War with Russia
Discussion
Putin is in the house, and possibly getting guidance from some Russian monks. I wonder if he "does religion".
Russian "Doomsday Plane" Flies For 4th Consecutive Day; Accompanies Putin On Spiritual Mission
How much is V. Putin worth ?
Quest to find Putin's Billions
Russian "Doomsday Plane" Flies For 4th Consecutive Day; Accompanies Putin On Spiritual Mission
How much is V. Putin worth ?
Quest to find Putin's Billions
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 28th April 09:11
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Putin is in the house, and possibly getting guidance from some Russian monks. I wonder if he "does religion".
Russian "Doomsday Plane" Flies For 4th Consecutive Day; Accompanies Putin On Spiritual Mission
Yes this is very odd...Russian "Doomsday Plane" Flies For 4th Consecutive Day; Accompanies Putin On Spiritual Mission
There is history of Russian tsars sitting in monasteries before taking important decisions. This might be it folks.
Military paramedics in St.Peterburg have received a warning to be ready to go to Ukraine:
http://bell-mess.livejournal.com/609706.html
Ukraine has dug a 4 meter ditch along the border with Russia, although it's probably not going to be much use, as demonstrated by this Leopard II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVzsIBOPDRY
Simon Ostrovsky from Vice News talks about his kidnapping and detention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQGRJN4Radk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQGRJN4Radk
Not looking good in Donetsk today...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-28/donetsk-c...
The word Nazi or Neo-Nazi seems to be used to describe people a lot, especially it seems by the Russian media to describe pro-Ukranians? Have I missed something to make these people deserving of this description, or just a smear that they're hoping will catch on?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-28/donetsk-c...
The word Nazi or Neo-Nazi seems to be used to describe people a lot, especially it seems by the Russian media to describe pro-Ukranians? Have I missed something to make these people deserving of this description, or just a smear that they're hoping will catch on?
jmorgan said:
The word nazi will have a particular meaning there, more so than here.
We, the British, have had complete stability, compared to pretty much every single European country, West and East, for many hundreds of years. They've been pawns in many games and treated like absolute s
t for a long time.We have to be thankfull.
Esseesse said:
Not looking good in Donetsk today...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-28/donetsk-c...
The word Nazi or Neo-Nazi seems to be used to describe people a lot, especially it seems by the Russian media to describe pro-Ukranians? Have I missed something to make these people deserving of this description, or just a smear that they're hoping will catch on?
Branding your enemies fascist is the cornerstone of their propaganda ever since Hungary in 1956. That's why the soviet/Russian mythology considers WW2 as starting in 1941, conveniently sweeping under the carpet the dealings between Mr. Molotov and his pal Mr. Ribbentrop. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-28/donetsk-c...
The word Nazi or Neo-Nazi seems to be used to describe people a lot, especially it seems by the Russian media to describe pro-Ukranians? Have I missed something to make these people deserving of this description, or just a smear that they're hoping will catch on?
The behaviour of the police forces today in Donetsk was disgusting.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-28/violent-...
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day...
http://www.rferl.org/contentlive/live-blog-crisis-...
Edited by raftom on Monday 28th April 22:21
raftom said:
Branding your enemies fascist is the cornerstone of their propaganda ever since Hungary in 1956. That's why the soviet/Russian mythology considers WW2 as starting in 1941, conveniently sweeping under the carpet the dealings between Mr. Molotov and his pal Mr. Ribbentrop.
The behaviour of the police forces today in Donetsk was disgusting.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-28/violent-...
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day...
http://www.rferl.org/contentlive/live-blog-crisis-...
Totally useless police forces. It seems to me the the majority are pro Ukranian, and it's a minority attempting to impose their will on everyone else.The behaviour of the police forces today in Donetsk was disgusting.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-28/violent-...
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day...
http://www.rferl.org/contentlive/live-blog-crisis-...
