It sucks being the asshole that everyone shuns, I guess...?

Over the past several days, Mr. Obama has urged European nations and other allies to consider broadening sanctions against Russia if Mr. Putin escalates the situation in Ukraine. Mr. Obama has also vowed to enhance, with other nations’ help, NATO’s protections of member countries along the border with Russia.

Obviously they have a different perspective and concerns.

http://rt.com/news/churkin-un-obama-putin-977/

Excerpt:

Churkin said that Western partners as well as Ukrainian representatives keep urging Russia to engage in a dialogue – at the same time turning a deaf ear to what Russia is saying.

“If you want dialogue, please respond to what we’ve been saying. They are responding, sometimes, but the response is that: ‘Well, but you know, the Ukrainians.. We understand the importance of constitution, but how can they do it now? Can they do this constitutional assembly? There is no one to organize the constitutional assembly!”

“Well, if there is nobody to organize, maybe this is exactly the role of the international community? This Compact support group we have been proposing to help them organize those things if there is nobody currently in Ukraine who can take this responsibility,” Churkin said.

“Our position is very clear,” Churkin said, adding it is “disappointing that those things which are obvious to us do not seem to sink in in the minds of our international interlocutors and our Ukrainian colleagues.”

It's not surprising that Putin is the Head MF in Charge of the "G-1" and no one else wants to play with him. His position is clear all right--he's a bully who ignores rule of law and takes what he wants.

He won't live long enough to put the old USSR back together. He's sure gonna try, though.

You should pursue a career in geopolitical studies. The world always needs more people with sound in depth knowledge of the internal and external affairs of countries. People who don't get bogged down in the past and who don't let their emotions get in front of empirical evidence. ForeignPolicy.com could utilize your skills or possibly Janes Defense Weekly. Both of those publications could use someone who makes a good cup of tea and kisses the bosses bum to make everyone feel like a team! It's about teamwork! (pom poms are kept in the janitorial closet).

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/28/obama_and_putin_talk_ukraine_as_tensions_mount

from RT posted here as "honest broker" commentary, when anybody with any knowledge of "geopolitical studies" knows otherwise. Or at least someone who has read the frigging newspaper in the last six months.

What else is Putin's propaganda arm gonna say?

Here's your "empirical evidence:"

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-04/putin-rules-on-rt-russia-s-overseas-propaganda-news-channel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-today-drops-all-pretense-editorial-independence-publishes-pro-putin-propaganda-1562535

And here ya go, explained simply and amusingly by Stephen Colbert:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/h6q3h4/vladimir-putin-s-propaganda-machine---russia-today

"Who knew RT was Russian Funded Propaganda?"

I'm sure you've heard the joke. "What's the difference between Russian propaganda and American propaganda?" Russian's know their being lied to. Russia's media outlets are not giving the same spin as the US in regards to Putins call. It is different. They say the call was focused on the future government of Ukraine and their concerns there. They obviously don't talk of leaving Crimea. Maybe Obama did but they surely didn't. That is why this OP is misleading. It basically implies that have given in to Obama's demands. That simply isn't the case. They are negotiating the future of the rest of Ukraine.

As far as Russian news sources go..that's all your gonna get. They are what they are...but they represent Russia. Try RIA Novosti or Vesti or any of the others if you don't like RT. They all are similar just like US media outlets.

The government-opposition press was shuttered in December, ahead of the Olympics. Can't have anyone saying anything negative about Fearless Leader, after all.

Click, read, learn:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25309139

all Russian media reports relatively the same news. Not much different than in the US. Just a different nationalistic perspective.

with former RT anchor Liz Whal that followed the link you gave. She describes RT to Colbert and even he seemed baffled. It seems they have the exact same production format as US mainstream news. She say's they just read the scripts and a producer who answers to the company head decides what goes on the air. That description fits all MSM in the US. Hence the reason guys like Keith Olberman, David Schuster or Phil Donahue get let go. They gave opinions that were outside of the company's decided viewpoint.

agreement with CURRENT TV.

