no threat at all to US national security...

When it comes to leaders who are into occupation and expansion and just being generally nasty, it's kind of funny how Russia's considered a threat to the security of the US by doing it, but Israel doing the occupation and expansion thing is rewarded by a special mention straight after talking about those 'traditional threat' countries, of being one of the good guys in Hillary's speech. I think the US (and this applies to pretty much all politicians) are a bit selective when it comes to criticising other countries for bad stuff...

A pro-Russian Government was ousted in the Ukraine when Yanukovich lost the no-confidence vote after he fled from Kiev. There is a "pro-West" government there now. Russia and its allies have subsequently gained back some territory in predominantly ethnic Russian areas like Crimea and Donbass.

If you lose two acres and get back one, you have still lost an acre. Not sure how that qualifies as expansionist. At most, Putin is saber-rattling because he sees the Germans and Americans pushing to his border through proxies. If I were in his position I would be saber-rattling too.

I never said that I "don't want him so much as criticized." And judging by the posts to which I was replying, my point was missed.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Industry%20and%20Arms%20Sales.htm

Can't wait to see how many "Pooty-Pute Ass-Rainbow Bootlicker!" accusation replies I will now accumulate.

Agreed, Clinton is a Hawk with a capital H, and I find it incredibly disturbing. Definitely not the direction I wish the country to continue pursuing.

as an aggressive, anti-democratic expansionist.

Edit- and I have no doubt Bernie sees Putin in same light. Although what his solution is other than sanctions if Putin expands into NATO or more Democratic countries?

Lived in the EU for 10 yrs. Just looking at a map, in a reality-tinged world, it should be Europeans shitting themselves, not Americans - or much less so.

The difference can be explained for by the quality of European journalists. In France, they are sane, educated and professional. In the USA (and in London), they are propaganda peddlers. I don't bother reading English language press anymore when the subject is Russia (and this goes for both sides Hawks & Doves).

The French are capable of discussing Geo-strategy without needing to call President Putin nasty names to advance their arguments. This isn't "boot-licking" for Putin, it is called being are lucid and non-hysterical about Russia (and a good start is by recognizing that Russia is a nation, not one person). Russia has a voice in how things work in the world, and no American has the slightest moral authority with which to judge that reality.

The Iraq Invasion wasn't American expansionism? Drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan (aggressions) - did the USA declare war on these countries in accordance with constitutional laws? Did US torture programs somehow become democratic? Supporting our good buddies Saudi Arabia and Qatar - that's supporting democracy?

America has no moral authority. None. Can we stop pretending this when it comes to places and political realities that we don't understand? The idea that only Washington DC should decide how the world works is tiresome and false, and I can say that many public voices in the EU are calling for policy change in international affairs.

You either think Europe consists of solely Germany and France, or you just don't give a shit about what Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians have to say about Russia once again getting aggressive at their doorsteps.



Jesus fucking Christ, I would just love it occasionally for the faux anti-imperialists to go one breath without a fucking tu quoque fallacy.

It's not much of a foreign policy to simply latch onto whoever happens to be the thumb in the West's eye du jour.

my first "Pooty-Pute Ass Rainbow Bootlicker" response post. So thanks for that NuclearDem!

Your argument is that France, a nuclear armed power, will allow an invasion of an EU member nation by Russia? Really? Sorry, but the unanimous consensus here is that it won't happen.

I've discussed Poland with French people whom I suspect have a much greater appreciation of the history behind Poland's response to current events than you do. As their currently living parents survived the Occupation, they have personal experience with war that no American shares. Sorry, I'll listen to them, and not you.

Naming an argument as "Tu Quoique" doesn't invalidate the point - the point stands. I could say "Consider the Source" of the American propaganda machine and nobody would scream "fallacy"!

Wow, there's some mental gymnastics.



Wow, so you've talked about Poland with French people! That's totally the same as talking to people who, you know, actually live in Poland.