Came across this guy (Dr Taras Kuzio) and found his videos interesting... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMI0lOKF4eE
interesting
mariapopova said:
Was Yanukovych’s Removal Constitutional?
When he resurfaced in Russia, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych claimed he had been the victim of a coup. Was his removal from power by the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutional? As with many statutory questions, the devil is in the details. The new Rada majority was in a challenging constitutional situation by the disintegration of the Yanukovych government. The Rada made the best attempt to resolve the conundrum while in a limited timeframe and with no independent and legitimate Constitutional Court able to provide aid.
How was Yanukovych removed?
The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).
Why didn’t the Rada impeach Yanukovych?
The impeachment process, as outlined by the Ukrainian Constitution, was not the most obvious constitutional option in the situation that existed on February 21-22. The impeachment process is a drawn-out procedure that is reserved for cases when the president has committed treason or other crimes. The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for a while. The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.
While we cannot know Yanukovych’s intentions for certain, the dumping of his documents in the lake at his fancy Mezhigorie residence and the traces of hectic packing suggest that the president was indeed fleeing rather than just going to a meeting in Kharkiv, as he later claimed. His midnight disappearing act left the country effectively without a president and a government.
The Ukrainian Constitution (like many other constitutions) does not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions creates a dangerous loophole. Any leader who is about to lose power, whether because his government dissolves, or because loyal supporters abandon him, or because he is about to lose an election just as the last vote are in, could simply skip town and doom any government by declaring it as constitutionally illegitimate. Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back.
Why couldn’t the Constitutional Court resolve the constitutional impasse?
Ideally, a country’s Constitutional Court should be best positioned to close such loopholes. If the president of a consolidated democracy with a strong rule of law, had a nervous breakdown, disappeared without a trace, and could neither be proven dead nor impeached for a crime, parliamentary leaders would immediately approach the Constitutional Court and ask for guidance.
However, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court has been highly politically dependent and its credibility has been low. Whatever they might have ruled after Yanukovych’s departure, would have lacked legitimacy. A ruling in favor of Yanukovych would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on him; a ruling against him would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on the incoming government.
Previous studies on judicial behavior in environments with low judicial independence have found that high courts often strategically defect right before a turnover in government. Neither option would have produced a preferable constitutional situation to the one produced by the Rada resolution.
The solution that took place within the Rada was more legitimate than any strictly legal solution that could have come from the Constitutional Court. The Rada was legitimately elected in 2012, and the majority of its members participated in the important debates on February 21-22. Moreover, a big majority (close to three quarters of all Rada deputies) voted for the Rada resolution, including many MPs from the Party of Regions.
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovyc...When he resurfaced in Russia, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych claimed he had been the victim of a coup. Was his removal from power by the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutional? As with many statutory questions, the devil is in the details. The new Rada majority was in a challenging constitutional situation by the disintegration of the Yanukovych government. The Rada made the best attempt to resolve the conundrum while in a limited timeframe and with no independent and legitimate Constitutional Court able to provide aid.
How was Yanukovych removed?
The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).
Why didn’t the Rada impeach Yanukovych?
The impeachment process, as outlined by the Ukrainian Constitution, was not the most obvious constitutional option in the situation that existed on February 21-22. The impeachment process is a drawn-out procedure that is reserved for cases when the president has committed treason or other crimes. The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for a while. The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.
While we cannot know Yanukovych’s intentions for certain, the dumping of his documents in the lake at his fancy Mezhigorie residence and the traces of hectic packing suggest that the president was indeed fleeing rather than just going to a meeting in Kharkiv, as he later claimed. His midnight disappearing act left the country effectively without a president and a government.
The Ukrainian Constitution (like many other constitutions) does not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions creates a dangerous loophole. Any leader who is about to lose power, whether because his government dissolves, or because loyal supporters abandon him, or because he is about to lose an election just as the last vote are in, could simply skip town and doom any government by declaring it as constitutionally illegitimate. Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back.
Why couldn’t the Constitutional Court resolve the constitutional impasse?