You have a short memory. Al Gore was not supposed to be covering the elections with Granholm and the YTurks crew. He was filling the chair Olbermann decided he was too flouncy to fill, because his "studio" in that start-up wasn't to his liking, he was mad about technical issues, he didn't like his co-workers, etc. He then starting mouthing off in violation of his non-disclosure agreement. He behaved like a total asshole and he deserved the firing.

Olbermann was difficult, a martinet. He was an attention-seeker, and he attention-sought himself out of a job. At MSNBC, he played the "I'm popular, so the rules don't apply to me" game, and he ended up getting tossed with two years remaining on his agreement with the network because he violated his contract--you can argue that he jumped when he was pushed if you like, but MSNBC wanted him gone.

David Shuster got suspended--not fired because he quit/contract wasn't renewed-- because he went and "tested" for the competition, CNN. Disloyalty is frowned on.

This is all a matter of public record. You're not entitled to your own "facts," you know.

About the only instance where you have a case is Phil Donohue, and that happened well over a decade ago in the Bush Nightmare years. when MSNBC was a fledgling station and there was still a question as to whether they would go left or right. Long way to go to prove a point. Phil Donohue got forced out because MSNBC was on a rightwing slant thanks to Jack Welch. Jerry Nachman (RIP) -- who was actually not a horrible news editor-- had marching orders and he stuck with 'em. You seem to forget, too, that during that same time period, MSNBC experimented with IDIOT program hosts like Michael Weiner Savage and Jesse Ventura--hardly their finest hour.

Olbermann and Schuster were both gotten rid of by Phil Griiffin (who incidentally is a lot like those guys at RT that do the bidding of the ones up the ladder, towing the company line). The rules of the company contract only seem to apply when one is controversial. Hence the reason Morning Joe (dead intern) Scarborough is allowed to stay on even though he was found to have operated outside the "rules of the contract" by giving money to Republican contacts and saying Fuck on the air. It's simple hypocrisy and politics as usual. Yet you go out of your way to label Keith Olbermann an asshole after all he did for us on the left and especially at Democratic Underground. Please do give us a break from your tripe.

Reading your post it's easy to see that you simply tow the corporate line here. Everyone is fully aware in 2014 that corporations don't get rid of people for fair reasons. They get rid of you because to them and their position you have become a liability. Therefore you must be gotten rid of. It has nothing to do with fairness. Have you never read Jack Welches shitty business book on how to sideline people who challenge corporate authority or the status quo? Fairness my ass.

I provide links, you provide...noise, and personal aspersions. How unsurprising. Disappointing, but unsurprising.

It is NOT "OK" to violate your employment contract because some of your viewers regard you as "cool."

Olbermann is and was an historically difficult employee. He's been fired several times--not because of his politics, but because he was, indeed, an ASSHOLE.

You seriously think CURRENT TV was "right wing?" How many ardent Republicans did they showcase, hmmmm?

Let's go back further. Do you think he was fired from ESPN because of his politics? Hint--he insulted his bosses on Craig Kilborn's show. Do you think he was fired from Fox Sports for his politics? Errrrrr.....no. He violated the confidentiality of his (sleazy) employer with regard to the sale of a baseball team, which pissed off Lord Voldemort, er, Rupert Murdoch and cost the guy MONEY.

The guy likes to shit stir. He's happiest when he's unhappy and making trouble. THAT's why he got fired.

Shuster went and "auditioned" for CNN while he was under contract to MSNBC. That's a bozo no no. It's not "politics"--it's being disloyal to your employer. Again, matter of record and I gave you a link.

And I don't "toe" the corporate line, but you certainly are trying to make it about ME with that lame snark--I could just as easily say--with evidence that you've provided in your posts, too--that you toe the Constant Contrarian Despite Overwhelming Evidence one.

