The Ukraine - This Ain't No Board Game Of RISK...!


Selene

Recommended Posts

On the pretext of saving Russian lives, President Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea with soldiers and then ratified possibly wider use of military force in Ukraine with a unanimous vote of his rubber-stamp upper chamber of parliament on March 1.

Members of the Russian Federation Council said that their nation's troops are needed to protect the safety of millions of ethnic Russians in Ukraine and that the soldiers should stay until "the constitutional order is restored in Ukraine," which hints at a possible Russian attempt to return to power Viktor Yanukovych, ousted as Ukraine's president on Feb. 22, or install another Kremlin-friendly leader.

Despite the strong Kremlin rhetoric, there is no evidence that ethnic Russians are in any danger in Ukraine more than anybody else.

Federation Council members heaped scorn on the EuroMaidan Revolution that ousted Yanukovych, condemning the activists as fascists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis, and said that the Western-financed Ukrainian uprising needed to be stopped before it spread to Russia. There was, of course, no mention among Moscow officials of Yanukovych's alleged complicity in the deaths of nearly 100 EuroMaidan protesters in the last month as well as his administration's increasingly well-documented corrupt rule.

Anyone have any theory as to what is actually going on here?

http://www.kyivpost.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Adam wrote about the Ukraine:

Anyone have any theory as to what is actually going on here?

end quote

Hegemony. 2: the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group. It is astounding there are so many parallels between Putin and Stalin. Stalin forcibly moved Russians into the Ukraine to “prove” it was part of the Soviet Empire and now Putin is justifying force to protect the ethnic Russian population moved there by force.

Since Our El Presidente authorized drones to kill the bad guys he has become quite the woose. Putin has no fear except than John Kerry will bluster. Yet is there anything you would do? Do we have any economic leverage? Not much compared to THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. Emphasis added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk is a game I enjoy but I think many of the strategies used in that game are being used by Mr. KGB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Adam,

Agreed. He will try to get away with whatever he can. I put nothing past this p.o.s.

-Joe (aka Luigi Vegasi)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Adam,

Agreed. He will try to get away with whatever he can. I put nothing past this p.o.s.

-Joe (aka Luigi Vegasi)

I tell you, with this occupant of the White House it is beginning to look more and more like

Come Nineveh, Come Tyre by Allen Drury every day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Adam,

Agreed. He will try to get away with whatever he can. I put nothing past this p.o.s.

-Joe (aka Luigi Vegasi)

I tell you, with this occupant of the White House it is beginning to look more and more like

Come Nineveh, Come Tyre by Allen Drury every day...

You've reminded me that I want to read that book, although it might be too depressing, considering where we are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Adam,

Agreed. He will try to get away with whatever he can. I put nothing past this p.o.s.

-Joe (aka Luigi Vegasi)

I tell you, with this occupant of the White House it is beginning to look more and more like

Come Nineveh, Come Tyre by Allen Drury every day...

You've reminded me that I want to read that book, although it might be too depressing, considering where we are today.

Remember The Promise of Joy is the other scenario and uplifting in a Reaganesque manor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia will not compromise their control of warm water ports on the Black Sea.

Putin knows he needs population also.

Adam,

Agreed. He will try to get away with whatever he can. I put nothing past this p.o.s.

-Joe (aka Luigi Vegasi)

I tell you, with this occupant of the White House it is beginning to look more and more like

Come Nineveh, Come Tyre by Allen Drury every day...

You've reminded me that I want to read that book, although it might be too depressing, considering where we are today.

Remember The Promise of Joy is the other scenario and uplifting in a Reaganesque manor.

How does one lead a rational life in an irrational world? I remember AR addressed that question. Easier said than done though.

Difficult to stay positive when the ship is taking on massive amounts of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda

Interestingly, the message from authoritarian regimes in Moscow and Kiev was not so different from some of what was written during the uprising in the English-speaking world, especially in publications of the far left and the far right. From Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review through Ron Paul’s newsletter through The Nation and The Guardian, the story was essentially the same: little of the factual history of the protests, but instead a play on the idea of a nationalist, fascist, or even Nazi coup d’état.

Interesting article:

In power, this leader, this president, remained a thief, but now on a grand, perhaps even unsurpassed, scale. Throughout his country millions of small businessmen and businesswomen found it impossible to keep their firms afloat, thanks to the arbitrary demands of tax authorities. Their profits were taken by the state, and the autonomy that those profits might have given them were denied. Workers in the factories and mines had no means whatsoever of expression their own distress, since any attempt at a strike or even at labor organization would simply have led to their dismissal.