Ideally, a country’s Constitutional Court should be best positioned to close such loopholes. If the president of a consolidated democracy with a strong rule of law, had a nervous breakdown, disappeared without a trace, and could neither be proven dead nor impeached for a crime, parliamentary leaders would immediately approach the Constitutional Court and ask for guidance.
However, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court has been highly politically dependent and its credibility has been low. Whatever they might have ruled after Yanukovych’s departure, would have lacked legitimacy. A ruling in favor of Yanukovych would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on him; a ruling against him would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on the incoming government.
Previous studies on judicial behavior in environments with low judicial independence have found that high courts often strategically defect right before a turnover in government. Neither option would have produced a preferable constitutional situation to the one produced by the Rada resolution.
The solution that took place within the Rada was more legitimate than any strictly legal solution that could have come from the Constitutional Court. The Rada was legitimately elected in 2012, and the majority of its members participated in the important debates on February 21-22. Moreover, a big majority (close to three quarters of all Rada deputies) voted for the Rada resolution, including many MPs from the Party of Regions.
epom said:
Sanctions on Russia lead to uncertainty in the markets which leads to an increase in oil/gas prices..now tell me again who controls most of the oil and gas ?? and who will stand to gain from the rise in oil/gas prices ? The world is a daft place !!
There was an interview a few weeks back with some Russian observer/reporter, forget which. Basically saying Putin had been urging his cohorts not to hold investment abroad that could harm them and this was some time ago.What can be realistically sanctioned here?
So the USA want a new cold-war?..... was watching a program recently whereby its said the USA started the new cold war when Russia was quite 'weak'. After the iron curtain came down with the Berlin Wall the old cold war came to an end as Russia's USSR fell apart.
But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
While Russia demands more rights for Russian speakers in Ukraine, FSB tell Tatars in Crimea what's what.
Paul Goble said:
Mustafa Cemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatar national movement whom Russian authorities have banned from entering his homeland until 2019, says that the Russian security service has told him and by extension his nation that its members must submit to Russian rule, face prison, or, even more ominously, “disappearance.”
Despite Vladimir Putin’s promises to the Crimean Tatars before the Moscow-orchestrated referendum Russia invoked as the basis of the Anschluss of the Ukrainian peninsula and the Russian president’s decree about the “rehabilitation” of the Crimean Tatars within Russia, the messages that Russian officials, both Muscovite and local, are delivering are very threatening.
In recent comments, discussed in an article by Roman Chernyshev yesterday, Cemilev said that FSB officers have told his nation that it must obey, face prison, or be at risk of “disappearance,” an implicit suggestion that Moscow may be ready to expel the Crimean Tatars from their homeland a second time
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/win...Despite Vladimir Putin’s promises to the Crimean Tatars before the Moscow-orchestrated referendum Russia invoked as the basis of the Anschluss of the Ukrainian peninsula and the Russian president’s decree about the “rehabilitation” of the Crimean Tatars within Russia, the messages that Russian officials, both Muscovite and local, are delivering are very threatening.
In recent comments, discussed in an article by Roman Chernyshev yesterday, Cemilev said that FSB officers have told his nation that it must obey, face prison, or be at risk of “disappearance,” an implicit suggestion that Moscow may be ready to expel the Crimean Tatars from their homeland a second time
John,
Good of you to post this, the other side of the coin that watchers of RT will no doubt brush aside.
Didn't something similar happen to Nixon? That's right, he was impeached to.
Phil
Good of you to post this, the other side of the coin that watchers of RT will no doubt brush aside.
Didn't something similar happen to Nixon? That's right, he was impeached to.
Phil
mariapopova said:
Was Yanukovych’s Removal Constitutional?
When he resurfaced in Russia, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych claimed he had been the victim of a coup. Was his removal from power by the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutional? As with many statutory questions, the devil is in the details. The new Rada majority was in a challenging constitutional situation by the disintegration of the Yanukovych government. The Rada made the best attempt to resolve the conundrum while in a limited timeframe and with no independent and legitimate Constitutional Court able to provide aid.
