Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says
Source: Reuters
LAKE SELIGER Russia (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Friday Russia's armed forces, backed by its nuclear arsenal, were ready to meet any aggression, declaring at a pro-Kremlin youth camp that foreign states should understand: "It's best not to mess with us."
*
"Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts," he said at the camp on the banks of Lake Seliger. "We don't want that and don't plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia.
"Russia's partners... should understand it's best not to mess with us," said Putin, dressed casually in a grey sweater and light blue jeans.
.. "Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers."
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-russia-ready-respond-aggression-123956691.html
Duck and cover.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
allan01
(1,950 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Joe Magarac
(297 posts)
C Moon
(13,643 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)Expect it to get even bigger.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)he's sounding more and more like the old cold war Soviet leaders.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)Hey sane Russian people, I think you know what you have to do.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Just curious.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)
Fred Drum
(293 posts)having elected G.W.Bush TWICE
WTF does that have to do with the citizens of Russia?
Fred Drum
(293 posts)"you" being everyone
IronGate
(2,186 posts)if they're opposed to his militaristic policies.
Fred Drum
(293 posts)you can try to vote them out , like gwb in 2004, sometimes they stay
its always easy to say " i would have voted them out "
" i " not being everyone
IronGate
(2,186 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
drray23
(8,758 posts)I would love to see that plot for the united states for federal and state levels.
I bet we would see two clusters like canada. After all we democrats usually win on high turnout and the rw favors low turnout.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
http://socks-studio.com/2012/01/27/mapping-frauds-statistical-detection-of-systematic-election-irregularities/
Each point on the chart represents a district and the turnout in that district.
The US is so spread out because we have a lot of districts, and turnout will vary wildly.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The American people as a whole voted for his opponent, by more than half a million votes. The Supreme Court is what "elected" bu$h.
Joe Magarac
(297 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Russia right now? US citizens didn't put Putin in office. That blanket you are stretching is about to tear down the middle.
Cha
(319,076 posts)kardonb
(777 posts)you have no idea what voting in todays Russia is like . I lived in East Germany in the 1940 . When you voted( and you were forced to vote ) , the voting boxes were literally bottomless . As soon as you left , those votes were looked at , and those unfavorable were simply discarded . That is how all elections for the ruling dictator are always 99% favorable .
Todays electronic voting systems are just as vulnerable to manipulation and falsification .
Looking at Putin's actions and pronouncements lately makes me think the man is going mental ; a case of megalomania , especially now that he threatens to use nuclear weapons .
kardonb
(777 posts)you have no idea what voting in todays Russia is like . I lived in East Germany in the 1940 . When you voted( and you were forced to vote ) , the voting boxes were literally bottomless . As soon as you left , those votes were looked at , and those unfavorable were simply discarded . That is how all elections for the ruling dictator are always 99% favorable .
Todays electronic voting systems are just as vulnerable to manipulation and falsification .
Looking at Putin's actions and pronouncements lately makes me think the man is going mental ; a case of megalomania , especially now that he threatens to use nuclear weapons .
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)gave up it nuclear deterrent and took Russia's word it would respect it's borders when they signed the pact to remove them. Russia has now broken that agreement and international law by blockading Ukraine's navy and storming them.
They have already annexed Crimea and will soon do the same for the east. Ukraine will be lucky to survive as an independent state.
This is the same thing that happened in Georgia and Moldova. Lost sections of their sovereign territory to Russia.
Chechnya wanted independence from Russia and was crushed by them and now the criticize Ukraine, how interesting.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)In this case, let go of the east. The United States would be so much further ahead if we had simply defeated the South in the Civil War, and then let the South secede. We have been paying for it ever since.
Ukraine might be much further ahead allowing a vote in the disputed areas, letting them secede if the majority chose to do so, and concentrate on "the future" of Ukraine. Otherwise, they are going to be suffering with instability in that region forever...just like we are still struggling with dragging the southern red states along even 150 years after we won the war.