You know, the minute you start getting personal and trying to cast aspersions on my character, that says far more about YOU than you realize. Either show me where what I'm saying is inaccurate--and you can't, because it's not--or just give it up. Name calling and accusing me of being a "corporatist" is a childish and lame way to distract from your inability to respond substantively and it reflects on you poorly.

in regrads to Joe Scarborough. That's why maybe it is about you. You go far out of your way to find things that fit your views while ignoring things that don't. Would you be so kind as to address the Morning Joe situation and why he was not fired?

You can't possibly be so uninformed as to not know what everyone knows about that guy.

--He was a Contract "on" America GOP congressman.

--His partner in crime, Mika, is the daughter of Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.

Get it? Left and Right, supposedly? Beauty and the Beast? It's a frigging MORNING show. There is no "situation." Why would you think he would be fired?

Did you know that Dennis Kucinich (former Democratic congressman and forever Presidential candidate) works for Fox News? Tell me why he isn't fired, why don't you? He obviously doesn't "match" the ideological bent there. Alan Colmes did too (do you even know who he is? Hint--he didn't "match" either). And did you know that David Shuster (you mentioned him upthread--remember? You cried about him getting fired, because he was a good liberal, from MSNBC?) used to work at Fox? In fact, he jumped from Fox, to MSNBC, to CNN, to CURRENT to Al Jazeera--which is where he's at now. I'm betting you didn't know that.

Not sure what you're on about. "Morning Joe" isn't a reporter. He's a colorful morning host, ostensibly, who raises topics and chit chats and "opines" -- sort of like say, Oprah or Larry King or the Ladies of the View, only he talks a lot about the political scene....because that is what he KNOWS.

You seriously don't "get" the difference?

I'm starting to realize that your problem might be that you don't have a lot of background on some of these topics you raise. In fact, the more you respond to me, the more I think that.

Scarborough does the same thing Olbermann and others did. They are talk show hosts who offer an opinion on news. He broke MSNBC's rules and gave money to a republican congressional candidate and said "fuck" on the air. All the other personalities you deflected with didn't do that. According to your line of logic, Bill O'reilly would be a reporter and not an opinionated talk show host. Please respond to why Olbermann gets sent packing and Joe doesn't. As far as where all these guys used to work it's well known and irrelevant in regards to this discussion.

on which "others" you were talking about.

His show has a wider charge; it is political but it includes chit chat and gossip. He'll interview guests, he'll enjoy hi-jinks, he'll go on the road with his co-host, which Shuster (who reported) and Olbermann (who reported AND opined) did not.

Never saw Olbermann broadcasting from the Reagan library:


Never saw him in a sweater with his feet on the desk, either:


Or glugging coffee:


Or shamelessly shilling a book in NH, using the show to advertise it:

because he is an asshole.and morning joe isn't. it just may boil down to that.

that in international law is meant to justify wandering into another country and occupying it, on the idea that that country has no central authority and therefore needs to be put in order.
Failed state sort of thing.
If Russia invades, this will be their justification. It's actually what they said when going into Crimea. They have unilaterally decided Ukraine is in chaos, and that means they can go in at any time of their choosing if circumstances get bad enough to justify it. It gets around the prohibition against violating borders.
To wit:

.

Ukraine border. I do not think he will move out of Crimea.

So yeah, I doubt that's going to happen.

No going back on that now.

When in fact this whole "crisis" is more of an internal geo-political move. Ukraine was a province of the USSR when Khrushchev in 1954 in a rash move altered the internal country map to attach Crimea region to the Ukraine. They are claiming back the area that is overwhelmingly populated by Russian speaking people who culturally are tied to the motherland.

I'm not condoning the militaristic way that Putin went about doing it, and this negotiation would have been better done internally when the USSR was being divided up. But as long as Putin doesn't decide to get emboldened and move further into the rest of the Ukraine, and by this gesture it doesn't look like it, then I don't see why, other than the brutal way it happened, this is such a big deal. At least compared to the other "big deals" going on around the world.

cleansing of Crimean Tatars, the Muslims who had lived there for centuries. USSR put a couple hundred thousand them on boxcars for Central Asia at gunpoint, moved in settlers with, as you say, cultural ties to the motherland to live on the lands they have taken from the rightful owners.
I'm sorry, but the Crimean Russian majority is the result of a war crime. It is just history. Trampling of innocents and all.