How was Yanukovych removed?
The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).
Why didn’t the Rada impeach Yanukovych?
The impeachment process, as outlined by the Ukrainian Constitution, was not the most obvious constitutional option in the situation that existed on February 21-22. The impeachment process is a drawn-out procedure that is reserved for cases when the president has committed treason or other crimes. The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for a while. The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.
While we cannot know Yanukovych’s intentions for certain, the dumping of his documents in the lake at his fancy Mezhigorie residence and the traces of hectic packing suggest that the president was indeed fleeing rather than just going to a meeting in Kharkiv, as he later claimed. His midnight disappearing act left the country effectively without a president and a government.
The Ukrainian Constitution (like many other constitutions) does not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions creates a dangerous loophole. Any leader who is about to lose power, whether because his government dissolves, or because loyal supporters abandon him, or because he is about to lose an election just as the last vote are in, could simply skip town and doom any government by declaring it as constitutionally illegitimate. Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back.
Why couldn’t the Constitutional Court resolve the constitutional impasse?
Ideally, a country’s Constitutional Court should be best positioned to close such loopholes. If the president of a consolidated democracy with a strong rule of law, had a nervous breakdown, disappeared without a trace, and could neither be proven dead nor impeached for a crime, parliamentary leaders would immediately approach the Constitutional Court and ask for guidance.
However, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court has been highly politically dependent and its credibility has been low. Whatever they might have ruled after Yanukovych’s departure, would have lacked legitimacy. A ruling in favor of Yanukovych would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on him; a ruling against him would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on the incoming government.
Previous studies on judicial behavior in environments with low judicial independence have found that high courts often strategically defect right before a turnover in government. Neither option would have produced a preferable constitutional situation to the one produced by the Rada resolution.
The solution that took place within the Rada was more legitimate than any strictly legal solution that could have come from the Constitutional Court. The Rada was legitimately elected in 2012, and the majority of its members participated in the important debates on February 21-22. Moreover, a big majority (close to three quarters of all Rada deputies) voted for the Rada resolution, including many MPs from the Party of Regions.
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/was-yanukovyc...When he resurfaced in Russia, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych claimed he had been the victim of a coup. Was his removal from power by the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutional? As with many statutory questions, the devil is in the details. The new Rada majority was in a challenging constitutional situation by the disintegration of the Yanukovych government. The Rada made the best attempt to resolve the conundrum while in a limited timeframe and with no independent and legitimate Constitutional Court able to provide aid.
How was Yanukovych removed?
The Rada did not follow, or claim to follow, the impeachment route. They passed a resolution that established that Yanukovych had removed himself from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The resolution stated that due to the fact that Yanukovych had unconstitutionally stopped fulfilling his presidential duties, the Rada was calling early presidential elections as is their right under Article 85/7. It seems that nothing in the constitution prohibits parliament from passing such a resolution, which has the full legal force of a law, according to Article 91. The speaker of the Rada signed the resolution, again in accordance with the constitution (Article 88/3).
Why didn’t the Rada impeach Yanukovych?
The impeachment process, as outlined by the Ukrainian Constitution, was not the most obvious constitutional option in the situation that existed on February 21-22. The impeachment process is a drawn-out procedure that is reserved for cases when the president has committed treason or other crimes. The immediate problem on the evening of February 21 was that the Yanukovych regime had dissolved and Yanukovych had left the capital, apparently not intending to return for a while. The dissolution of his regime was evidenced by the Interior Minister and the Speaker of Parliament also leaving the country, the departure of several important Party of Regions MPs, and, furthermore, the chief of the army resigned.
While we cannot know Yanukovych’s intentions for certain, the dumping of his documents in the lake at his fancy Mezhigorie residence and the traces of hectic packing suggest that the president was indeed fleeing rather than just going to a meeting in Kharkiv, as he later claimed. His midnight disappearing act left the country effectively without a president and a government.