Cut your losses and move on!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)if that would stop it there, I have a feeling it will not though.
This really is starting to remind me of the late 30's. Just give him some land and he will be happy and stop.
Fred Drum
(293 posts)i'm pretty sure you don't remember
you weren't born in the 20's were you?
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)in the 30's. I wasn't there, but the History is similar.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)When you have the majority of citizens speaking Russian, practicing Russian traditions and feel a bond with Russia...it might be time to consider some sort of balance....if it involves swapping land, monetary payment, etc. remember, we bought Alaska from the Russians because it made little sense for them to hold on to it...although I really don't know the story behind that one.
The trade off is a war against separatists, and a future of strife and division. Call me weak, but is cut bait at this point, and see if they could cancel their financial debt with Russia in trade?
Igel
(37,535 posts)Surveys, dependent and independent, have been consistent. Most Ukrainians, whatever their language, want to stay in Ukraine. Those in the East that want independence are partly just manipulated, but there were "Donetsk People's Republic" flags around in 2009, 2010, with training camps to train young men in how to use arms. So any attempt to say this mess is entirely the result of what was done in the Euromaidan has to explain how the Euromaidan reversed cause and effect. The *proposals* and *claims* from some fringe politicians at the time were billed as facts, as legislation and policies that were being implemented. This was what gave a minority's long-standing desires for war and secession a hook into popular sentiment. Even then, only in a couple of Russian-dominated urban centers did polling show more than 50% backed "greater autonomy or secession." Some willfully and transiently deaf only heard a gentle buzzing while the words "greater autonomy or" were said.
Unless we're willing to nationalize the people there and say, "We own you, slaves, and we're going to sell you" then all you're doing is what was done in previous eras of empire: It's convenient for great powers to move borders and tell the people there they have no voice.
After WWII USSR got a big slice of Poland because of this, and we shifted part of Germany into Poland and into Russia (Kaliningrad, that thorn in the side of the Balts and Poles). We told a bunch of Italians they were now in Slovenia, "get out!" and did the same for Slovenes in Itality. We moved bits of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, into Ukraine--they were mostly Ukrainian, because that's where "we" put the borders after the previous war.
kelly1mm
(5,756 posts)nations can do anything without threat of a military response. If I was a non-nuclear nation that was depending of treaty/agreements with other nations for my defense, I would be developing nuclear weapons ASAP. I am thinking of Japan, Finland, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, ect ....
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)the fact is that the US militarists have really provoked Russia.
What would the US do if Russia played a major role in removing
a democratically elected government in Mexico, and then started
to arm the usurpers preparing for conflict against the US?
Analysts and peace-makers have been calling for a
de-militarized zone in Central Europe for more than twenty
years - such as former NATO commander Gen. John Galvin, who
called for a new Marshall Plan in the early 1990's to "make
Russia a permanent friend".
He was ignored.
It's amazing how the MSM continues to get snookered by the
militarists.
This message brought to you by Veterans For Peace.
We can hear the loud MSM drumbeats of war once again.
Thankfully, America has a much-needed President right now who doesn't "do stupid shit."
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)What would Russia do if the US played a major role in removing a democratically elected government in Ukraine, and then started
to arm the usurpers preparing for conflict against Russia?
So far, neither situation has actually happened. So we're talking hypotheticals all around.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)So what's your question?
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)Please, proceed governor.
candelista
(1,986 posts)As Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made clear in her speech last December and in the leaked recording of her telephone conversation with the US ambassador in Kiev, Washington spent $5 billion of US taxpayer dollars engineering a coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected democratic government.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/26/the-crisis-in-ukraine/
Transcript of leaked phone call here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)this inconvenient fact will be ignored or dismissed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)in Ukraine.
"Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations," she said. "We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."
Our ruling
Contrary to claims, the United States did not spend $5 billion to incite the rebellion in Ukraine.