As far as the "you don't know what war is" argle bargle, you might consider how my grandparents were Latvian expats who fought against the illegal Soviet occupation and saw their family and friends dragged off to Siberia, if not shot outright. In fact, I live about twenty miles from the center of the Latvian expat community here in Indiana, one with a memorial to those slaughtered by the occupation.

But, please, keep up the bullshit "you ignorant Americans" argle bargle. It's adorable how you think an ex-KGB piece of shit can be trusted.



It's bullshit for two reasons. First, whether or not the US is an imperial power has zero bearing over whether Russia is one too. The answers are true or false, not true, false, and "America does it too!".

Second, I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm just as opposed to drone bombing Yemen, the bombing of Syria, the invasion of Iraq, and most US military ventures as you are, so portraying this disgust over Russia's actions as some massively hypocritical stance on my part is utterly fucking laughable. You and the other faux anti-imperialists, on the other hand, scream bloody murder about the West, but jump through hoops to justify Putin's actions.

If some points you make could be worth considering, I'll never know. The overwhelming dumpster-load of hostility that you slather on (even by DU snark standards) makes discussion with you and consideration of your writing not worth the trouble.

I don't appreciate your characterizations of me as a "boot-licker", but I know the source (you) and I do consider it when weighing the value.

I won't participate in a contest about who suffered the most in WWII - the French under the Nazis or the Latvians under the Soviets. No European I know would tolerate it, and without going into my personal reasons why I find it incredibly repugnant, even as an American, I have some standards for respectful discourse.

Putin has made it perfectly clear he thinks the breakup of the USSR was a tragedy, has no compunction against leveling his own damn cities, assassinates and jails dissidents and journalists as a matter of course, has utterly plundered Russia's wealth for his own, and seems to have absolutely no qualms with invading non-aligned states that so much as talk to the West.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I hurt some delicate feelings as a result of being sick and tire of listening to the same, tired old talking points blaming everybody but Putin for this situation and essentially enabling him in his warmongering.

Sanders had said in a television interview last Friday night. He said freezing Russians’ assets was one possible recourse.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanctions-on-russia

I support Bernie. Have not heard him say a whole lot about Putin and Russia but I expect it would not differ dramatically from other Democratic candidates.

I don't know if he is ill-informed or choosing not to tell the truth but in all honesty the whole world needs to stand up to the US including the US. Another problem is I think we lack the perspective to see ourselves.

UN Security Council approves arms embargo against Yemen’s Houthi rebels

Russia, which insisted that the embargo be extended to all parties involved in the conflict, abstained

The U.N. Security Council has approved an arms embargo on leaders of Yemen's Shia Houthi rebels and their key supporters, including former President Ali Abdullah Saleh's son. The vote Tuesday was 14-0, with Russia abstaining.

The measure is aimed at rolling back territorial gains that the Houthis have made in Yemen since September 2014, when they seized the capital, Sanaa. They have since advanced toward the southern port city of Aden, forcing President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi to flee the country and leading a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni Arab states to launch airstrikes against the rebels.

(correction should be Wahabbi states)

<snip>

The Jordanian-sponsored resolution aimed to halt the fighting by imposing an asset freeze and travel ban on Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi and the former president's eldest son, Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh. In November the council imposed the same sanctions on the former president; the rebel group's military commander, Abd al-Khaliq al-Huthi; and the Houthi's second-in-command, Abdullah Yahya al Hakim.

<snip>

Earlier this month, Russia circulated a separate draft resolution calling for "regular and obligatory" humanitarian pauses in airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition to help evacuate foreigners from Yemen and ease access to relief groups aiming to deliver aid to civilians caught in the fighting.

Humanitarian groups have struggled to bring aid into the country and said on Monday that the situation in Aden is deteriorating rapidly.

"Over 600 people [have been] killed [in the conflict], but more than half of them are civilians. This is particularly concerning," said Ivan Simonovic, the U.N.'s deputy secretary-general for human rights.