The country, Ukraine, was in effect an oligarchy, where much of the wealth was in the hands of people who could fit in one elevator. But even this sort of pluralism, the presence of more than one very rich person, was too much for the leader, Viktor Yanukovych. He wanted to be not only the president but the oligarch-in-chief. His son, a dentist, was suddenly one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Tens of billions of dollars simply disappeared from the state budget. Yanukovych built for himself a series of extravagant homes, perhaps the ugliest in architectural history.

A Peter Keating "Original" [well sort of an original combination of stolen ideas, yeah...original]:

yanukovych-house_jpg_600x654_q85.jpg

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/?insrc=hpss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only surprise in the "Ukrainian crisis" is the date of its start. It was inevitable for a number of reasons. Although the Ukrainians would like to hide it, the fact is that prior to WW I, there was no Ukraine as an independent entity. Not ever. The region was fought over by neighboring countries until it was finally swallowed whole by Russia. As a part of the Russian Emire, it was a province named "Little Russia." (which ought to make it clear how the Great Russians regarded the region.and the Ukrainian lanuage which they view as merely a dialect of Russian).

Both Russia and the Ukraine claim a common ancestry, the Principality of Kiev Rus, which was founded by the Varangians (Vikings). Not surprisingly, both claim the city of Kiev as an essential part of their history.

Currently, only the western half of Ukraine speak Ukrainian. The eastern half (and the Crimea) speaks Russian, and would most likely vote to join Russia proper.

Putin was formerly an official in the KGB, and of course was at that time a loyal Communist. I do not believe that he ever formally denounced either the Soviet Union or Communism, merely switching his allegiances, like a good Machiavellian, when the Soviet Union fell apart, to Russia. It would not be surprising if Putin finds a reason to "protect" these people from the western Ukrainian speaking half, and annexes it to Russia, either by de facto or outright annexation.

Finally, Putin does not fear reaction to his moves by the West or certainly from Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.

Quite similar to Hitler's move to seize the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, to "protect" those Germans from being oppressed by the Czechs. And the West did nothing as they did nothing when Soviet Tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Communist rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite similar to Hitler's move to seize the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, to "protect" those Germans from being oppressed by the Czechs. And the West did nothing as they did nothing when Soviet Tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Communist rule.

I was ten and we had a short wave and I can remember how ashamed I felt when we did nothing. I was talking to a young man over there and I could hear the crackle of gun fire in the back ground.

The young man was begging for help against Soviet tanks. I never heard from him again.

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.

Quite similar to Hitler's move to seize the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, to "protect" those Germans from being oppressed by the Czechs. And the West did nothing as they did nothing when Soviet Tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Communist rule.

I've asked this on another thread; in order to best serve the security interests of its own citizens, what specifically should the United States government do with regard to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine? How much U.S. blood and treasure should be gambled in order to put the Russian leader in his place?

Furthermore, how much credibility does the "leader of the free world" have, when his own government has a history of turning the landscape red in order to bring secessionist pieces back into the fold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.

Quite similar to Hitler's move to seize the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, to "protect" those Germans from being oppressed by the Czechs. And the West did nothing as they did nothing when Soviet Tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Communist rule.

I've asked this on another thread; in order to best serve the security interests of its own citizens, what specifically should the United States government do with regard to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine?

And I answered you. Very simply, executive action against Putifn.

I meant it. It would, even if it missed, put real fear into this KGB thug.

Might as well pay them back for JFK.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the MSM start changing their tune when they realize that Obama will do nothing to stop Putin's moves to reacquire some or all of the the Soviet Union's republics. Suddenly, the Ministry of Truth (MSM) will "redefine" the issue as Russia going to the aid of those unfortunate Russians now oppressed by the Ukrainians (with the same process reoccurring in Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc., etc.

Quite similar to Hitler's move to seize the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, to "protect" those Germans from being oppressed by the Czechs. And the West did nothing as they did nothing when Soviet Tanks crushed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Communist rule.

I've asked this on another thread; in order to best serve the security interests of its own citizens, what specifically should the United States government do with regard to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine?

And I answered you. Very simply, executive action against Putifn.

I meant it. It would, even if it missed, put real fear into this KGB thug.