That’s a distorted understanding of remarks given by a State Department official. She was referring to money spent on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since it broke off from the Soviet Union in 1991.
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/
The $5 billion was spent over 22 years in Ukraine as it has in many countries. It did not spend $5 just to "engineering a coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected democratic government".
candelista
(1,986 posts)The big money came toward the end of those 22 years, when the US wanted to overthrow the government.
pampango
(24,692 posts)In fact the $5.1 billion was spread out over those 22 years and it was given TO the Ukrainian government. No one really contends otherwise (except perhaps "your source"
. Did the Yanukovich administration decide to use these US funds, that had been coming to the Ukrainian government for 20+ years, to overthrow himself? Seems a rather strange conspiracy theory.
And is "your source" a secret one or can you share it so that we can compare the facts that both our sources use to reach their conclusions?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"If a man will continue to insist two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument to stop him."
former9thward
(33,424 posts)the guardian of the Truth. Liberals try to get something more substantial. Liberals do not use ad hominem attacks like bringing up climate change in a thread about Ukraine.
pampango
(24,692 posts)we could "compare the facts that both our sources use to reach their conclusions". I did not say that my "anonymous person on a website" was "the guardian of the Truth" or even that my source is better than your source. But I do not accept that the other poster's unspecified source is such a 'guardian' either without seeing it and the facts used to reach its conclusion. Does that not seem like something a liberal would do?
Agreed - like the identity of the source and the facts used in its conclusions.
We all know that many conservatives make up their minds on a policy or issue (like climate change) first then filter everything in a way that supports that conclusion. "Facts" are 'real' if they support their predetermined mindset and 'liberal lies' if they contradict their mindset. Or "Scientists say climate change is real but Rush tells me that it is all a liberal lie. You have your sources and I have mine."
To me climate change denial is a classic example of conservatives' use of fear and emotion to drive their political agenda rather than trying to determine the facts behind an issue first and forming political policy based on those facts. I prefer to believe that liberals are much, much less like to engage in that tactic than conservatives are. You may disagree.
If there was a better way for me to make that point without actually mentioning climate change denial, I should have done that.
Cha
(319,076 posts)Thank you, pampango
pampango
(24,692 posts)elections in December. He still controlled the army and security forces. Why exactly did he leave? He was in no danger. I know the Ukrainian armed forces are not the best in the world - they are proving that now - but surely they could handle a plaza full of protesters.
A hint might be what the Crimean leader said the day before Yanukovych decided that an "I'm ready to leave now" coup was in order.
The chairman of the Supreme Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov traveled to Moscow where he announced that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will secede from Ukraine if there would change of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution
I wonder whom Konstantinov met with in Moscow and what agreement they reached. Just when Russia and Crimea needed a 'coup' in Kiev it miraculously happened within 24 hours, even though the president had no reason to leave and had just agreed to stay in office for another 10 months. A skeptic might read that timing quite beneficial to Russia since Russia ended up annexing Crimea.
Yanukovych has gone on to a safe and prosperous exile in Russia for a job well done.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Because you cannot have this both ways. If Putin is reacting properly to some provocation, than anyone else similarly provoked, and reacting in similar fashion, is just as right to do so as he is.
Thus, for example, all U.S. activities against Castro's Cuba were wholly proper reactions which left and progressive people should support as well within bounds for the United States; similarly nothing the United States did in Nicaragua, or even in Chile, was anything more than proper response to provocation. Even today, attempts by the United States to subvert the Venezuelan government must be regarded as being wholly within bounds of proper behavior by a great power, faced with a neighbor moving, or moved, out of its sphere of economic and political dominance.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)with the exception of Cuba. What we did to Allende was totally unacceptable, unless we keep sticking to the old Cold War excuse.
The Ukraine, at least the Eastern part was Old Rus, which most Russians believe to belong into Russia. There is no comparison possible to the US having been founded in Nicaragua or Venezuela. The Fact that Russia does not want Western missiles on its borders should be self evident and therefore we have to deal with Russia in ways other than with aggression.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)At least with any consistency and honesty.
