Featured Is Ukraine the Sacrificial Lamb

Russia didn't "seize" Crimea. The Crimeans chose by an overwhelming majority (90%) to join the Russian Federation. It's called the "democratic process". Unless it goes against Washington's wishes then it's called an "illegal annexation" and "seizure".

You have not proven Russia is aiding the "rebels" militarily. Russia may or may not be militarily aiding them. The burden of proof falls on you OR as you are the one making the claim. Prove it.

You have not proven there are "Russian troops" in Ukraine. Making a claim ten thousand times does not make it true. Besides the top general in Ukraine has admitted they are not fighting "Russian troops" in Ukraine.

I brought this to your attention several times now but evidently you'd rather ignore his admission so you can go on repeating a false claim.

Another thing you keep choosing to overlook is that Ukraine wouldn't be in this predicament it finds itself in now if Washington hadn't chosen to intervene in it's affairs by inciting a violent coup in Ukraine and replacing it's elected government (bad and corrupt as it might have been) with a gaggle of anti Russian ultra nationalists who believe the only way to hold on to their ill gotten power is to eradicate (murder) everyone that would vote against them and milk the American tax payer for every nickel it can to pay for it all.

The only thing you and your pet monkey have been able to prove in the past year is that you have a knack for dismissing any and all evidence which proves the official Washington/corporate media narrative to be nothing more than one poorly constructed big ole pack of lies. The "Official Ukraine Narrative" is no different from the pack of lies we were fed about Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and Al Qaeda, and ISIS and the lies we're now being fed about Iran.

 

My understanding it was meddling from the West that has ignited this whole thing and the fear of the Russians of losing an invaluable warm water sea port.

 

The evidence shows it was clearly a case of western aggression of the type we have seen repeated over and over since Bill Clinton and his neocon cohorts invented the term "humanitarian intervention". A kinder gentler euphemism for waging an otherwise illegal and unethical war on a nation that has not threatened our national security.

 

I thought this was interesting:

"...released several days ago, is a Bloomberg global poll of investors, traders, and financial analysts. One can make one’s own assumptions about how representative this group is, or of what: I would take it to be part of the international capitalist business class, but not necessarily its top echelon. The group ranks geopolitical threats to world markets as follows: Global terrorism 26 percent; Russia-Ukraine 26 percent, Cybercrime 13 percent, Not Sure 10 percent, Islamic State 9 percent, South China Sea 6 percent, Major Weather Changes-climate change induced 6 percent, Iran 2 percent … equaled by Israel-Palestine 2 percent and exceeding Ebola at 1 percent. In other words, Iran is barely on the radar as a threat to peace and economic stability...."

How Obama Can Stop Netanyahu’s Iran War

 

Nevermind Russia and Ukraine signed treaties allowing up 25,000 Russian troops be stationed in Crimea well before your heros Obama and Soros decided to underwrite the violent coup that took place there. Lets just call it an "occupation" and hope no one goes to the trouble of digging up the "Black Sea Fleet Accords".

And let's hope no one ever brings up the "Partition Treaty" and if they do well, we'll just release the magical monkeys and make fun of them for believing actual evidence over the much repeated MSM "barnyard crap".

 

Since the "Budapest Referendum" was not ratified by the Senate and the president cannot make "treaties" without that ratification, it is non binding and unenforceable on, or by, the US.

 

Russia doesn't want Ukraine. It can't afford it.

On the other hand Russia can't allow NATO to park missiles aimed at Moscow right on it's border. Like it or not Russia has a legitimate reason for concern over it's own national security. America isn't the only nation on this planet that has the right to be concerned with it's own security.

Imagine the uproar you'd be causing if Russia overthrew the Mexican government, replaced it with an ultra nationalist government with neo communist militias that started killing everyone that might vote against them and parked military bases and missile batteries on our border aimed at Washington.

Russia is not the one going around doing the "regime change boogey" in other nations causing the deaths and displacement of millions of people. Washington is.

Russia is not surrounding the US with missile bases and making big threats and "sanctioning" us when we complain about it.

It's the other way around. Washington and NATO are guilty of being the "aggressors" not the Russians.

Why do you love swallowing the corporate media's lies so much do they really taste that good?

 

Obama is not going to help anyone except radical Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example.

So Russia has Crimea, Ukraine, and South Ossetia. Putin is still ugly and still a lying murderer, another Stalin.

 

Bingo.

Putin’s push into Ukraine is rational

"A hyper-aggressive Russia, in the view of some Americans, is setting off a new and dangerous Cold War. Loud voices in Washington depict the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, as a richly empowered thug who is using his vast resources to lash out against his neighbors, Europe, the United States and the world. In fact Putin is a dangerously weak thug who is desperately trying to prevent the consummation of a Washington-based plan to surround his country with unfriendly forces.

The immediate reason for American outrage at Russia is its intervention in Ukraine. Washington’s goal is to turn Ukraine and other countries bordering on Russia into political partners. That would bring Western power directly to Russia’s borders. American weaponry already stares into Russia from Latvia and Estonia. If Ukraine can be brought into NATO, as some in Washington openly hope, that would be another step toward the encirclement of Russia.

Rather than allow this to happen, Russia has mobilized its allies in Ukraine to resist. Russia’s enemies, based principally in Washington, consider this a form of aggression. Yet any Russian leader who allowed Ukraine to join an enemy alliance would be betraying his country’s vital security interests.

All countries try to prevent the emergence of enemies on or near their borders. They seek what geo-politicians call “strategic depth.” It means the seizure, overtly or covertly, of control over enough adjacent territory to protect their homeland.

Russia knows the value of “strategic depth” as well as any country on earth. It was invaded by Napoleon’s army in the 19th century and by Nazi Germany in the 20th century. The reason it brutally subjugated nations in Eastern Europe after World War II was that it wanted a buffer to prevent history from repeating itself.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the NATO alliance, which is dominated by the United States, saw its chance to advance against a prostrate Russia. Taking advantage of the trusting and naive Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the worst negotiators in modern history, NATO pushed Western military power into the Baltic states. The next step in this plan was to advance that power into Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

The Ukraine piece of this strategy nearly worked. In 2013 American-supported protesters succeeded in overthrowing Ukraine’s elected government. The new regime endorsed the idea of inviting anti-Russian forces into Ukraine. That raised the specter of more American weapons directly on Russia’s borders. No responsible Russian leader could tolerate this.

The United States, unlike Russia, respects the sovereignty of its neighbors — but only because they are friendly. If Mexico were to invite Russia to build a military base in Tijuana, or if Canada were to allow Chinese missiles to be deployed in Vancouver, the United States would certainly react. We would not wait to be attacked but would preempt the threat — by military means if necessary. This is precisely what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Rather than wait to be encircled, it is acting to defend its security perimeter.

These cold calculations are little comfort to suffering Ukrainians. Both of Ukraine’s main political factions — those favoring and opposing Russia — are sacrificing their country’s stability to big-power conflict. This does not perturb politicians or generals in Moscow and Washington. They are engaged in a high-stakes political battle in which the lives of ordinary people are expendable. Behind their crocodile tears, few Russian or American leaders care about Ukraine itself. They treat it as a pawn in big-power rivalry.

In the West, President Putin is often portrayed as a scheming despot determined to project Russian power as far as he can. That he is — but it is not the whole story. Putin leads a declining nation that is politically and militarily weak, riddled with corruption, and on the brink of economic collapse.

By pushing potentially hostile power onto Russia’s borders, Western leaders give Putin a chance to divert public attention away from his failures and cloak himself in the garb of Russian nationalism. Putin now enjoys sky-high approval ratings despite having guided his country into a pitiful morass.

Putin rules Russia in ways most Americans find repugnant, but his job is not to please Americans. Like any head of state or government, though, he must devote himself above all to defending his country against foreign power. Western support for Ukraine may be aimed in part at promoting democracy, but the parallel goal is to intimidate Russia. Putin is responding to this challenge. Before the United States sends weapons or military advisers to Ukraine, we should stop to consider how we would react if Russia did that in Mexico or Canada.

 

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.

Continue . . . http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

France: We poked the Russian bear with a stick and, unsurprisingly, Putin reacted - Farage

http://www.independent.co.uk/video/?videoid=4105305571001

Long story short. "We" as in Washington, NATO and the EU, poked the bear in the eye with a sharp stick then acted all surprised when it reacted in it's own interests then used the bear's reaction to build up a false narrative (lie) that the bear was the "aggressor" in this story all along.

I tried to make that easy enough that even a monkey can understand it. If the monkeys still can't understand it then I might suggest we get some smarter monkeys in here. Perhaps some monkeys that aren't so blinded by party politics, paranoia, patriotism, fear and hatred.

 

Oh, yes, Putin wanted the Ukraine. He also has eyes on Estonia and the other Baltic states. You may have had trouble noticing this due to his embalmed face. Don't worry, you cannot smell the stink that is Moscow over the internet.

 

I'm pretty sure we all know you know how to hate the unexceptional people CMG. Some us even know that that kind of hate can blind a monkey to reality.

Thank you for so vividly illustrating how that principle works once again. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Don't worry, Poncho, the Russians are okay except for Putin, who took Crimea, Ukraine, and South Ossetia. Putin is still ugly and still a lying murderer, another Stalin. Nobody likes KGB officers just as they didn't like Gestapo officers back in the day. Pray for the freedom of Estonia and the Baltic States.

 

I'm not worried at all. I have no trouble at all supporting my conclusions with real evidence. You? Well everyone can see what you base your conclusions on. Right now I'm kinda busy praying that the scales will fall off your eyes. Until that day comes the more you keep revealing how deep your hatred goes and that your "rebuttals" consist mainly of issuing thinly veiled insults the more people will see that's all you have to add to this discussion. So why should I worry?

All I have to do is keep posting evidence while you busy yourself at burying your own Baptist Board "credibility" in a shallow grave. :thumbs:

SEE THIS

 

A shallow grave is more than the Russians gave the people of Crimea, South Ossetia, and Ukraine.

 

When It Becomes Serious, First They Lie–When That Fails, They Arrest You

When lying is no longer enough to gain compliance, then the organs of security are unleashed on dissent and resistance.

“When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” Jean-Claude Juncker simply gave voice to what the world’s leaders practice on a daily basis, because now it’s always serious.

And why is it now serious? Persuading tax donkeys and debt serfs that everything is going their way is now impossible without lies. Persuading the populace that the leadership is working on their behalf was jettisoned in the wake of the 2008 bailout of bankers and parasites.

Stripped of the artifice that they care about anything other than preserving the wealth of their cronies, global political leaders now rely on propaganda: narratives designed to manage expectations and perceptions, bolstered by carefully tailored official statistics.

Reliance on lies erodes legitimacy. As the rich get richer and the burdens on tax donkeys and debt serfs increase, the gulf between the official happy-story narrative and reality widens to the breaking point, and faith in the narrative and the leadership espousing it declines.

When 20% of the populace no longer believe the lies and begins questioning the state’s enforcement of the status quo, the government devotes its resources to punishing dissenters and resisters.Whistleblowers are charged with trumped-up crimes; those publicly refuting the status quo’s narrative of lies are harassed and discredited, and those who resist state enforcement of parasitic cronyism are set up, beaten, entrapped, investigated, interrogated and arrested once suitably Kafkaesque charges can be conjured up by the apparatchiks of enforcement.

Why 20%? It’s the Pareto Distribution (the 80/20 rule): the 20% of any populace that accepts a new trend, technology or narrative has an outsized influence over the other 80%.

Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/becomes-serious-first-lie-fails-arrest.html

 

Putin, the world's leading thug who is so vain that he has a face full of botox and is called Botox Face by the world. The world hates the KGB and its twin brother the Gestapo.