The Ukrainian Constitution (like many other constitutions) does not provide any stipulation about how to remove a president who is neither dead nor incapacitated, but is nonetheless absent or not fulfilling his duties. The lack of such provisions creates a dangerous loophole. Any leader who is about to lose power, whether because his government dissolves, or because loyal supporters abandon him, or because he is about to lose an election just as the last vote are in, could simply skip town and doom any government by declaring it as constitutionally illegitimate. Leaving the scene would undermine the constitutionality of any acts subsequently passed by whoever succeeds the missing president and would allow him to keep a minimally legitimate constitutional claim to returning and claiming his office back.
Why couldn’t the Constitutional Court resolve the constitutional impasse?
Ideally, a country’s Constitutional Court should be best positioned to close such loopholes. If the president of a consolidated democracy with a strong rule of law, had a nervous breakdown, disappeared without a trace, and could neither be proven dead nor impeached for a crime, parliamentary leaders would immediately approach the Constitutional Court and ask for guidance.
However, the Ukrainian Constitutional Court has been highly politically dependent and its credibility has been low. Whatever they might have ruled after Yanukovych’s departure, would have lacked legitimacy. A ruling in favor of Yanukovych would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on him; a ruling against him would have likely reflected their fear/dependence on the incoming government.
Previous studies on judicial behavior in environments with low judicial independence have found that high courts often strategically defect right before a turnover in government. Neither option would have produced a preferable constitutional situation to the one produced by the Rada resolution.
The solution that took place within the Rada was more legitimate than any strictly legal solution that could have come from the Constitutional Court. The Rada was legitimately elected in 2012, and the majority of its members participated in the important debates on February 21-22. Moreover, a big majority (close to three quarters of all Rada deputies) voted for the Rada resolution, including many MPs from the Party of Regions.
AA999 said:
So the USA want a new cold-war?..... was watching a program recently whereby its said the USA started the new cold war when Russia was quite 'weak'. After the iron curtain came down with the Berlin Wall the old cold war came to an end as Russia's USSR fell apart.
But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
The US' agressive policies in Ukraine and Russia. It's not US armor I have seen in the Ukraine. BTW, you speak of NATO as if the US controls them and dictates their policies.But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
AA999 said:
So the USA want a new cold-war?..... was watching a program recently whereby its said the USA started the new cold war when Russia was quite 'weak'. After the iron curtain came down with the Berlin Wall the old cold war came to an end as Russia's USSR fell apart.
But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
But military hungry officials in the USA started a new cold-war push on Russia in the mid-90's with the expansion of NATO.
Expanding NATO towards Russia is only a cause for a reaction by Russia. Hence the desire to enter a new cold war.
The program was ascertaining whether the new cold war was actually started by the EU or the USA. If it was the EU offering Ukraine membership being the cause, or whether this was under guidance/pressure or sweet trade deals with the USA for them to extend their influence further towards the border of Russia. Or whether it was back in the mid-90's when NATO under went expansion, contrary to the agreement between NATO and Russia.
Speculation of course.
Also an interesting point being made on the program was that in the USA there is no real opposition to what the USA are currently doing with its aggressive foreign policies in Ukraine/Russia. Saying that the USA have an endemic mind-set that they are benign and are therefore 'the good guys'.
Anyways, the way I see it is that Russia is not going to stand down and if one were to switch the tables I can see why, as the USA certainly wouldn't in similar situation.
I am guessing the end result will all depend on how much the USA want war. With little opposition to this in the USA media it seems they are up for 'righting the world' at any cost again.
The reason NATO expanded was because its new members (Poland, Baltic States) wanted protection from the country that had invaded them and murdered tens of thousands of their citizens in 1939, then occupied them again in 1944-45, did the same thing again and subjected them to decades of totalitarian rule. Seeing what that same country is now doing in eastern Ukraine, were they wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff