and Wyoming as part of their territories.

Then there are those portions of Japan and Canada also.

If it is on a map, then it is for Putin to claim.

when confronted with Manifest Destiny...

who fights for democracy in Russia

be tossed overboard as bait when finished, or cut off their ears or noses to test the sharpness of his knife.

Not even close.

something somewhere in history. Don't let it interfere with progressive action against a gay-bashing, democracy-stomping dictator.

about another county's social policies.

And I wasn't the one who brought up Native Americans.

Maybe instead of being two-faced we should fix our own problems - gay marriage legal in all the US states yet? - before sticking our long fucking noses into other countries stuff.

In essence, because the US does bad things, we should sit back and let dictatorships take over. We shouldn't help allies or democracy movements. If another Holocaust starts happening somewhere, we should do nothing until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states and there is no military drone program.

Just trying to be clear about your stance.

For my inability to respond.

Putin's personality and posing (half-nude muscle photos) are intended to inspire hero-worship in the Russian people. This is a dangerous time in history, and Putin (like George W. Bush) is a dangerous personality-type to be in a position of power.

Putin wants to be the idol of the Russian people. To fill that role, he seems to think he needs to achieve heroic feats. I do not doubt that the report by his former aide is based on things said by Putin and seen by the aide.

culture. I think basic safety and work and food is important to them to all humans, but after that they will value things differently.

Half nude muscle photos? I can't imagine a world leader doing that, knowing that the eyes of hundreds of millions of people are on them all the time and making sure their paid personal photographer is ready at the proper moment to convey whatever message is being sent...


What do Russians look up to? That's rhetorical, I would talk to them to find out. My point is that we value different things, so I am not sure how much I would read in to another culture's behavior motivations that might or might not be there.

To be really truthful I think the biggest problem is that we are invested in being enemies with these people, and can't let it go.

I swear, sometimes I slip and start thinking of the Russians as people just like us, who really don't want all this hostile bs, just want to be somewhat safe and have good jobs and take care of their kids. And that one day we will all wake the fuck up and realize that all of us have a common enemy in the very, very wealthy, and the world we are living is on its way to becoming, perhaps, unable to sustain us. And that we will beat the swords into plowshares, train and educate people, help each other.

Then I startle myself awake and move on...

Kudos. People need to read that kind of thing here more often.

to self-determination. They also have different cultures -- cultures that the Soviets tried hard to destroy. They really don't want all this hostile b.s. either, but Russia refuses to leave them alone. Putin somehow thinks Russia is entitled to control the people of these nations. But I imagine you are indifferent to the rights of these people.

My parents were refugees from Estonia, I have relatives there who suffered under Soviet rule. I think I know more about the ugly side of Russia than yu do.

not about all those other people.

So go preach it to someone else in the choir of determinedly non-critical analysts, hypocrites, and war mongers. I haven't the time. I have to go back to the big people's table and, alas, won't be able to read your postings any longer.

where is the non-critical analysis coming from again?

People here on DU aren't "sending drones that murder innocent children". So we have every right to speak up.

dollars are responsible for the things their government does in their name to others, which is everyone from sea to shining sea, my brother. Or sister.

When that little airman pushes that button that rains death on 3 small figures playing in the dirt in Afghanistan it is assumed they they must be terrorists. But those kids weren't doing anything that 3 kids in Ohio weren't doing, and yet these deaths, for which they have pictures, for which they have lists of hundreds of names of innocent civilians among whom are far too many children pages, seem to fall out of any consideration. Yet that really is all of us pushing the button, else the airman couldn't be there.

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that we don't have a right to speak up, and I don't think I did. I think we should. Perhaps you haven't made it through all the sentences in the posts above yet.

I was remarking on the self-righteousness and hyperbole in the descriptions I was reading. What I think is ironic is people speaking as if all the bad people are "over there". They aren't.

ymmv.

to Siberia, to gulags, and to forced labor camps, many of them perished on the way. Including innocent children.

don't seem to want to want to talk about Russia's faults, only those of the U.S.

Why do you switch the subject instead of addressing the issue at hand, which is Russia's violent imperialist oppression of other peoples? Is it because it is indefensible? Is that why it's easier to point a finger at the U.S., rather than offer a reasoned defense of Russia's savagery against it's nearest neighbors?

by association.

Actually the subject I was responding to was the lying hyperbole being used to justify two-faced people forgetting their their own side is just as vicious, and and violent and untrustworthy as the other,

And you don't have a clue as to who I support or why.

I mean, do you honestly think anyone here supports what we did to aboriginal Americans?

And does that in ANY WAY justify Putin's actions?

I can't understand how you processed my statement and came up with your response.

I've never heard that one before. I like it.

Alaska would rather be part of Canada. At least, THIS Alaskan would.

Never Russia. Putin wrote that petition himself i'm sure.

And California.

It was just northern California, from Marin County upwards.

I say give him Alaska

I live here. I'll have to stand my ground. But he can definately have palin.

Hope not...

His only consideration is whether it is worth the economic sanctions that will be imposed.

I am thinking outside intervention would happen if he went there.

and this would be the time to do so, even better several weeks ago? But yet he has not done so.

No doubt he wants to spread Russia's sphere of influence and will work behind the scenes to do so. But that should not be surprising since all large power do so.

of us won't be here. I would have been curious if the respondents do think Putin will do this. Except for Finland, I give him a 30 per cent chance. Not because of Putin, but because of the oligarchs that will help him if it looks lucrative enough for them. As money continues to take over, that which seems impossible looks more and more doable.

uhnope

I doubt Russia would try to do Finland - mostly because last time Russia tried that - they god a bloody nose - and it was not until they treated to bomb the capital of Finland (Helsinki/Helsinki's) that the Finns was giving up for a whole - but was back with revenge just a couple of years later - in WW2, even thought hey stopped short of going to war against the russian people - the only thing they did, was taking back what they lost in 1939/1940 and start digging down as they problem understood, if the russians wanted to attack again - at least they would have a chance....

And I also believe, that Russia would not try to attack countries who is part of NATO - the baltic states, Poland, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria is all part of NATO - And an attack of them, would be an attack on every member state.. And i doubt Russia, for all its military might, want to get ahead of that military force.. In fact I doubt Russia have that an mighty army, navy and air force, to attack the whole of NATO - The modern russian army, navy and air force is no the same as the mighty Read Army, the soviet navy and air force of the 1980s.. It it not even a Shadow of its former glory...


It might be like that, that Putin want to turn back the clock to pre-1917 - when Finland escaped form the former russian empire - as that empire was crumbling under the result of World War One - But I doubt Finland would ever give up, and go under russian control, and the world is not that easy any longer to force the issue - as Finland is part of EU - and a direct treat to its sovereignly would give finns the wrong idea - about joining NATO as a full fledged member - as it is, they as pretty close to membership - but still holding short of ask for membership as Finland is officially an natural State...

I do hope - thar Putin would not try to collect the former Soviet States - and to re brand Russia back to the pre-1917s - mostly because it is impossible to ever manage to do - but maybe more important - if Putin really was to do this - he would risk far more than just economical pain from nations who would not do business with Russia anymore... Putin would risk an war - who Russia might as well lose as win.... If Putin was to risk an war - about building up "the former glory of the Russian Empire" he might as well do a suicide pact with the rest of the world - as he would not be able to do that.. One thing is to play hard in his own backyard - but if he want to play hard outside his own backyard -he might discover that someone else also want to play hard....

And by the way - then Norway can demand the 198 square km we gave up to Russia in the 1820s... ? Or for that matter, most of the Kola Pennsylvania - as it once was part of the old kingdom of the 1200s ?.. Not that I would have Kola - as it is rather polluted and full of nuclear waste from the former soviet navy.... But the principle is the same (And Kola have some of the most important russian navy installations of the Northern Fleet..

Diclotican

¿Do you really also want to take back the Shetlands and the Orkneys?

Nice here, to be able to sit down and talk together. Tranquilamente.

Ghost Dog

In theory we could at least buy back the Shetlands and the Orkney's as it was given to the then scottish king, as the danish-Norwegian king was in desperate need of money - and the scottish king was gladly to lend him the money - with something in return - and then the Shetlands and the Orkney's was his, even though the loan was rather hard even for the scottish kings treassure... But the danish king was never to repay the loan he was given - and since then Shetland and Orkney have been part of the Scottish Kingdom - minus the loan that was never repaid by the danish crown... Norway was then just a part of Denmark - even though we was rather independent minded - but as long as we was paying our taxes and was not burning down the property of the tax-man to often - we was kind of left to our own devices.... It was not until the 1600s the danish king really got interest in Norway - as part of a way to make him independent of the nobles who was rather unfriendly to a king who believed he was anointed by lord to his job..

Of course Norway would never really demand Shetland and the Orkney's back - even if we was to buy it back repaying the loans from the early 1500s - I think the people of shetland and Orkney's is rather well of as they are where they are - and I somehow suspect they would have some problems understanding Norwegian rule - after so many centuries under Scottish and UK rule...

Diclotican

Very clear. Give me time, please: Let me think.

Ghost Dog

By all means Do your time - and think, it is important to do that - if everyone had been thinking about things, before they do things - we might be better off all of us sometimes

Diclotican

Ghost Dog

I really doubt the official Norway would make moves to "take back" the Shetlands and the Orkeys even if it would be a nice thing to do - mostly because the official Norway aka our government do not want to rock the boat to much when it come to our nabour...

It would been cool to "get back what was once ours" - but thats is maybe something more for the imaginary world - than the reality of the world - as it is I think both sides like it as it is - and then we can talk about the close links between the islands and Norway - instead of doing the hard work if the islands deiced to be a part of Norway again - after all, if the islands would have chosen to be a part of Norway - it had to be by their own choose - not by military might...

But then again - we also have a few bones to pick with Sweden over Herjedalen - Jemtland and Båhus - who also was part of Norway at one point - but then again - we have been a peace with Sweden and Denmark for the last 200 years (our constitution is 200 years this year and in the time between the Constitution was written and today no direct war between the tree countries have been a fact) and I somehow doubt we would jeopardize that over some old scores...

Diclotican

Things have been difficult according to many since Yeltsin and his game. Just or unjust, a status quo that many Russians were dependent upon ended and things have regressed in some ways.

Some want that sense of unity and pride back and he is giving the Russian people hope that he will bring about that. People die daily from cuts to the safety net and the theft, Id say, of other provisions that came out of WW2 to provide universal help.

I remember reading of the poor and pensioners that were driven out of what they thought would be life-long housing, and made homeless. Russians cannot have forgotten that or other harms.

Social programs are being attacked world wide by the oligarchs, many of them a new breed who don't feel any need to accommodate the masses in their nations as they are now globalists.

They move from one nation to the next, forcing people to live on less wages. With the poverty created, they take the real assets they worked their lives to have. They are taking the Commons and government infrastructure to funnel the wealth of the people for a declining quality of life. It has been going forward in the USA, with those who profit from this feeding frenzy supporting it, and media has been supporting it for years. It is from the same Libertarian think tanks that want to bankrupt the USA so they can 'manage catastrophe' to their own benefit although millions would die.

Steal a person's means to live or anything that assists that, and you steal their freedom to resist oppression. The unity of the peoples of Europe after WW2 rebuilt their societies.

I'm not saying that this was all a just and glorious thing. What happened in Europe was beyond what we can comprehend in the USA. We have not been occupied and had our lives under the boot of foreign armies.