I'm betting that, at the point of a gun, those Tatars and Ukrainians living in Crimea didn't show up to vote--one can imagine how welcome they'd feel at the "polls."

And wasn't it Stalin who made that point about who COUNTS the votes?

Democracy didn't have a chance in Crimea.

shouldn't everything west of the Appalachians go back to the Cherokees according to the original agreement with the British before the Americans tossed it? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763

than things that happened when the "horse and buggy" held sway, we still communicated with quill pen and ink, and we heated our homes with firewood....

But hey, work that RT "equivalence" if you must. It's what Geopolitical Students who use Vladimir Putin's propaganda arm as a first line source might do, I suppose.

going back to the way it was before 1947 or even 1967? I'm also curious how you feel about Zelaya in 2009 in Honduras?

Putin stole that chunk of land from his neighbor.

A bit different than a bunch of Zionists purchasing land over the course of a hundred years from the remnants of old Ottoman overlords, that was farmed for generations by Palestinian tenant farmers, and then pushing those guys unceremoniously off the land and out of the nation and then getting an international agency made up of nations round the world to recognize them. I personally think they should have put Israel smack dab in the middle of Germany; to the victor belong the spoils, and all that, but that was not going to happen. If I had a magic wand I'd go for the two-state solution. I don't see anyone leaping through hoops to make that work, either. Bottom line, though--Israel got the stamp of approval from the UN. Putin didn't.

As for Zelaya's situation, just like with Crimea's, the UN weighed in, so I'm not sure what your point is, there. No one "praised" that coup (certainly not the US), even though some took issue with his constitutional overreach attempts. And why are you comparing that to a land grab? The guy is back in Honduras now with his family, serving as a deputy in the government.

at the time he was democratically elected and overthrown and our own government did nothing as Zelaya's interests were more closely aligned with Chavez and Morales and the new Bolivarian Revolution. We sat it out and showed our hypocrisy once again. Your the one that brought up recent history examples when I gave you the "Cherokees". I do believe the land grab of Israel took place within current lifetimes (as you implied). It seems one type of land grab is ok with you and other types are not and the same goes for elections. Your seeming a bit hypocritical.

Which government are you talking about? The Russian one?

Did you want us to invade, or something? Our embassy reported to SECSTATE and every other info addee on the message traffic that it was an "illegal and unconstitutional coup" while acknowledging the (obvious to anyone with eyes and ears) fact that Zelaya was gaming his own system to try to buy more time in power, and the conservatives and others in Honduras weren't thrilled with that. In fact, this is what they said (in a non-copyrighted official government document, ergo, no fair use limitations apply) quite specifically:

Honduran coup do nothing stand by. Ukrainain coup of the exact same nature- send billions of dollars and support far right elements, destabilize the country---because eh Russia, Cold War, bogeyman, antigay or something? Is there something I'm missing here?

We voiced our disapproval via the vote by acclamation at the UN, the vote at OAS, hell, even the USVI voted "Coup SUX!" at CARICOM.

Again, did you think we would INVADE Honduras and "put it right" when the guy only had a few months to go on his last term? Hell, Hugo Chavez threatened to do that--did you see HIM getting off his ass and going in there? He was closer, after all!

Ukraine coup ok....Honduras coup not ok. It's simple. One coup is more important than the other apparently. The emperor has no clothes. Consider yourself undressed.

It similar to Saudis good....Russian bad or
Israel land theft ok...Russian land theft bad.
Let's try it again...
China communism good....Russia free market democracy bad.
US surveillance state good....Chinese internet regulation bad.

Man I could go on all day.

Get a grip and stop playing the naif shopping false equivalencies.

Putin is President/Dictator for Life. He's been running the show for the last quarter century. The Honduran President was in the final months of his "term limits" term. He wasn't going to get his constitutional change because he didn't have the power to make it.

One guy is like gum stuck to our shoe; the other guy was out the door anyway.

One nation is a tiny little entity on our doorstep, the other has nuclear weapons and a Dictator/President for Life. But in your head, they're "the same." Good grief.

But hey....you COULD go on all day, making comparisons that are anything save apt, and I'm sure you will. You'll provide no links for your assertions, you'll just....opine. Where have I seen that kind of thing happen?

You getting paid for this kind of nonsense, or do you do it out of love of country? You might at least try getting a fact or two correct; as it is your credibility isn't happening in this entire thread.

Your life might have changed in four years' time, requiring new demands of you and changing your priorities. I don't particularly care to get inside your head to that degree.

Further, I didn't "insinuate" you were being paid....not like you "insinuated" I was a "corporatist" who "tow"ed the line just upthread, certainly--and all because I corrected your false narrative, too. So let's not talk about "low echelons" of debate, now, shall we, unless you want to come off as even more of a hypocrite than you've managed to be thus far.

I came right out and asked you, sincerely, if you were being paid or doing it for love of country. The reason I asked is because it made no sense otherwise, for you to repeatedly shop assertion after assertion that I proved, with links, to be inaccurate. And even after I showed you, with those links, you doubled down and completely ignored them. So what am I supposed to think? That your agenda is fact free? That's what it's looking like from where I sit. That you're too cool to click links and read them? That's a distinct possibility, too. And you aren't coming off as someone who can use the world "credibility" with any ease, as you've not told me a single thing that didn't have an element of imagination to it.

How lovely that you're easily amused. I think it's kind of sad that you shop opinions and suppositions as fact. It doesn't advance the debate or enhance your reputation.

to check the "paid" insinuation. You made it. All is I wrote is your towing the corporate line. We all know corporatism is not the great savoir and fair playing field it once may have been. (if it ever was). A gift for you.

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
acceptable, respecable, presentable, a vegtable!

At night, when all the world's asleep,
the questions run so deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd

I am not "insinuating." I'm asking you straight out and sincerely. No subtle references, no sneaky suggestions. Now I know that you aren't even reading the posts. Try rereading the one you snarkily directed me to, and pay ATTENTION this time to the 3rd paragraph.

Because frankly, nothing else makes sense. You aren't offering facts. You're making stuff up. And your grasp of the facts and the issues is very poor indeed.

And quoting lyrics while you behave, frankly, illogically isn't going to make your nonsense game go away.

I'm curious who you think would actually pay someone? And ask yourself why I "don't" ask you the same question. Because it's trite to insinuate or ask such a thing on DU especially when I've already posted links to who I am. I have actually read all your posts and checked your links and mentioned above the Stephen Colbert interview to lend credence to that fact. Your grasping at inanities in order to deflect from your acceptance of our hypocritical foreign policy. Keep spinning though. I love it. And I'm still waiting on your defense of NBC in regards to Morning Schmo.

I would venture that your "nothing else makes sense" quote (as you wrote above in regards to me) possibly because your not used to someone calling you out on your hypocrisy.

Because anyone who might wouldn't be getting their money's worth. You're easily the worst at FUD I've ever seen.

And, for what, now--the THIRD time? I did not "insinuate." I asked politely and directly.

I am not "grasping at inanities." You're making things up, and I'm correcting the untrue statements that you're putting out here.

You made misstatements about Olbermann, Schuster, the US POV towards Honduras....and you expect your "creative writing" to go unanswered....and then you get irritated and snarky when I correct said creative writing, and you try to deflect with some silly childish whine about Scarborough. Like he's apropos of anything!

I see, from THIS post, that you didn't read the post I wrote about him either! One more time--he has a MORNING show! Go back and sound out the words, slowly--try to take the point.