The grounds offered are exactly the same: Russia has a right to its sphere of influence, political and military and economic, and regardless of the wishes of anyone else. That has always been the claim of the United States in the Western Hemisphere.
Russia, the political entity centered in Moscow, did not gain control of Ukraine until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prior to that it was a possession of Poland and Lithuania, and before that, there is no real connection, the Kievan Rus were Scandinavian overlords who lived by slaving the local inhabitants down the river to the Middle Eastern markets. In the early nineteenth century, the U.S. took as many runs at taking over various Central American country's as it did Cuba, and since the Monroe Doctrine, we have laid claim to exclusive military and political control, if not economic dominion, over the whole of Latin America. Russia's attitude towards Central Europe is no different. One cannot be supported while the other is opposed, without resort to some seriously ugly special pleading, question begging, and outright mendacity.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I don't trust an old KGB master at all, therefore I talk only about Russia. I don't support what is being done in the Ukraine, but put quite a bit of blame on the West as well. As far as I can see we can rant at Putin all we want, but in this case at least he will probably get what he wants.
Just as a piece of information: Did we not disavow the Monroe Doctrine? I am not clear on that.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)I am of the view 'blame on the West' is highly exaggerated in this, and certainly that the moves which committed the situation to war were Putin's, and no one else's. The decision to seize Crimea, and encourage and arm secessionists, were his.
I will repeat, that people who do defend his actions, have no ground whatever to complain of actions by the United States, or anyone else, based on the same sphere of influence arguments: if these are valid for one, they are valid for all. I have for months now been watching people who not only hold themselves out as leftists and progressives, but more left and progressive than the average run, employ exactly the same arguments used by the United States for interventions in Central and Latin America in defense of Russian intervention in the Ukraine, and without the slightest evidence they are aware of employing a double standard, or that double standards ought not to be employed, at least by honest folk.
To the best of my knowledge we have never repudiated the Monroe Doctrine, and its lineaments can still be discerned in our policies towards Latin America.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I knew I heard it not too long ago. "The time of the Monroe Doctrine is over." Secretary of State Kerry on Nov.19th,2013.
Sorry, but I had to google it first.
I am not sure though that he is the one who can decide it.
Thanks for the discussion!
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Glad to learn he said it, though It seems hard to detect any effect, especially in Venezuela and Honduras.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)don't have a contiguous border with the US with the exception of Mexico.
So there is no double standard here.
What we did in Guatemala, Chile and Venezuela is inexcusable because there is no contiguous border. If Putin did this in say, Morocco or Tunisia, I'd not look at it so benevolently. However, Ukraine is next door to Russia and we have no business meddling there.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Strategic doctrine has long held that connection by water differs in no wise from connection by land; in fact, in many circumstances, water offers easier access for projection of power and economic exploitation. Your argument is simply a special pleading, trying to carve out an alternate definition so you can have your anti-imperialist cake and eat your pro-imperialist cake too. What the U.S. has done in Guatemala, Chile, and Venezuela is inexcusable because it is wrong, because it is an imposition on another country we have no right but that of might to do. What Putin is doing in Ukraine is wrong, and wrong in exactly the same way. Yet it suits you somehow to condemn the one and support the other. The only way that can be the expression of a consistent and honest position is to say: 'I oppose the United States, and support Russia, so from this partisan stance, I see it as very wrong for the United States to force its will on a neighbor, and I see it as perfectly all right for Russia to force its will on a neighbor --- I am interested in the outcome only, not in what is done or even to what end it is done. If it benefits the side I support, it is good and right and proper, and if it benefits the side I oppose, it is bad and wrong and beastly.' Doing so would at least have the virtue of honesty and forthrightness, and avoid this shabby business of dodging and weaving in the tall grass....
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I am not supporting Russia and/or Putin one bit.
