All we heard after Crimea was that Putin had NO desire for any more of Ukraine. See how wrong you were? And most of us here TOLD you what was coming. And he's STILL not finished yet.
Got the guts to admit you were wrong about the humanitarian after all?

There was a diary last night presaging this, by pointing out that the voting split runs right along 'spoken language' lines, and that all of south and east Ukraine 'predominantly speaks Russian' and is 'predominantly of Russian ethnicity'. Go find Fred Sanders' diary and look at the maps. You can bet your booties that's the line Putin is after, and it basically grabs off half the country, even including areas where Russian is spoken by less than half the populace, but has been 'adopted as a regional language', whatever that means. It takes all of Ukraine's access to the Black Sea.

From the wiki entry on Ukrainian seaports: (sic)

a deal for shared access to those ports could be worked out. Putin's view is that NATO Base in Ukraine is his red line.

At Minsk, he went on for ten minutes on this, and on Belarus sending sanctioned EU goods into Russia. Puzzled the folks who were there, who thought they were there to talk about Ukraine. After he met Poroshenko, he met w/prezes of Belarus and Kazakhstan on the EEU.
That's his pet project. It was when Ukraine signed with the EU instead that he started all this. He's all about the money.
You can even see that in the small things. There was a close up of his handshake with Poroshenko, showing Poroshenko squeezing very hard, which may have accounted for the odd look on Putin's face during that handshake. The interesting thing to me is that Putin's suit had five buttons on its sleeve.
Five buttons is unusual. The more the more expensive the suit is the rule, but I've never seen more than four. I looked at a few sources online too just to see if it's just I don't hang with the right folks, and no one mentioned more than four buttons.
So five is pushing it. Seriously ostentatious. All about the money.

he had control of the situation. The whole thing is not so clean as the papers narrate. Even if you believe he his army involved, the narrative has been so one sided that it is impossible for him to talk directly to it.

This is one of the problems with the spreading use of overwhelming narratives to drive public opinion. It actually contributes to conflict because it does not account for all the complex factors and bottles in both sides. If it was not for the press propagating a one sided narrative I have no doubt there would have been a resolution in the first half of the year.

And likely a better one for all sides.

confrontation finally, and now his own people want him out of there. Wrong?

1. Please detail how Poroshenko orchestrated Russia crossing the ukrainian border by accident, with paramilitaries, with soldiers on leave, with an unapproved truck-convoy and with tanks.

2. The rebels didn't participate in the elections and they don't regard themselves as citizens of the ukrainian state anymore. They are not "his own people".

took down Yanukovych as an agent provocateur in Kiev. It is well documented. This event caused the resulting aftermath, with Putin understanding exactly what the West would do next. Their mistake was putting a man who makes bon bons in power. The separatist had no other choice but to fight the Candy Man or be ethnic cleansed out of Ukraine. I have see all the pictures and talked to many people in other countries. Now, if the West keeps screwing around they'll not only have to worry about IS crossing the border at Juarez but something else crossing the border.

You already made your conclusions based on flimsy evidence and propaganda, but I'll bite:

What was "The West's" (TM) master-plan that Putin is now bravely preventing from coming to fruition?

What steps towards ethnic cleansing has the ukrainian government taken so far? Which of those steps occurred before the fighting and which occurred after the fighting?

What exactly should the West stop doing so Putin no longer has to march into Ukraine?

appropriate the Russian gas lines and begin selling Ukraine gas at inflated prices and have the IMF turn them into Greece.

1. Poroshenko would take over the pipeline that transports natural gas from Russia to Europe. Did I get that right?

2. Which gas would he sell at inflated prices to whom? Would he sell the gas destined for Ukraine at higher prices to Ukrainians or would he sell the gas destined for Europe at higher prices to Europe?

3. The West's plan was to pump massive amounts of money into Ukraine? Even though Ukraine's debt is not economy-crushing but manageable?

He literally was one of the founders of the party of Regions (central/east), then when the opportunities changed he defected to Tymonshenko's Party (West), then when they lost power he become part of the Party of Region's government again. Then when things changed again he was back to supporting the Wests parties.

He goes where the money (and corruption) is. Likely he will quickly fold and give in to whatever leaves him the best path to a better (His own) financial future. That appears to be about all he cares about.