<snip>

Jordan decided to put the resolution to a vote as Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called on Iran, which backs the Houthis, to use its influence to help bring the rebels to the negotiating table. Observers say the fighting in Yemen has increasingly taken on the appearance of a proxy war between regional rivals Shia powerhouse Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia.

Iran laid out a four-point peace plan for Yemen on Tuesday, including dialogue and humanitarian aid, and renewed its call for an end to Saudi-led airstrikes against the Houthis.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/14/unsc-votes-on-arms-embargo-against-yemens-houthi-rebels.html

Maybe Americans are needed to see the issue for what it is

'Am I going to make this or not?' — One American's escape from Yemen

Back in December, the coast seemed clear for Mokhtar Alkhanshali.

Alkhanshali, raised in the US by Yemeni parents, wanted to keep pursuing the business he has worked on for years: bringing high-quality Yemeni coffee to the world.

“The situation was not as bad as it is right now,” he says of Yemen, which is now consumed by fighting and airstrikes. "There was unrest, but there were not any aerial bombardments. There were not any wars going on like there are right now.”

That all changed in March. A Saudi-led coalition backing Yemen’s now ousted president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, launched strikes on the Houthi rebels who had taken over the capital and much of Aden, Yemen's second city.

Alkhanshali was asleep at his coffee mill in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, when the battle started.

“This is a very vivid moment,” he says. It was about 2:30 a.m. when he heard loud explosions. “I went outside and I remember seeing — it looked like laser beams being shot in the sky. It was anti-aircraft machine guns firing at night. It felt like Armageddon. I didn’t know if I was going to see the morning.”

He planned to leave immediately, but bombs had destroyed landing strips. Commercial flights stopped. The US evacuated its embassy, but there was no offer at the time to assist US citizens.

http://wlrn.org/post/am-i-going-make-or-not-one-americans-escape-yemen

Russia calling for "humanitarian airstrikes" and sanctions against all parties and US opposes and even considers supporting sanctions from Jordan (btw the monarchy of Jordan is on the list of who the world needs to stand up to which includes everybody on the Saudi coalition).

On edit -- if he is elected President and becomes a phony hypocrite on foreign policy I give up hope and might as well end it. I don't want to be here to see the world more cruel than it already is.

The 'whole world' needs to stand up to the US, Russia, China and any other large, powerful country that thinks its economic and/or military power gives it an 'exceptional' right to bully smaller, weaker neighbors or countries on the other side of the world.

The US, Russia and China 'standing up' to each other is merely the bullies fighting over who gets to be the biggest bully in a given situation. They will always pretend that they are 'standing up' to the other bully on high moral grounds, but being the "biggest bully" is almost always actually the case.

or you mean the other side of world from the US? China isn't bullying anybody but you have to look deeper -- what you see in Ukraine is representative of the differences between the two sides of Ukraine (but the divisions are more regional but the regions are east vs west) but Ukraine's system of government is so screwed up all centrally governed, no seperation of powers it is asking for the corruption but the EU singles out and demands the release of the "oil princess" that the guy that receives the majority of votes in the East & Crimea but somehow is kicked out right away (the people they elect that win don't get to stick around) who she actually received a 40+ count indictment herself in the US. Anyway, Russia is taking a side while the US takes a side and some Western Europe countries. The elephant in the room is all the pipelines underneath Ukraine.