I am starting to realize how difficult it must be for you.

I often say, by his words we shall know him--and by yours, I know you. You are stuck in transmit mode, you don't read the replies that people take the time to write to you (you've proven that several times) and you just don't have a lot of respect for accuracy, and that's evident by what you've said here in this thread. I don't say this to be mean, but when you say things like "keep spinning" when I've caught you out for not being accurate, I think the one who needs to concern himself with getting dizzy from all that gyrating is you.

But I think its still important to move on if its going to eventually happen. Why drag it out for years of conflict? Many places on Earth native populations have been driven out, or simply wiped out. That's the ugly truth of mankinds history. And maybe its sad but its still true that to the victors go the spoils. The Crimean Tartars were themselves led by descendants from Genghis Khan who wasn't a sweetheart by any means. For years the Crimean Tartars were the kings of the slave trade in the area with raids into the Ukraine. They were eventually left behind to Russia when the Ottoman empire retreated. Game of Thrones.


I think what's important now is the present. Maybe you can't believe the numbers totally but apparently 95.7% of those that voted, voted to join Russia. Now I do think that the Tartars should get special citizen rights like guaranteed representation in any new legislature, but that would be up to them. I do think Ukraine should be compensated handsomely by Russia, and I hope it is all done diplomatically. We don't need the Democrats to join the GOP whiners and sabre-rattlers.

You think Israel is an apartheid state that needs to be internationally isolated though.

Just a guess.

are only about 60 % of the crimean population from what i understand.
is that considered to be "overwhelming" these days ?

texas was a province of mexico in 1846. could mexico do the same thing putin has done ?

given that's a greater figure than 50.10%.

The purpose of President Obama's speech in Brussels was not to make Iraq war haters happy (btw, I also hate the Iraq war) but to address the legal arguments made by Putin to justify the annexation of Crimea and to build support among our European allies. President Obama did a good job of refuting the arguments of Putin and it appears that our European allies are holding strong.

Putin is a weak position. Sanctions could kill the Russian economy. President Obama had to stand up to Putin and the Brussels speech appear to be working.

not even Hungary.

about the sudantenland ivan ?

I understand that Sec. Kerry in on his way to Paris to meet with the Russian foreign minister

You give me HOPE that DU is a place for positive and intelligent discourse on the issues of the day!

Great post.

is the fact that we were complicit in the overthrow that led to Russia taking Crimea. Obama "putting" Putin in his place is kinda past tense since Obama and the neocons are actually the ones that opened the door to allow Putin to go into that place. You don't see the paradox here?

election+ would have happened in response to the legitimate protesters who sided going with the EU. The election would have happened with an elected government in place. Instead we have a bunch of thugs whose first rule of business was to denounce the Russian language (now rescinded...thank God).

The paradox is Putin calling Obama! I just want the situation to cool down.

Russia wants to be a part of the world economy like any country. The Cold War mindset that our MSM has been pushing is completely off base for New Russia. The only people that are served by a new Cold War are the neocons and the MIC, big oil/gas...all the usual characters that our MSM carries water for.

You don't go about like John Wayne like you are going to teach the world a lesson or "whoop em".

You establish principles and stick to them. You do not affront your enemies, you engage them.

Look at the success with respect to Syrian chemical weapons? While the program is behind it is still progressing. Hopefully we will ensure that these weapons are no longer available. I wish we had a better solution to the overall situation in Syria but we cannot solve the entire world's problems. Syria is really a fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia (Shia v Sunni) and we shouldn't be in the middle of that fight.

Look at the success in Iran. It is measured but it appears we are making progress.

North Korea continues to be an intractable problem.

As for Putin, we never really had much leverage with Crimea. We can kick him out of G-8, impose some limited sanctions, etc. but we really don't have the leverage that Europe does. But it appears Putin is willing to talk in terms of avoiding any further invasion of Ukraine.

calm down the Syrian situation. There were war mongers in this country who would have like to have seen it go hot.

less than 2 hours from the Ukrainian border seems lost on people. Let's do the math. 1.25 million Russian service members. 4 separate military regions= 312,500 service personnel in the Russian steppe who are always within a couple of hours of the Ukranain border.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#|||Map%20of%20Russian%20Military%20Districts%202010

I think it would be a good sign on his part to lessen that in some way.

East Ukraine escalation and troop massing wouldn't necessarily be required. Personally I feel Russia is not expansionist and is just reacting to NATO expansion.

I just hope all sides tamper down the rethoric and start talking more.

that maybe,just maybe, the former warsaw pact nations and the baltics were begging to get into nato do you ?

they couldn't get into nato fast enough i think.

with the behavior of putin and his pals for all the world to see, i bet they are counting their blessings that they did.

and imperialistic power has been discussed here in depth over the past few weeks. A little deductive reasoning needs to be applied. If they were imperialistic they could have easily marched all the way into Georgia in 2008 and they could have taken any of the 5 "Stans" over the last decade...all without confronting NATO. A true imperialist power would have done both of these things. The fact they didn't refutes that a argumentative point. Russia has been growing economically and poses an economic threat to the West and business interests of parties that DU normally rails against...big oil, the neocon agenda, the MIC, Wall Street....basically the usual suspects are who drew Obama into supporting a far right overthrow of Ukraines government. Putin obviously took advantage of the Crimean aspect. But he didn't put the ball in play. The Far Right nationalists in Ukraine did...with the help of the Western powers.

Welcome to DU.

for welcoming me.

i am 57 years old. i patrolled along the iron curtain in 1976 as an infantryman in the 101st airborne division.
i am skewed towards the opinion of "never EVER trust a russian."

it could only come back to bite you in the arse.

i am comfortable when the russians stay within their borders. otherwise i get alittle nervous.

the ukrainians look to their neighbors in poland and see a thriving economy,a budding democracy, a deepening respect for the rule of law,a more optimistic young people on their future prospects,etc.. poland may one day be the second biggest economy in europe.

do you think they see that when they look eastward ? i don't.

if russia had annexed georgia and the stans again back then they would have faced very strong economic sanctions like they are potentially about to face now. it would have been to europes advantage to have weaned themselves off of russian hydrocarbons back then.i read where the ruble has lost a lot of value and putins stock market is graphing sharply downward.the oligarchs and putin love the wealth they have robbed from the good people of russia. this gets their attenton.

I think the Cold War mentality that permeates the debate is actually hurting our side. Russia is evolving quite fast yet we are stuck thinking it's still 1985 and Reagans saying tear down that wall. Most Russian who were born in 1991 are now 23 years of age. They have grown up in a global economy. They do not remember the Cold war they just see the remnants of it. Let me tell you a little about me, I'm originally from England and became a naturalized US citizen right before I joined the US marines in 1983 (right after the Beirut barracks bombing). I'm 47 and married to a Russian interpreter. I have spent a month a year in Voronezh (one hour from Ukraine) and Moscow, Russia every year for the past 8 years. It is nothing like people in the West and especially here at DU perceive it to be. Their economy is vibrant and growing every time I'm over there. I have Ukrainian and Russian friends and they love and care for each other.

Russia is much better off economically than Ukraine but they are both dependent on each other for parts manufacturing. They need each other...I don't think the neocons gave that part too much thought when they went for the coup and the natural gas. They have crippled Ukraines economy much more than they have hurt Russia, sadly.

Check out this video from Janes to hear an assessment of what this means just for manufacturing in the military sector. http://www.janes.com/article/35612/russia-and-ukraine-the-defence-industrial-dimension

where claims made by Ukraine without any substantiation. They even claimed 100,000 at one point.

Looks like Putin isn't going to do it.

If there is peace then the focus cn turn on the characters running Ukraine.

A good sign, I think.

Very good, thanks!

Wonder who pays for Russias military expenses. Invading isn't cheap.