I am stating a position that it was wrong for US and the West to meddle in Ukraine and that Ukraine has been hoisted on its own petard.
The US position is specious because it is one thing to throw a rock at a known pit bull and have the pit bull bite you and quite another to throw a rock at a pit bull and the pit bull tears up a nearby teenager and you threw the rock knowing very well that you couldn't possibly help that teenager. The CIA expected the pit bull hit with a rock to just whimper, put its tail between its legs and walk away. Well, the CIA guessed wrong.
Now, we have emboldened said teenager who is throwing more rocks at the angry pit bull, we still cannot help and are busy complaining about the pit bull. The outcome is certain for anyone astute enough to see it.
The Yanukovytch status quo was infinitely better for Ukraine but the PNAC people's greed just simply had to make the pit bull angry.
In the end, Ukraine, a small and poor country has two choices - 1) be exploited by American and European interests after being dismembered or 2) be exploited by Russian interests while keeping the country together. Exploitation is inevitable - just ask the Greeks.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)We may safely leave to one side your claims of fact, that Ukraine's actions are the result of the CIA and the US, save to note that they make even more likely the actual position you are proceeding from is that of the honest partisan stated above.
Since your comments amount to an endorsement of the propriety of Russian actions in this, your claim to be neither defending nor supporting these cannot be taken too seriously. What is needed is a statement that Russian aggression and imperialism is wrong, rather than a statement that it is only to be expected in response to U.S. imperialism. An open and honest partisan could say that, but not someone in the posture of an opponent of imperialism and exploitation.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Are you one of those "open borders liberals" that I hear conservatives talk about so much? It sounds like you don't put much value in the border between the US and Mexico. If we have special rights to meddle in Mexico because we have a contiguous border with it, do Mexicans have special rights to come to the US? Or are "special rights" a one-way street?
No what we did in Guatemala, Chile and Venezuela (or Ukraine) is inexcusable because it is inexcusable everywhere no matter who does it and where it is done. Whether their borders are continuous to the US or Russia is irrelevant. International law does not give strong countries special privileges to bully smaller, weaker countries that have the misfortune to be located right next door.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)but the world never runs on idealism. It runs on negotiated settlements of each country's national interest.
In my pragmatic world, everyone is not equal because they cannot be. A bank that gives a loan to a person cannot be equals because one will always have more power than the other. Same goes for big boys (or girls) vs little boys (or girls.)
If President Obama announces a news conference, reporters from all over the world attend and cover it. If the king of Tonga gives a news conference, he would be lucky if the local newspaper sends someone. Doesn't mean President Obama is a better human being than the King of Tonga. It only means he wields more power and is thus treated differently.
Thus, Russia's national interests trump Ukraine's national interest and Ukraine has to live with that since no other power is going to risk its own national interest (including the USA) for Ukraine's. It is as simple as that. It shouldn't be that way in a utopian world that you espouse and I respect that idealism.
pampango
(24,692 posts)interests trump Ukraine's national interest ..."
I doubt many liberals would disagree with you with respect to how the world actually is. However, I believe that most liberals do not accept that "everyone is not equal" and that the interests of the strong trump the interests of the weak. To me that seems to be the opposite of liberalism.
Most liberals would define liberalism as striving to make the world (our country, our state, our city, our neighborhood) a better place rather than pragmatically accepting the inequality that exists. It does not seem to me that most liberals spend their time justifying the current inequities as opposed to exposing those inequities and trying to do something to correct them.
To me your "pragmatism" sounds a lot like conservatism (or worse) but perhaps others disagree. Conservatives typically will grant what an 'ideal' world might be like but that the 'real world' of selfishness, greed and 'every man for himself' makes conservative government laws and policies necessary. They spend little time discussing how to move 'reality' in an 'ideal' direction.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I have no control over the big domain and thus efforts on changing it are not as fruitful as working on a smaller scale where I can make a difference. I strive for equality in the workplace, lack of discrimination in programs that affect people, a woman's right to choose and universal healthcare. My efforts are likely to be rewarded far more in those areas than a zero chance of changing Putin's or Poroshenko's mind.
pampango
(24,692 posts)but not domestically? I think I must be misunderstanding you.
If you are saying that ""Russia's national interests trump Ukraine's national interest ..." only because you can do nothing about it but you do not believe it is morally acceptable, I can understand that.
I suspect we agree that the interests of powerful entities (Wall Street or Russia) do not fundamentally trump the interests of smaller entities (citizens or Ukraine). Liberals understand that, in reality, powerful interests do trump weaker ones but we do not excuse that or accept it. While you and I may have little power on a national scale and even less on a global scale, the principles stay the same.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I don't find it morally acceptable that powerful entities can trump lesser interests but that is the way it is in nature and has been throughout history.
I don't think a lion should have first dibs at a kill than a hyena but lions do. They will scare the hyenas away and steal their finds.
I don't think the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Moguls, the Dutch, the British, the Americans and the Russians (and now the Chinese) should have in the past and should now, as the case may be, dictate to the rest of the world.
There is nothing I can do about it. Whether I find it acceptable and whether I accept it are two separate things. I can accept unacceptable things just as I cannot accept some morally acceptable things such as the death penalty.
The case of Ukraine is a bit complicated. I don't think the citizens of Ukraine have ever been asked what they want. Ukraine became a pawn in the East-West game and particularly American bravado of wanting to expand NATO. The West is losing.
I don't think the life of an average Ukrainian would be significantly different no matter who wins as long as someone does and the conflict is over.
pampango
(24,692 posts)interests, then we agree. Neither of us may like that power imbalance any more than we like Wall Street's influence. We may not be able to change either, but have to accept reality as it is.
However, that acceptance of reality should neither not stop us from commenting on the unfairness of that reality nor urging policies (without any real power to cause their adoption) that would make the world a better place. I think DU might dry up and blow away if we all stopped posting about things that we find morally offensive but have little personal power to do anything about. 
)
I would still disagree that the laws of nature as they apply to lions in the wild should govern human and international relations. That seems too much like the 'dog-eat-dog', 'every-man (country)-for-himself' dogma that conservatives and neo-con policy hawks are always selling to convince us that we have to cut taxes for the rich and invade other countries because they are animals (or terrorists or fascists or communists, etc.).
I think liberal and all other Ukrainians will 'live better' in a generation as Europeans than as Russians, if current levels of income, income equality, social safety nets and military policy are any indication. Of course the same thing could be said about being better off in a generation living like Europeans rather than like Americans or Russians. The latter two waste so much money on defense spending and have terrible levels of income inequality.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Yes we would be on verge of war if Russia was in MX doing what we are doing in Ukraine.
Look at how many countries we've invaded and destroyed in the last 10 years.
I think Putin has every right to be concerned.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
samsingh
(18,426 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)He states the facts and knows full well that NATO will not do a thing. He has the upper hand in this whole deal, and the West was just too greedy and stupid enough to meddle.
The clear message here is: The Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO. This is easily understood, if you consider that Russia does not tolerate Western missiles at its borders.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
samsingh
(18,426 posts)he's not going to stop with Ukraine.
candelista
(1,986 posts) cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Cha
(319,076 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Who's invading who?
Is there oil in the Ukraine?
I think those of us living in glass country shouldn't be casting stones.
I seem to remember a plan about the USA invading 7 (oil) countries in 5 years.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Source: Gen. Wesley Clark.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Igel
(37,535 posts)That's the argument?
There are large reserves of natural gas in the territorial waters associated with Crimea. Among the first Russian officials and other sent to Crimea after annexation were those associated with the natural gas industry. Shortly after that, it was announced that the more difficult task of exploring in Siberia would be abandoned. Unsaid: "We have a lot of natural gas that's really easy to get to Europe and the Middle East, why should we explore and exploit in a bad climate far from our markets when we can explore and exploit in a nice climate close to our market."
The Donbas is also home to shale gas. The Yuzovsk formation, or something like that. (Donetsk is a new name; it used to be called Stalino, back in the day that the rebels long for; before that it was Yuzovsk, IIRC, and was named after the founder of the large ironworks built there in the late 1800s and the town that sprang up as a result. That man's surname was Hughes, he was British, and the ironworks was built and funded by him and his colleagues.)
More to the point, however: Would you object to a convicted rapist stopping another man from raping a woman? ("You there! Stop interfering with that man. You raped a woman once, and that means you have absolutely no moral authority to stop that rape!"
Or how's this: There was a history in the US of racism and slavery. A fair number would say that while overt slavery is abolished, we still have a reasonable amount of racism going on. And "wage slavery," "sex slavery," and other kinds of slavery--much of which has a racial or ethnic cast to it. And yet the US was against South African apartheid. How's that for hypocritical? No American had any right to criticize the de Klerk (or previous apartheid governments) or support Mandela. Because we live in a class house and shouldn't cast stones. Do you like that kind of reasoning? No?
It's not all about us and our personal sense of guilt. Sometimes it's just okay for a murderer to stop a murder.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)You Analogy on rape is ridiculous but whatever floats your boat.
This the USA helping big oil companies.
I don't know what country your from or if u work for an oil company/natural gas.
We (USA) have supported drilling world wide and woe be the country/politician that stands up to the billionaires.
If you think Iraq/Afghanistan was just because of 911 think again.
Oil
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Want us at war with you.It's not Obama who is beating the war drums he has better sense
"Don't do stupid shit"
Bragi
(7,650 posts)He's speaking truth to global idiots who seem to be getting ahead of themselves.
I am grateful that Bush is gone, and President Obama is in charge.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)appear as friends, however, so as to infiltrate ordinary lives. They are very good, even speak our own language. Might be the next one that addresses you somewhere.
Watch your back may be better advice than duck and cover.
ColesCountyDem
(6,944 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Real men (and women) aren't afraid of a little nuclear combat! What's a few hundred mega-deaths when it comes to showing them damn Russkies who's in charge? Let's get at em boys!
(yes, it's satire)
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I put my odds on the USA.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)What possible pot could be worth the incalculable risk of calling him on it?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Here is what you wrote just this morning:
It is a personal hatred of Russia on the part of some . . .
Russian laws have insulted their life style, so they demand we fight a third World War to assuage their wounded pride.
I, for one, am not ready to get on that particular bandwagon.
A. L.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014881926#post185
A flat statement that laws establishing persecution of gay people are no more than 'insult to their life-style', and that gay people are pressing for WWIII to 'assuage their wounded pride'....
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Are you going to make me call you on it?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)You are on record as believing that laws establishing persecution of gay people are no more than 'insult to their life-style', and that gay people are pressing for WWIII to 'assuage their wounded pride'....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014881926#post185
It is a personal hatred of Russia on the part of some . . .
Russian laws have insulted their life style, so they demand we fight a third World War to assuage their wounded pride.
I, for one, am not ready to get on that particular bandwagon.
A. L.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)(sigh)
DinahMoeHum
(23,607 posts)on a city. At least the US, for a fucking change, won't get blamed for every single problem out there in the world.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Instead we talk to one another and settle our differences by negotiation. Shouldn't kids today at least have a chance to live and grow for a little while?
DinahMoeHum
(23,607 posts). . .instead of his penis?
And that goes for the whole GOP and half the Democrats, as well.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If you please?
DinahMoeHum
(23,607 posts). . .do the thinking for the big head above the shoulders.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Too many, indeed.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)This is a fair question on your part . .
"Do you speak for all the Veterans For Peace?"
No, I do not, but VFP has taken a stand on the
issue that is pretty much identical to mine.
It states in part . .
"We are appalled at the misinformation coming from the U.S. government officials and the mass media alike. The American people are not being told the truth: that the U.S. and western European nations bear much responsibility for this crisis by aggressively expanding NATO, even to the borders of Russia; that neo-Nazi militias played key roles in the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government, that those same right-wing extremists now hold key positions in the interim Ukrainian government, which is being advised by CIA and FBI agents as it attacks Russian-speaking activists in eastern Ukraine, now conveniently labeled “terrorists.”
Here is a link to the entire statement . .
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/826/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15691
Peace will not be achieved by supporting militarism. Never has, never will.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We should all support this statement and this stand on the issue one hundred percent.
NO MORE WAR!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Let us lead by example, but we have not. Comparing the body count since 2001, I'd hazard a guess that we are ahead of Russia by 100 times.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)it helps in every situation to be realistic about an issue.
Corgigal
(9,298 posts)or any medical attention to his brain? I would hate to think all of us on this planet could be in danger because a person who has access to the nuclear button has a brain lesion.
Just thinking.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)His popularity in Russia is surging.
reflection
(6,287 posts)the whole article would center around ZOMG HE WORE A GREY SWEATER AND BLUE JEANS.
louis-t
(24,618 posts)puffing their chests out. 
MFM008
(20,042 posts)is full of dooty.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)
Monk06
(7,675 posts)nation on the surface of the planet (sic)" That was meant to remind Russia that they lost the cold war and the US was a unitary superpower accountable to no nation or international body.
Putin's bellicosity rather pales by comparison.
Cha
(319,076 posts)Oh, and two wrongs don't make a fucking right.. or do they?
Joe Magarac
(297 posts)... we really don't have to deal with him any more.
Do you suppose Putin will be impressed by you guys blaming it all on Bush?
Does President Obama do that (hint: no)?
kiranon
(1,739 posts)won't be there to help. And, can't believe ISIS/ISIL doesn't have those regions as areas to conquer in its plans. Putin is a fool to invade the Ukraine. He is a fool not to turn towards Europe for trade and the future. What a backward looking leader he has become or perhaps always was. IMHO
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The West (generally speaking, of course) only wants to own what Russia has.
That is an obvious simplification of the World we live in, but still largely accurate.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Unfortunately this info is lost on many.
roamer65
(37,953 posts)I'm not a Putin lover, on the contrary. However, the 21st century power is going to be China.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)If all he's got is "We've got nukes! We'll nuke ya!" then he's just Kim Jong Un ruling people with fatter bellies.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Google translation:
Pivdenmash said, if Russia does not take away his mercenaries and will not release all of the city for 5 days, then they will give all the information regarding the so-called nuclear protection of Russia to NATO and the United States together with all codes and frequencies for track and destroy missiles !!!
The Russians may not be aware of, but thanks only to Ukraine, Russia has this nuclear defense, 85% of which Ukraine can block!
Reference:
State Enterprise "Production Association" Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant "named after AM Makarov" (Pivdenmash) - large Ukrainian companies for the production of rocket and space technology and other high-tech products, located in Dnepropetrovsk.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Felise.com.ua%2F%3Fp%3D32566&edit-text=
Unbelievable that a newspaper would actually publish this, but a prominent member of the Greens (he actually was in the Bundestag Defense Committee) buying into this in his fervor to please Transatlantic Big Brother is just nuts.
In other news of the day:
The former head of the State Property Fund, was found dead at his home in the village of Seagulls (Kiev Svyatoshinsky area) on Wednesday evening.
http://molbuk.ua/ukraine/77750-smert-valentyny-semenyuk-rozsliduyut-yak-umysne-ubyvstvo.html
Semeniuk had incriminated the mafia queen Timoshenko in the trial that was meant to put her away for a while. But as we know, thanks to EU help she is now roaming in the wild again.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)When the U.S. government has done so at least 15 times . .
http://web.net/~cnanw/a6.htm
Not to mention actually using them on civilians.
Some of you folks have your chauvinism showing . .
Join Veterans For Peace