That's when human rights mean nothing anymore, as the rule of law submits to the rule of the rifle. I think Russians want to avoid what they have suffered with, and they have a great deal, as most of Europe has, and will try to stabilize. I could be all wrong but I don't think world conquest is the goal, not even that of part of Europe. I think Russia is worse off than many think it is, they have put up with a lot of trouble over the years.

And it appears from down thread that the person who is being quoted, is a disinformation shill from the CATO Institute, that was founded by the Koches and is part of the Libertarian media that skews every story against every government.

Hope that your spring is good and you are well. We thought it was going to be like summer here for a few days but we're back to the same old thing. Take care.

freshwest

The sad part - is that Russia had a chance to rebuild itself to resemble what they want to be a part of - Europe - if Yeltsin had not chosen the hard part of economical shock doctrine in the 1990s - the chock doctrine who become Russia in the 1990s destroyed every home russian had of a democratic future - and most russians in the late days of Yeltsin wanted a strong leader - who could give them their pride back - and a more secure future -even if it was for the prize of their freedom... Putin was elected leader in the early 2000s - and have with some sauces doing that - make the future better than the past - and have also used the resentment of the past - for everything its worth - and fouled a national awaking of russians not seen in Russia for many decades...

I also remember reading about old people who experiences been evicted from their own homes - who they had been lived in for years - maybe decades - and their pensions stealed from them - as the "new" Russia emerged - I do remember the demonstrations - and the fear Russia could tear itself apart - and the horror of nuclear weapons been exchanged between generals who wanted to control it all - thankfully it never happened - Russia was not tearing itself apart- even if it was close many times in the years after 1991 - specially when Russia had to default its currency the Ruble - it was a nasty dive to the bottom of the sea for russians - and the resentment is there all to se - if you just look behind the surface...


Capitalism as it have been made possible for the last decades is as wrong as the other isms who devestated our old continent in the 20th century - they steal, plunder and is doing devastating for everyone who is not part of the upper class - and would do everything they can to stay on top - by plundering everything else - but as they might have forgotten is that when people get enough they tend to revolt - against the type of capitalism who is ruling the world today - even Neo-Cons - and the different think-tanks of that breed can not make it impossible for ordinary peasants to revolt - and to win against crony capitalism....
I have been reading some about how bad things have become in the US, for the middle class - and the rest who have most of the burden from the 1 percent who steal everything - and i wonder why is not more doing more against it - they just accept it - and hope one day to be a part of it - the nr 1 percent that is - americans can not be that dumb that they believe that everyone of them can one day climb up of the ashes - and be welcomed into the gang of 1 percent just because they wanted it to happened?.. The 1 percent who own most of the US today - is maybe worse than the old nobles of ancient Europe - at least the old noble houses of old, understood the need of "fresh blood" now and then - as long as it was not to many of them involved at the same time - but the nr 1 percent in the US live by a codex that is rather evil I would say.... But that is just me then....

Europe experienced the horrible things of both world war one - and two - and had to rebuild everything that was ruined in the wars - and it does something with people when everything you had, was taking away from you - by war and by everything else possible to experience - out of the ashes of world war two - a dived but in a way stable Europe emerged - political divided - but everyone hoped the peace would last - and it did - at least until the early 1990s when Yugoslavia was slammed with a civil war - and was released by many new republics - who is poor and with a lot of hatred and resentment about the nabours who was part of the enemy back in the 1990s - Europe as a whole have great issues and troubles ahead of it - ethical economical and political it is as divided as ever before - even if most of us believe in peace -and the promise of a better future - but the facts on the ground is - it is a lot of problems who is not sorted out - a lot of old scores to pay back - between nations (specially in the Eastern part of Europe - who was hurt bad by the border drawings after WW2) and I doubt any of the nations would buckle when it came to old scores to settle one way or another anytime soon either...

The US do have some benefits - neither been occupied by foreign states - or had to live under foreign boots - last time US was in direct war on its own soil was in the 1860s - and that was mostly because of a civil war - not because US was attached by anyone else - even if you look at some of the movies coming out of Hollywood the last couple of years - you should believe US had been under attack all the time going back to 1776...


I doubt Putin want to destabilize Europe - what he want is a better control over parts of what he believe to be his "own backyard" - Ukraine have "always" been part of the russian ideal - and the last 25 years - when part of the old Eastern block have going its own way - even joined NATO and EU - have been troublesome for Russia as they really fear the possibility of an attack from NATO anytime soon - after all, they have a lot of experience with been attacked by the west - or east - or south for that matter over the centuries - and they fear - with some justification that is - that NATO really want to make sure Russia will getting problems defending itself against a war - if NATO choose to do it... For Russia it was hard enough when the Soviet disbanded - and then the Warsaw military pact disbanded - and then one by one the nations of the old Eastern block was doing their best to distance itself from Kremlin - and to shoose up to EU and NATO - It was a hit in the face when most of them also wished to be part of the NATO alliance - and they was doing a lot of show of force when the Baltic states and Poland was going into the alliance as full member states - they also had a reasonable insecurity about the missile shield - who was placed originally in Poland - a country who have a few bones to pick with Russia over Western Ukraine who once was part of Poland...

Russia fear the west - and envy the west at the same time, it is a complicated situation - Russia want to be a part of Europe - but at the same time resent it - and in some way even hate it - as it is different from everything Russians stand for - and it all goes back to history.... And as you point out - Russia is a country who have paying a great price for what is known as "freedom" in the west - freedom to starve - freedom to se their country almost break apart at the seems - a poverty who is still one of the biggest issues in russia today - freedom to drink itself to the ground - because everything else is to expensive to have - Russia have since the 1990s exploded in every possible way when it come to every imagine way a country can go down the toilet so to say - a lot of the industry who was once the back bone of the Russian empire is dead - even today most of Russians foreign money is coming from the oil, gas and precious metal sector - that Putin have doing its best to rebuild as a possible way of making sure Russia do have a possibility to survive in the future - but if Russia want to stand on many feets - it need also a industry sector who is able to build everything Russia need to make sure the future is better - and at the moment nothing is happening as sutch...

And then we have the legendary - old corruption who is devestating as few in Russia...

For the moment its warm and summer in Norway. I have had some problems with my allergy this year - May have been a month I for the most have tried to keep myself inside thanks to the dam allergy but it is coming around - and not so bad anymore - just a lot of sneesing now and then.. But the warmt is at least nice for my bones - who like it warm...

Diclotican

Finland/Baltics is an insane overreach.

Even invading Ukraine I'd give him a 50-50 chance of swinging from a lamppost, depending on how much of a meat-grinder it becomes (every day Ukraine gets a little better prepared).

He also claimed that he had no more ability to influence the government's course and that Kremlin put limits on him expressing his point of view. Illarionov was openly critical to such elements of the Russian economic policy as the Yukos affair, increasing influence of government officials on large companies such as Gazprom and Rosneft, and at last the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute and the energy policy of Russia in general.[1] Illarionov has also been a proponent of secession of Chechnya.[5]
In October 2006, Illarionov was appointed senior researcher of the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity of the US libertarian think tank Cato Institute in Washington, DC.[6] In this position, he has lamented &quot Russia's) new corporate state in which state-owned enterprises are governed by personal interests and private corporations have become subject to arbitrary intervention to serve state interests"[7] as well as "new ways in which political, economic and civil liberties are being eliminated."[8]

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

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

He's got to be good enough to craft U. S. foreign policy!

(sarcasm intended)

Sounds like another Ahmed Chalabi (Curveball) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

Wind is already competitive with fossil fuels. Solar is very rapidly getting there, and he just gave the most advanced economic unit on the planet, the EU, a huge incentive to get moving on modernizing its energy infrastructure.
His economy is about to become very obsolete very fast. He should be paying attention to that. He won't be able to keep his head on his shoulders if in five years Russia is mired in poverty while the rest of Europe does fine.

But unfortunately there are still a lot of other uses for oil, and it seems as long as we have a fair amount of oil left cars are not going to shift to electricity. It is probably going to take worldwide agreements to really implement alternative energy to that extent.

Once you have that, conversion to electric and hybrid cars will do the rest.
Demand for alternate uses, like asphalt, plastics, etc., isn't enough to keep the price at its current high levels. That sort of demand will allow for some continuing use for oil and gas, but not at nearly the level you see now. It also won't be remotely as damaging to the climate.
And in the context of something like this, at that much reduced level of demand Russia or any other country won't have any real leverage, anymore than a country covered in trees can get leverage from having all that wood to burn for fuel. No one cares enough anymore about wood for anyone to exercise leverage like that, and there's plenty of uses for wood. Same will happen with oil.

At the "Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity" at the Cato Institute, no less.

Liberals used to be proud of digging for the truth and viewing the world through a more nuanced lens.

I wondered what his angle is.

Look at everyone upthread raising the stakes even - Putin wants to take Montana!

Turn back the clock to the 1950s. They were going to take over Brooklyn!

and is making wild statements.

he quit because he realized that Putin was well on his way to running Russia as a virtual dictatorship instead of a democracy

sensationalist claim.

then why didn't Putin take all of Georgia when he could of? Or any of the weak Stans? The argument holds no water. Past actions speak more loudly than an out of favor bureaucrats opinion. Let's not forget we were the ones who opened the door for Crimea. Russia just walked through it.

Yeah, he was totally unaware of what Putin was all those years he served him. It was a late realization!

The Western neoliberals like this guy had their phase under Putin, then were shoved out.

This not a basketball game, right?

Would you go to war in order to prevent a war? That has been tried before, and it not only does not makes sense, it doesn't work either.

But I guess it's all good, since the media has declared Putin the official "bad guy" for everything now.

in a Swedish newspaper and as such isn't LBN anyway being more than 12 hours old.

nice to see the Putin First crowd out in full force today

just questioning his credibility -- which is a rational thing to do.

Just as someone supporting the Iraq war has his/her links to the MIC and oil interests questioned.

Simply looking up the supporting evidence for the supporting premise/conclusion is way harder than questioning credibility whilst maintaining the pretense that the critique is sincere...

When you can't or won't challenge the argument's logic or try to undermine the facts by means of logic or evidence you argue that the person making the argument is unfit to be heard. He can't be trusted to make the argument, he has specious reasons, etc.

If you can't argue against facts or logic, you argue against the man.

Or, if you like Latin phrases, you argue "ad hominem."


Is Ilarionov's claim consistent with what Ilarionov could know? Yes.

Could Ilarionov be accurately conveying the content of Putin's beliefs, even if he's not quoting him directly from substantiated sources? Yes.

Is it consistent with Putin's public statements? Now there's a problem. Putin's said a lot. But some of what he said is clearly consistent with the tenor of Ilarionov's claim. Heck, some of what he's said in the last three months is consistent with Ilarionov's claim.

Should we base much on it directly? No. Not without more proof.

any rational conversation will consider the source. Especially since many of these "think tanks" are just another way that the powerful undermine the people.

This red scare BS is reminiscent of the Iraq buildup. Yet all we've actually seen Russia do is hold a referendum in Crimea. We've actually seen nothing else. We've heard a lot. A million things that could happen. But we've only seen one. And it was something the US would most likely do if their fleet was in an unstable province filled with citizens who wanted to join them and improve their lot in life.

and places like Ukraine move back there? The answer has to be that they know darned well how much better off they are in places like Estonia and Latvia. Either that, or they're being paid to stay put in order to serve as pretexts for future armed invasions.

Russia did far more than "hold a referendum" in Crimea. Their unmarked troops seized military bases and naval ships at gunpoint. They just stomped in there, took over, and then had a phony referendum to whitewash their armed takeover.

much better that immigration. One involves having to sell or leave everything to have behind and the other is getting better pension, more stable government while staying put in the place you know.

Putin keeps saying he's SO concerned about Russians living in the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova, etc.

If he's sincerely concerned (and I doubt he has any factual basis for concern), why doesn't he offer subsidies and assistance to relocate these pitiful, oppressed, suffering Russians home to Glorious Mother Russia?

Surely the cost of moving these people to homes in Russia would be less than the cost of war with NATO and the US.

And how would "annexation" (bloody military conquest) benefit the indigenous people who make up the majority of the population in the Baltics, who have lived and farmed in those lands for thousands of years?
They would not benefit whatsoever. There would be widespread loss of lives and destruction.

These people have suffered enough of Russian oppression during the Soviet era and czarist times. Why should they give up their freedoms to be subjugated once more and see their own culture and heritage destroyed?

You kinda lost me with the being paid as a pretext for an invasion. I'm reality based. As far as the referendum goes I don't profess to know that it was legit. Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't. I do know that it would have never taken place if the neocons and the US government hadn't encouraged fascist thugs to topple the government of Ukraine. Putins chess move was a reaction to a chess move up the board. Maybe we should think more deeply before we implement overthrows and coups. After all every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What did we think might happen? Considering how much money we put into the often useless MIC you'd figure they might have summized that scenario could be coming down the line.

I already walked outside the WH to protest Russian domination of the Baltic states. Gorby was having dinner there. We protested outside in the cold, in the park. I had wax down the front of my coat from the candle.

It was epic.

destroy freedom, and take over the world.

And listening to that guy worked out so well.

The parallel is just not there...No one is even talking about military action against Putin. We're talking about all democracies turning Russia in a pariah state, with full scale sanctions.

They have their own agendas and motivations and have led us down the garden path to war. It has happened before. It can happen again.

is showing. This is Democratic Underground where we normally try to stop wars...not start them.

maybe stemming from severe blinder attachment

what this so called adviser is saying, remember Dick Morris was once an adviser to Bill Clinton. So yea, this could be the Putin's Dick Morris

Think folks. If he had the hidden agenda to take all these countries he would have already entered Eastern Ukraine. Why wait? Now is the better time to do something like this if he really intended on it?

is lost on many here. It gets in the way of the good ole days of the Cold War.

Follow the money.

While Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and a few Baltic States aren't in NATO. Maybe they can join and avoid this. And there's always the UN, who has called NATO in before.

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

Nations continue to join NATO, others call for assistance. NATO, the UN and western powers acted together in escalating steps in the 1990s:

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

Note that in that instance the same reasoning as used in Crimea was applied by Russia which supported the Serbs and they still feel Serbia was done wrong. They also believe the west caused the troubles in Georgia and Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Serbia_relations#1991-2000

But there was no WW3, even though some thought Europe was going to go up in flames. The conflict built over years (or over centuries if you regard religions) as nations were broken up and reformed into different groups.

I have heard good and bad things about what NATO did there. I used to write to people on both sides. The Russians felt it was a crime and are bitter about it. Others in new nations were grateful for what NATO did, The cost to both groups was very high.

I don't like to invoke WW3 the way the GOP and media do. The NATO powers are more than able to take on anything. They operate globally and aren't going away.

I'm sure those nations who have concerns are now meeting with NATO and other alliances to see what their options are. I'm still not going with WW3 with Obama at the helm. He's not Bush, McCain or Romney or we'd be there.

picked up where Bush left off?

the last time they tried to take Finland.

If he moves further west, he will get stomped. That's all that needs to be said. All this crap about a third world war almost makes me wish it would hurry up and start, just so that everyone could quickly get bored and talk about something else. Not to mention I can almost hear the Military Industrial Complex salivating at the prospect of a new war as stories like these are written.

the important judgement they failed to exercise is to ask why this person's inflammatory remarks should be elevated to a news story.