Russia actually has more moral ground on foreign policy disputes. The one I slightly differ is support of Assad though US opposition from him is hardly based on noble intentions. He nationalizes oil production, temporary let a British multinational in 2011 or so but it didn't last long. Plus, they turned a Kerry gaffe into Assad giving up his chemical weapons therefore ruining the US excuse for war (on human rights they don't need chemical weapons to oppose Assad, the indiscriminate killing with barrel bombs & snipers is bad enough, not to mention "disappearances" & torture in an Assad prison. Even Putin warning against using "exceptional" as it is dangerous to have the population believing that they are and that turned into a shit-storm like you wouldn't believe. I'm hardly saying he is a good guy -- I have bigger issues with domestic policies than foreign ones, what I mean is we are far more dishonest about Russia (especially China) than Russia is about US. Its like protestors burned alive in trade union building by The Right Sector is blamed on Russia by the US (a true statement) when The Right Sector opposes Russia or anyone that speaks Russian or ethnic Russian.

I'd have to do a line-by-line, it is best to start with McCain. I remember my ex-wife strongly worried about a "war with Russia" due to watching Condeleeza's Rice rhetoric on TV (I was within months coming back from the Army -- July '08) which I highly doubted which she expected due to her preemptive reply but what I said was what I was going to say which was something like 'whoever wins & the importance of making the right decisions (can't remember the quote). At-the-time, I wasn't aware of her money connections with Georgia which McCain shares.

McCain's Focus on Georgia Raises Question of Propriety

Standing behind a lectern in Michigan this week, with two trusted senators ready to do his bidding, John McCain seemed to forget for a moment that he was only running for president.

He caught himself and started again: "At one time, there was a president named Ronald Reagan who spoke very strongly about America's advocacy for democracy and freedom."

<snip>

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says he talks to McCain, a personal friend, several times a day. McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently a paid lobbyist for Georgia's government. McCain also announced this week that two of his closest allies, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), would travel to Georgia's capital of Tbilisi on his behalf, after a similar journey by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable," said Lawrence Korb, a Reagan Defense Department official who now acts as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign. "It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments. . . . They accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."

<snip>

McCain's ties to Saakashvili go back to the 1990s, when the future leader of the "Rose Revolution" was a student at George Washington University. In an interview this week on CNN, Saakashvili said he was "talking to Senator McCain several times a day."

"You know, I think he spends less time on his presidential campaign these days and lots of time on Georgia," Saakashvili said. "And I really appreciate that, because Senator McCain has been fighting for freedom of Georgia for many, many years."

<snip>

Lieberman, one of McCain's most ardent and vocal supporters, responded by criticizing Obama's more cautious first statement on the Georgia situation an example of "moral neutrality" that showed his "inexperience."

By Wednesday, however, both McCain and Obama had come together to praise the Bush administration's announcement of humanitarian aid and the secretary of state's diplomatic journey. McCain also told reporters that "this isn't the time for partisanship, sniping between campaigns," and declined to comment on Rice's or Lieberman's remarks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403332.html

This article doesn't mention Rice's role but she was one similar to McCain with the connections and the situation in Georgia was far more complex than McCain made it out to be with "fighting for freedom & democracy" but I won't make the assumption without knowing for a fact of a quid pro quo but he was accused by Putin and people in the US of orchestrating something to run on "We're all Georgians" -- McCain quote. Its really hard to see this bizarre spectacle outside itself but in any rate the Russian outside doesn't go very far outside its own borders though this is a problem

Inside the Murky World of International Arms Smuggling

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, “War is hell.” But to those who profit off the sale of weapons, war is big business that brings in huge profits. That explains why, even in these tough economic times, global weapons sales are booming, with United States corporations being some of the biggest arms peddlers.

The global arms market can be split into three sectors: First are the legal sales whereupon governments buy arms from corporations. Second are sales on the black market. And third is a legally gray area where governments, militaries and intelligence agencies rub shoulders with shady and corrupt dealers in order to carry out covert agendas such as regime changes and assassinations.

On March 2 The Guardian reported: “Sales of weapons and military services exceeded $400 billion in 2010 . . . [and] the top 10 arms producing companies account for 56% of total arms sales.”

To Americans, what should be most troublesome is the role the United States plays in bombarding the world with deadly weaponry in this half-trillion dollar market.