People really need to research before they run around telling others they are wrong, and research outside the mainstream media, because you will never learn anything correct about the countries there or the cultures in the mainstream narrative rags.

about that. Victoria Nuland is the wife of one of the architects pf the Iraq war. The term "axis of evil" came from their grand document of "Pax Americana". This is no weirdo conspiracy, this is fact and DU was talking about it durning Bush.

Yes it was a surprise to see it happen under President Obama but the Neo-cons apparently still have enough power that the strategy continues. The international Republican institute had their hands all over this, which is why you saw McCain there multiple times, The international Republican Institute trained the right sector members of maidan membership in the techniques that lead to the forced ouster. That is why, even though the Obama administration and teh EU had made an agreement for new elections they still overthrew the government. The Republicans would not wait.

The reak goal? Weaken Russia with the hope of eventual regime change. Russia is a very large country with vast untapped resources that would be a huge prize for the financial elites.

miscalculated Lincoln's resolve on the issue.

All we heard during Crimea was, no no, Putin has no interest in expanding any further.
Putin will take as much as he can until he is stopped. Admit it.

in taking out the Separtists, Putin changed stance. He saw opportunity with a Western president that may have had it with war and pretty much knew the West had made a mistake with Petro. So Putin took advantage of the situation. I would have done the same were someone killing my aunt and uncle in a nearby land. He'll take the Southern Coast and then what, who knows. Nothing in Western Ukriane is really worth anything strategically UNLESS the West goes there and starts putting in Subways. They'll all work it out now and then maybe Major Putin will help Obama with IS.

what most of us knew all along.
And he's doing what Russians do; flattening whatever they move through.

you haven't been right about much. That's okay, maybe you'll do better in Belarus.

I said all along russia was not going to stop with crimea. That russia was inside ukraine from the start. That Russia would send in troops eventually. That russia would invade ukraine
All true
And he's not done. That will be true too. Hope you're happy when it is.
Go Vlad!!!!

after completing land bridge to Crimea, taking over southeast. I am adjusting my prediction that the will continue all the way south to Moldova and hook up with Transnistria. This will give him all of the mineral and oiiil rights off shore, another port, Odessa and a land link to that break away region of Moldova. Ukraine will have to sue for piece and live as a landlocked nation.

I don't think I will ever forget your vivid imagination. It showed how easily you can be manipulated in your hatred of Russians.
That is what the PNAC warhawks count on. Good job!

and in fact the Rebels have been tactically winning for more than a month. Ever since they started the tactic of pulling back, allowing Ukraine to rush in, and then flanking them in a "cauldron". They have been decimating the Ukrainian army, who was already at a disadvantage because most Ukrainians don't want to kill those they consider their "brothers and sisters".

Just like our own Neocons, Poreshenko and the neo-nazi commanders were haughty and overconfident and they kept on trying to push their armies in too fast because they wanted to win a PR victory by having it done by the Ukrainian National holiday. That was a disaster and their armies were angry at being pushed as fodder and that further reduced moral.

But of course you would not know this because the reporting from Ukraine is heavily controlled.

And thats why the Russians came in without hiding it. To save their buddies. If the rebels were winning so handily, there would've been no need for Russia to openly invade.

The rebels consolidated tactically and changed strategies. Ukraine did not make great gains in the North, they went into opened lands and then the rebels isolated and surrounded several battalions. That is what allowed them to mount an offensive to the south. (and why there was a call for a "humanitarian corridor" for the Ukrainian army.)

The Ukrainian army is in dissarray. The regulars don't want to fight. Only the extremists. But even they are complaining about the losses and blaming Kiev (Kiev was trying to accellerate and win the war in time for Independence day there and the army was complaining that they could not move in so fast and still cover.

There are videos all over social media in Ukraine and Russia of the Ukraine army talking and complaining about it.

But of course, nothing in the Ukrainian press.

And Putin will sound very good to some. Facts won't alter that view of reality. I wonder how many see this through the Cold War lens. I don't think Americans want to fight that again. Does it have to happen?

ation. So why all the hysteria?

It is the bias of folks that they would presume it meant "Nation". Even in english the word state usually means withing the nation.

The version from Kiev seems to be trying to put an altered meaning to the Russian President's remarks.

I don't see how this can be taken as anything but intentionally misquoting a major World leader's words. Poroshenko's boys are really getting desperate in their attempts to invent some kind of "Russian aggression against Ukraine!"

The Western media, of course, are ready, as always, to just let Kiev spoon feed them any fabricated, ant-Russian propaganda it wants drummed into Western ears.

(sigh)

as we have seen in this propaganda war before ...

the propaganda campaign. They are not fooling me with these bush league lies. Mistranslation indeed. They would like nothing better than to have a neo-con military base on the Black Sea. If Right Sektor is tired of BLM rocket bombardments then they ought to stop committing atrocities first. The "rebels" are very determined.

They have clearly heard what they wanted to hear, and not what he said. But that is what Reuters went with.

The official, Russian translation is considerably different in content.

Changes the meaning entirely. I think we can trust that President Putin knows what he himself said, and the official Russian translation is the one he agrees with.

Do you think someone else can tell him what he meant to say? On what grounds does that make sense?

shows that Russia is suggesting that one option is for the rebels to leave Ukraine entirely. Putin may well want that ambiguousness. If he wants his Russian viewers to think of those areas ending up in a state other than their current one, ie Ukraine, that would be, in English, the way to express it.

negotiation. He knows that the US will be very heavily pressuring Poroshenko. That is what has happened everytime that it looked like there might be talks. Poroshenko blows with the wind.

The rebels last week already clearly said that they felt that federalism was off the table. That was the first time they had said so. So all Putin was doing, at the most, was reflecting what they had said.

Most of the job of a good translator is to determine which, out of multiple meanings, is appropriate.

That is why machine translation is not very accurate.

This looks like a case where people chose a translation, likely of the word государство, that they wanted for their particular narrative.

Again, please keep in mind how little one can understand about cultures and context even with the miracle of the internet.

If it was a form of государство it can mean mean anything from land, people, community, state (as in US state (federalization), and yes also nation.

People should recall History. Give a little here, give a little there and pretty soon he wants it all.

Cheap way to "win" an argument.

RasPutin is sounding very similar, with his talk about Ethnic Russians,Territories that were once part of Russia, much like the Sudetenland and the annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia. It's all the same rhetoric with similar goals.

He's playing the land grabbing dictator card which is entirely apt in this case.

They are our equal, roughly, in nukes, but unless people are going to apply the same retarded "suicidal dictator" argument they used to justify the Iraq War, there's no reason to believe Russia would launch a first strike against us or Europe.

Soviet era? Not so much. I mean the later period and the detente? Okay...perhaps.

They annexed Kaliningrad immediately post WWII. The purpose at the time was not debatable; they just about tipped their hand and admitted as much as they deported the native population and imported a Russian one.

I just think that people should call his bluff.

The Russian Army has been trained to 'Defend the Motherland', not act as an aggressor. I'm sure this is causing a lot of discord among the troops and folks in Russia.

That's all bullshit about trouble at home. He will ignore it, just like we do.

..but, then, that's just my opinion.

Russia imports 25% of its yearly food supply, virtually all of that during winter. (From us, Germany and France.) Previous attempts to strengthen their hand by shifting that food-supply-debt towards China as a supplier has resulted in Beijing finding ever less diplomatic ways to tell Putin to piss off. His failure and the curbing of Moscow's power on a global stage is their gain.

He's pushing ceasefire now because he's back-to-wall...the Russian people will murder him and his surrogates before they'll allow their children to starve so he may look strong on the global stage. He needs a resolution as much as we want one. Need/want, our hand is stronger. It's why he started muttering "nuclear" in the last week. He knows that as much as there is a time-clock on this, he's the loser when it expires.

the newly established reserve bank and the future of no dollar for oil, Russia has the faltering US right where it wants them.

[IMG][/IMG]

be Eastern Ukraine that goes statehood. It will be all of Ukraine.

How dare they 'misinterpret' Putin's statement.

remaining people want.

We've Already Done That!

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Africa...South America.......We Preach "Bringing Democracy and Freedoms" and introduction into the Global Economy..but what they actually get is: NATO Bases, Weapons, Western Pipelines for Oil/Gas Distribution, Western Rights to Mineral & Mining Exploration-- bringing chaos, destruction, destabilization.. and, What did I Forget?

Estonia and Poland have been free for over a decade and Russia has not attacked them.

I just don't get the American hard on for expanding NATO. What is the point really?

Some of the counties in northeast Estonia (which borders on Russia) has a majority (up to 72%) of ethnic Russians. The requirement to have an understanding of the Estonian language has caused problems for many ethnic Russians. Most of these ethnic Russians are citizens of Russia, as well.

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

Of course, none of these similarities to Ukraine mean that Putin will turn his attention towards Estonia next. Ethnic Russians in Estonia may be perfectly happy there and ask for Putin to do for them what it did for Ukrainian Russians.

But many thought the chancellor of Germany would be satisfied when ethnic Germans in Austria were reunited with Germany in 1938. Apparently that was not the case. In 1939 ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia were "reunited" with Germany.

Let us hope that ethnic Russian in Estonia do not suddenly start revolting against the 'fascist' government in Tallinn, perhaps after things in Ukraine settle down.

with military bases, on the assumption that after two decades of humiliation Russia would re-emerge as a great power. Of course this strategy guaranteed that a resurgent Russia would be entirely hostile and that it would exercise its refounded nationalism by preventing further military expansion on its borders.

It's imperialism to deny Russia its god- given right to invade, annex, bully and terrorize its neighbors.

Here's a map to help:

The U.S. and NATO are planning bases in Kazakhstan, a country which is as big as western Europe.

“Kyrgyzstan authorities made a final decision on Manas base. It is shutting down. Meanwhile, the American military command said it would no have finished its operations in Central Asian region by that time and would need a new place to relocate its base to. Kazakhstan’s Aktau and Shymkent are among the options that are being considered,” the newspaper writes.


For more information see: http://en.tengrinews.kz/military/US-may-relocate-air-base-from-Kyrgyzstan-to-Kazakhstan-22091/

The recent proposal by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev to lease the Aktau port on the Caspian coast to the United States for NATO transit shipments to and from Afghanistan has received wide media coverage. Analysts have reason to suspect that the future “transit point” may in fact become a naval base catering for U.S. and NATO needs.

WikiLeaks was the first to report about the possible Aktau deal. Later, the news was indirectly confirmed by Mangistau region governor Birzhan Kaneshev in an interview with local media. Nazarbayev’s proposal followed his meeting with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake.

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/kazakhstan-u-s-planning-nato-naval-base-on-caspian-sea/

I would love to see a feature where you can order by number. I always have trouble finding a post when someone mentions it by it's number

I don't know where that's coming from. I don't think Georgia has one either, but I'm not certain on that. That makes two of those bases that are "on the border". The rest are at least one nation away.
That will change now. Hopefully there'll be one or more in Ukraine after this is over. There will certainly be a permanent base in either Poland or the Baltics or both as well. That would be a perfectly rational decision. The idea now is to close them off and let them rot away on their own. If Putin wants to make himself as independent of the West as possible in every way, I don't see any reason not to let him have his wish. Just make sure he can't bother anyone who doesn't want his kind attentions.

In most countries close to Russia the population is/was against NATO (as the majority are in Ukraine), so as it has been exposed it may now be more complicated. But it has been planned apparently.

Either way, the base isn't there now, so that map is wrong.

It is the United States that has bases in Korea and Japan. I happen to live in South Korea and have been in and around bases.

"surround Russia" ---- LMAO!

Russia respects NATO tanks and very little else.

because I have garlic hanging outside my window.

Afghanistan 1980.

Go ahead and list all the examples of vampire attacks.

The Baltics are safe not because Russia is too kind and principled to bully them, they are safe because Russia is incapable of invading and bullying them.

Go ahead and ask a random assortment of Estonians whether or not they wish to leave NATO.

RT wants to establish credibility and purposely mostly sticks acting as a general news outlet with a Russian viewpoint. It purposely trends away from direct "propaganda". As a result, you can verify most anything they present in other alternative press.

It spends it's time countering the propaganda of the west. I think that is pretty clear.

Kyiv Post, on the other hand, is almost entirely "hard Propaganda" heavily enforced by the hand of Svoboda leadership.

I don't think this has happened to anyone at RT?

So yeah, they aren't the same.

In Ukraine, if you were to actually speak freely over the airwaves you will end up in jail or worse.

It is safe to criticize the government only in large groups. And even then there is risk if you are leading it.

Where do you get your take from? The Ukraine Crisis media Information Center (the propaganda organ setup by the state department in Kiev)?

Not that Ukraine is utopic in that sense, but I would argue that the press in Russia has it far worse.

You don't have to take my word for it.

Reporters Without Borders 2014 press freedom index:

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

It will be interesting to see what the next one looks like (If the junta is still in place).

Aug 31 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said on Sunday that areas of eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists are fighting Kiev government forces should remain part of the country and he called the conflict a domestic one.

Dmitry Peskov was speaking after Putin was quoted by Russian media as calling for meaningful talks between the separatists and Kiev on issues including "society's political organisation and statehood in southeastern Ukraine to protect legitimate interests of people living there".

"This is not a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, this is a domestic Ukrainian conflict," Peskov told reporters. Asked if "Novorossiya" - the name the rebels give to the region in dispute - should remain part of Ukraine, he said: "Of course."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/31/ukraine-crisis-peskov-idUSL5N0R10LI20140831?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=bondsNews&rpc=401

RasPutin would rather sell that to Kiev, rather than let the Ukrainians or the West exploit it.

Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I think if NATO and Obama's rhetoric hadn't ramped up...the situation would be different... In addition, Samatha Powers disgusting display of calling Putin a "Liar" at the UN and then caught on camera laughing as her Russian counterpart spoke was probably not productive diplomatically.

It was provocation for Putin to then remind them that he is not without Stature, Power and Influence on the World Stage (the "nuclear" statement misinterpreted by some here on DU) and he was not about to be "talked down to" as if he was an errant schoolboy claiming "the dog ate my homework" called into the Principal's office for a thorough dress down.

Putin is preparing for the strong possibility of NATO rush through of Bases and Troops in Ukraine in the coming weeks. He isn't going to tolerate that..and is preparing. There is no way he wants all of Ukraine. Its a financial disaster. But, the "choice bits" for his purposes now that he's been provoked would be his bargaining chips to keep NATO out.
He has stated he wants Ukraine to be independent federation. That may be off the table with the provocation we've done.

tried to nuland (new verb) Putin. Backfired.

1. No one was worrying about Russia before Ukraine. NATO had a ton of military cooperation deals working with Russia, and they had, and still have, a mission to NATO. They were let in on all kinds of things, their officers held regular meetings and seminars with NATO officers, all kinds of things like that. NATO had a contingency plan for if Russia went off the rails, but it was off gathering dust in some corner somewhere, forgotten. They've dusted it off now.
2. Putin's motivation is money. The Donbass is the most economically active area of Ukraine. He wants the mines, more likely. The oil and gas that may be present in the Azov would be a nice bonus. He has this extraordinarily primitive view that owning raw materials + a big army = power.
3. Putin is indeed a liar. Every politician is, but the brazenness with which he lies is quite extraordinary. It was almost predictable that in concert with Minsk he'd escalate in Ukraine, as this has been his pattern all along.
4. Russia isn't powerful. It keeps saying "We have nukes!" And? North Korea has nukes. Doesn't make them powerful. They have less than half the US's population, never mind China. Their economy is 1/10th ours. No one buys their export goods, except for arms, of course. Raw materials too, but that's hardly the mark of an advanced nation. They can bully a small, poor country on their border. Whoopdee do. No one is impressed. No one would care (see Georgia and Moldova if you doubt me) except that Ukraine is big enough to notice, and they outright annexed Crimea, an outrageous act that got everyone's attention real fast. As a result, they've gone from being this peripheral country that people traded with and sort of knew was still out there, to this crazy peripheral country that needs to be put in a box so it doesn't bother the adults. That will happen, it will just take a little time.

derivatives. Moscow looks like Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills, USA now looks like Brentwood. Russia is very powerful now and when they drop-kick the dollar with BRICS, their economy will grow even faster. Watch what happens; I watch it from both a financial perspective and a geopolitcal one. Putin was absolutely right in what he did. His alternative was to let the American neocons shut down the Russian gas lines and then bleed Urkraine into a Greece2 existence. The Fascists are now in the West not across the water. In less than ten years the West will be subservient to not just China, who gives them the money to pay the Social Security monies they stole to attack country after country according the the neocon checkerboard, but also Russia and maybe India.

Here a list of countries manufacturing output.....where's the US on the list?

Top....where's Russia?

Below Australia (pop. 22 million) and just above Indonesia...


http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Industry/Manufacturing-output

He's all puffed-up now, like a Toad during Mating Season.

Will someone please stick a pin in him and let the hot air out?

It's like feeding an Internet troll. They just get stronger off of the attention.
The sanctions, combined with the galloping obsolescence of his main cash cow, fossil fuels, will do the job. Not in the next news cycle, admittedly, but the West has time. He doesn't. Even for what he's doing now, I read that the Russian draft recycles on 10/1 with all new cannon fodder, so he loses the trained and in many cases combat experienced force he has now. I don't know if it entirely recycles or anything like that, but it does explain the timing of his offensive.
In any case, Russia is supremely unimportant in the scheme of things, and taking the bait when he and his dupes yell like two year olds "I have nukes!" accomplishes nothing. Let the sanctions and his own stupidity do their work. We should help Ukraine economically, and assist them with supplies for their war effort, and reconstruction once Putin is done. We should also make them members of NATO ASAP once this is over, and put bases right next to wherever the border with Russia shakes out, just to spite him and his dupes. NATO was toothless before, but he's succeeding in recreating it. To his regret, as he will find out.

That is how they got the name "Autonomous Republic of Crimea".

They fought USSR leadership to be part of Russia when the USSR was partitioned. The compromise was for Crimea to have it's own constitution and it's own parliament and effective autonomy.

Ukraine used a corrupt Court to fully annex Ukraine and water down it's independent government. They replaced Crimea's constitution against the people's will. Crimean's have always been unhappy about that and always considered themselves independent of the mainland.

Sevastopol always considered itself a Russian city and Ukrainian in name only. Sevastopol was always a "Federal City" (Like DC).

If I know this certainly the press does too, so why do they report so dishonestly?

That is also why even the US rhetoric on Crimea has been fairly muted. They know the truth and they know that this was the wish of the Crimean' people.

For someone who wants to lecture us on history, you seem to forget that prior to the Russian invasion there had already been a vote scheduled in Crimea as to whether that region desired to be fully independent or remain under Ukrainian governance in its current arrangement.

For whatever reason, that was not acceptable enough to Moscow. Russian troops rolled in a week after Yanukovych choppered out of Kiev, and the original independence vote (scheduled several months later) was nixed in favor of the infamous sham Russian annexation vote. The rest, as you might say, is history.

The really funny thing is that Russia acts as if it has such a long historical tie to Crimea, but it really only dates back to around the late 18th Century. You do have people whose history in Crimea predates Russia by centuries, but that fuckshit Stalin deported most of them in World War II.

she entirely is reminds one of Bolton (under Bush) (only without the bad haircut.)

Wiki often gives bios of important people like both of them in a "favorable light" but, here's a starter and the Wiki Footnotes often fill out the picture if anyone wants to research further:

------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power
Samantha Power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Samantha Power
Samantha Power.jpg
28th United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Incumbent
Assumed office
August 2, 2013
President Barack Obama
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Preceded by Rosemary DiCarlo (Acting)
Personal details
Born September 21, 1970 (age 43)
Castleknock, Dublin, Ireland
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Cass Sunstein (m. 2008)
Children Declan (b. 2009)
Rían (b. 2012)
Alma mater Yale University
Harvard Law School
Religion Roman Catholicism

Samantha Power (born September 21, 1970) is an Irish-born American academic, author and diplomat who currently serves as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.[1]

Power began her career by covering the Yugoslav Wars as a journalist. From 1998 to 2002 Power served as the Founding Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, where she later served as the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy. She was a senior adviser to Senator Barack Obama until March 2008, when she resigned from his presidential campaign after apologizing for referring to then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as “a monster.”[2]

Power joined the Obama State Department transition team in late November 2008, and was named Special Assistant to President Obama and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Council — responsible for running the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights — positions that she held from January 2009 to March 2013. In April 2012, Obama chose her to chair a newly formed Atrocities Prevention Board. During her time in office, Power’s office focused on such issues as the reform of the UN; the promotion of women's rights and LGBT rights; the promotion of religious freedom and the protection of religious minorities; the protection of refugees; the campaign against human trafficking; and the promotion of human rights and democracy, including in the Middle East and North Africa, Sudan, and Burma.She is considered to be a key figure within the Obama administration in persuading the president to intervene militarily in Libya.[2] As of 2014, she is listed as the 63rd most powerful woman in the world by Forbes.[3]

Power has written or co-edited four books, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, a study of the U.S. foreign policy response to genocide.

------------------
Cass Sunstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cass Sunstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cass_Sunstein_(2008).jpg
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
In office
September 10, 2009 – August 21, 2012
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Kevin Neyland (Acting)
Succeeded by Boris Bershteyn (Acting)
Personal details
Born Cass Robert Sunstein
September 21, 1954 (age 59)
Concord, Massachusetts, US
Political party Democratic Party
Spouse(s) Lisa Ruddick (divorced)
Samantha Power (m. 2008; 2 children)
Alma mater Harvard University

Cass Robert Sunstein[1] (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
Legal philosophy

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. Some view him as liberal,[17] despite Sunstein's public support for George W. Bush's judicial nominees Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts,[18] as well as providing strongly maintained theoretical support for the death penalty. [19]

Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

In recent years Sunstein has collaborated with academics who have training in behavioral economics, most notably Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, and Christine M. Jolls, to show how the theoretical assumptions of law and economics should be modified by new empirical findings about how people actually behave.[citation needed]

The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.[20]

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect."[21]

Military commissions

In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush's creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist, "Under existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions" and that "President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground." Sunstein scorned as "ludicrous" an argument from law professor George P. Fletcher, who believed that the Supreme Court would find Bush's military commissions without any legal basis.[22]

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

I sure wish that the provocateurs (as in people that like to rage and get others all stirred up against a population) would be more intellectually honest.
Argue the merits of your argument but don't use dishonest means to do so or engage on the edge of hate speech.

But then, when you really have not done the research or the arguments you are disagreeing with are powerful, indeed it won't be easy to be an armchair warrior.

every consideration but he kept stirring the chocolate..Now both the West and EU think maybe supporting him was/is a mistake. And the Ukrainians feel the same. His instant "give me a new parliament" led to where he is now.

Somebody upthread made this remark, suggesting that all this overwhelming concern in the US we can see here, for the territorial integrity of a far-away, poor country and Russian "imperialism", is a very recent phenomenon, having to do with the Russian "annexation" of the Crimean peninsula and the uprising following "anti-Maidan" referendums tacitly supported by Russia.

But is it? Searching for something else I happened across a "backgrounder on Russia" from October 21, 2013, by the Heritage Foundation laying out the policy and terminology currently being applied (emphasis mine):

The Heritage Foundation? They don't exactly have Obama's ear. Obama is even more dismissive of Russia than I am, if that's even possible. He understands how unimportant Russia is over even the medium term. The right can call it appeasement. It's actually just rationality.

and it looks like the current Ukrainian government is heeding the Heritage Foundation's advice.

it's an accurate description of the facts.
Putin got asked an extraordinarily offensive question on Kazakhstan and whether it should even remain independent, and instead of doing the right thing and lecturing the student who asked that question on the right of states to remain independent and make their own decisions about their own future, offered up an answer that basically agreed with the proposition that the wogs are doing well even to have their own state, and will continue to be accorded that privilege for as long as they behave themselves: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025471193

If you choose not to see the obvious, even after his annexation of Crimea, what he did to Georgia, and what he did to Moldova, then there's nothing that will convince you.

then what is the far larger EU which has become a political union in addition to being an economic one? Or NAFTA or CAFTA or all the other free-trade enclaves where the US deem it in their own best interest to invest? Everybody can see it for what it is, but American think tanks or the goverment only use this term when other countries try and cooperate to protect themselves and develop an industry of their own.

much like the EU. My point, obviously, is that he is threatening, in that linked thread, to go into Kazakhstan if the Russians in the north start to get uncomfortable. His philosophy is that Russia retains the right to revoke the independence of any former republic that gets too uppity.

because American interests would be better served if Ukraine joins the EU. That's why they called the attempt to form an Eastern Economic Union "imperialism", and now everybody has adopted it as the fighting word du jour.

As to your quote regarding Kazkhstan, I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps your fantasy is running wild? Putin doesn't threaten a damn thing by pointing out that a previously undeveloped region can prosper when it cooperates economically with its neighbors. So far, it is mainly known as the region where "our" oil is pumped by Chevron and the like, as far as I know.

they're using it because of Putin's actual actions: annexing Crimea, invading Georgia, and invading Moldova.
That's textbook imperialism.
Now, here's the question some student "spontaneously" (ha!) asked Putin:

If the US want the rule of international law and principles, they have a lot of work to do at home before anybody takes them seriously on the international stage.

As to the student's question: naturally it is of concern whether contracts depend on the leadership of a certain individual or are grounded in the national interest of all parties concerned. I think Putin answered the question in affirmation of the latter.

you know, start getting independent ideas?
Yes or no.

Nobody said that, and it isn't even on the table with regard to Ukraine.

and Putin didn't say no to the idea, and I pointed it out in my summary.
Stop evading.
Yes or no?