In a recent article entitled “America: Arms Dealer to the World,” reporter William Astore wrote, “From 2006 to 2010, the U.S. accounted for nearly 1/3 of the world’s arms exports.” However, in 2010, Astore claimed that, in spite of a recessionary downswing, “The U.S. increased its market share to a whopping 53%.” As the undisputed masters of war, America shipped weapons to 62 different countries.

<snip>

Rounding out, the biggest arms selling nations in the world include Russia, Germany, France, Britain and China. Taken together with the U.S., these countries supply more than 80% of total weaponry.

<snip>

After Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi surrendered his weapons of mass destruction in 2003, Britain, France and the U.S. began selling him billions of dollars worth of arms. Oddly, at the same time, anti-Qaddafi rebels were tapping the black market for high-tech weaponry such as rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. As everyone now knows, in 2011, a NATO-led army of the same countries that previously sold weapons to Qaddafi led an attack on Libya, which ultimately resulted in the death of Qadaffi and about 20,000 others.

Arms dealing is “the single most lucrative business there is,” said Houston-based international defense attorney Frank A. Rubino. “It’s unbelievably profitable,” he added.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=3940#sthash.HTd6vNX0.dpuf

Russia is #2 but that is what is our support over the "Houthi" sanctions so Saudi Arabia can lead a bomb campaign against a religious minority in support of a top 5 corrupt kleptocracy with numerous human rights violations and they don't even have as much territory control as the "Southern Movement" (South Yemen or the former socialists & marxists -- that were purged during unification of Yemen which sparked the 1994 Yemen Civil War with Saudi Arabia taking the other side and the USA remarkably was neutral though ever since the "guns for oil" I doubt they were as neutral as they said they were.

Iran is a "traditional" threat and China is a "new" one?

In 1972, we normalized relations with China, an adversarial nuclear power.

In 1972, Iran was being run by our guy, the Shah.

All of it.

The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."

During a discussion about the dangers of jihadism (a topic that has her “hepped-up," she told me moments after she greeted me at her office in New York) and of the sort of resurgent nationalism seen in Russia today, I noted that Americans are quite wary right now of international commitment-making. She responded by arguing that there is a happy medium between bellicose posturing (of the sort she associated with the George W. Bush administration) and its opposite, a focus on withdrawal.

“You know, when you’re down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward,” she said. “One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”

I responded by saying that I thought that “defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.” In other words, that the U.S., on balance, has done a good job of advancing the cause of freedom.

Clinton responded to this idea with great enthusiasm: “That’s how I feel! Maybe this is old-fashioned.” And then she seemed to signal that, yes, indeed, she’s planning to run for president. “Okay, I feel that this might be an old-fashioned idea, but I’m about to find out, in more ways than one.”

<snip>

She went on, “You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet Union but we made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, but we did have a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism. That was our objective. We achieved it.” (This was one of those moments, by the way, when I was absolutely sure I wasn’t listening to President Obama, who is loath to discuss the threat of Islamist terrorism in such a sweeping manner.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

If she is concerned about the threat of terrorism than why is the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and recently the King of Morocco. He don't exactly qualify because he's not Wahabbi, though there is an irony here when it comes to Russia, but he's definitely their ally and in return they recognize Western Sahara as part of Morocco. There is a reason why the US ignores Sudan these days(the US media only reports when George Clooney has a human rights violation to report) which should is the dictator is Wahabbi and part of the Saudi coalition.

Instead of going over every single problem with what she says here, her solution? "skin in the game" If we were arms trafficking we would find out who is trafficking arms to ISIS as if she is that fucking clueless. She is leading all candidates in contributions from defense contractors.

It is a great article.

something needs to be done

Everything in Ukraine is questionable because the screwed up system of government -- a relatively large area but everything centrally governed in Kiev including law enforcement and no separation of powers. A constitutional court judge appointed is dismissed for "oath violations" by the next guy, then the next guy that replace the guy after that dismisses his replacements for "oath violations" and puts his guys back in. You don't even want to be in court in Ukraine. Bribery & corruption is rampant that the only way to get anything done is to bribe somebody. You could probably do a two-state solution but the West would be cut off from the Industrial East (why are miners fighting the government? Because of the corruption, not getting paid, and often killed due to dangerous conditions and lack of safety).

What there was how many "early elections" for Parliament in the last 10 years (the reason why they are "early" is because of the 5 or 6 terms). Imagine if the opposition party won the Presidency and liked the mood of the country called for early elections of the Senate. The US needs to tell the truth about the problem and the need for a political solution. Not to mention the massive debt they're facing and the last thing they need is an IMF extortion bailout(The Shock Doctrine is an excellent collection of IMF extortion examples).

---

Meanwhile in Ukraine, the security situation on the ground posed a serious challenge to safely surveying the public. Pew Research Center was, however, able to interview in all regions of the country except Luhans’k, Donets’k and Crimea.1 The areas covered by the survey represent roughly 80% of the Ukrainian population. Among those surveyed, a majority of Ukrainians (67%) support becoming a member of the EU. They also favor joining NATO by a 53%-to-32% margin. At the same time, a plurality (47%) expresses support for negotiating with the rebels and Russia. Roughly a quarter (23%) says using military force to fight the separatists is the best way to end the conflict in the east, and another 19% volunteer either both or neither.

National differences in the preferred outcome for negotiations may continue to complicate reaching a settlement. While most Ukrainians outside of Donbas and Crimea say Luhans’k and Donets’k should remain part of Ukraine, either on the same terms with the national government as before (51%) or with increased regional autonomy (33%), a majority of Russians believe these two oblasts should secede, becoming either independent states (35%) or part of Russia (24%).

<snip>

Surveying Ukraine in 2015: Security Conditions Limit Access to Eastern Regions

In 2014, Pew Research Center surveyed Ukraine from April 5 to April 23, coming out of the field just days before violence began in Odesa and other cities in the east. While the increasingly tense atmosphere in spring 2014 presented some obstacles, the survey included the oblasts of Luhans’k and Donets’k (also referred to as the Donbas region), as well as Crimea. This year, however, security conditions in the Donbas region deteriorated to the point where it was unsafe to conduct face-to-face interviews, especially on the topics covered in this poll. In addition, the survey was too politically sensitive to conduct in Crimea. For these reasons, Luhans’k, Donets’k and Crimea are not included in the 2015 survey of Ukraine. The map below illustrates which areas surveyed in 2014 were not able to be surveyed this year, as well as the west-east regional divide used throughout the report for analysis.

Excluding the Donbas region and Crimea can have an effect on the national results, particularly on topics related to Russia and the crisis. To assess this impact, we analyzed the 2014 survey with and without Luhans’k, Donets’k and Crimea in the sample. The findings show that, in general, when the Donbas region and Crimea are included, the national results are more favorable toward Russia, less favorable toward Western countries, and more supportive of secession. The variations on these topics were in the range of 5 to 12 percentage points. Despite these exclusions, the 2015 survey still covers a significant portion of the eastern population and was designed to be able to capture the variety of attitudes within the eastern region. The survey also continues to reveal deep divides between Ukraine’s west and east in attitudes about Russia, Western countries and the crisis, similar to last year.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/nato-publics-blame-russia-for-ukrainian-crisis-but-reluctant-to-provide-military-aid/

There is a reason why it is a "politically sensitive" to do the survey in Crimea. It is because "the west" won't like the results but they know the results contrast to the Western Sahara situation where the people don't want the King of Morocco there but since he is the King of Phosphates and a friend to the House of Saud we sell him weapons.

And, it does real, not theoretical, damage to America and the world.

Hell, it has actively created more than a few. The MIC must always be fed hundreds of billions each year.