Might as well pay them back for JFK.

A...

I don't recall either Castro or Qaddafi becoming a fount of sweetness and light in the wake of the CIA's near misses on their heads. Nor do I believe that oligarchies crumble when a single member succumbs to the bullet or the poisoned claret.

If the U.S. truly believes in local control and self-determination, what about secession for Gaza and the West Bank or for that matter Randy Weaver?

Finally, cui bono? How does the average U.S. citizen benefit from Putin's death? Does he become freer, more prosperous?

Or does he become another cog in the war machine as the U.S. ratchets up the garrison state in response to Russian blowback and a new cold war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall either Castro or Qaddafi becoming a fount of sweetness and light in the wake of the CIA's near misses on their heads. Nor do I believe that oligarchies crumble when a single member succumbs to the bullet or the poisoned claret.

Really? Castro was able to do nothing after the Missile Crisis. He was isolated and except for a stream of aid from the Soviets and China, he could barely do much other than torture his own people and entertain the Columbine producer.

Qaddafi cooperated with the US with intelligence and basically stayed in the sand dunes. Another local thug who was kept in check.

As to your attempting to shift the argument to unrelated issues, not interested.

Randy Weaver...geez that was a real smokescreen thrown into this discussion about Putin and Executive Action.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall either Castro or Qaddafi becoming a fount of sweetness and light in the wake of the CIA's near misses on their heads. Nor do I believe that oligarchies crumble when a single member succumbs to the bullet or the poisoned claret.

Really? Castro was able to do nothing after the Missile Crisis. He was isolated and except for a stream of aid from the Soviets and China, he could barely do much other than torture his own people and entertain the Columbine producer.

Qaddafi cooperated with the US with intelligence and basically stayed in the sand dunes. Another local thug who was kept in check.

As to your attempting to shift the argument to unrelated issues, not interested.

Randy Weaver...geez that was a real smokescreen thrown into this discussion about Putin and Executive Action.

A...

The attempts on Castro's life were not operations merely to isolate him but to remove him and the communists from power. Many of the attempts were part of Operation Mongoose. Here is a link to a State Dept. memo who states that the goal was "help the Cubans overthrow the Communist regime." The attempts failed, the people of Cuba remained slaves to the government, and Castro did not become one bit nicer.

Nor did Gaddafi become nicer as a result of assassination attempts. He joined the War on Terror only because Islamic radicals were after his own head.

The fundamental question is what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government? If the principle is that a group of people should be allowed to determine their own political destiny without interference from a major military power, then the U.S. would do well to examine its own record and present policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question is what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government? If the principle is that a group of people should be allowed to determine their own political destiny without interference from a major military power, then the U.S. would do well to examine its own record and present policies.

No, your fundamental question was what can the US choose to do about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Now you wish to switch the issue to what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government?

I do not care about principle when it comes to stopping a world class thug.

Am I clear?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question is what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government? If the principle is that a group of people should be allowed to determine their own political destiny without interference from a major military power, then the U.S. would do well to examine its own record and present policies.

No, your fundamental question was what can the US choose to do about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Now you wish to switch the issue to what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government?

I do not care about principle when it comes to stopping a world class thug.

Am I clear?

A...

My question was, "In order to best serve the security interests of its own citizens, what specifically should the United States government do with regard to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine?"

I've not seen any argument or evidence that supports the idea that doing something other than nothing would be advantageous to Americans. How would U.S. action, military, "executive," or otherwise, serve to benefit the average U.S. citizen?

If the answer is along the lines that we can't allow a government to use its military might to determine the political arrangements of a particular locality, then U.S. government is going to have to perform a major overhaul of its own policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question is what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government? If the principle is that a group of people should be allowed to determine their own political destiny without interference from a major military power, then the U.S. would do well to examine its own record and present policies.

No, your fundamental question was what can the US choose to do about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Now you wish to switch the issue to what principle would the U.S. be attempting to uphold in taking action against Putin's government?

I do not care about principle when it comes to stopping a world class thug.

Am I clear?

A...

My question was, "In order to best serve the security interests of its own citizens, what specifically should the United States government do with regard to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine?"

I've not seen any argument or evidence that supports the idea that doing something other than nothing would be advantageous to Americans. How would U.S. action, military, "executive," or otherwise, serve to benefit the average U.S. citizen?

If the answer is along the lines that we can't allow a government to use its military might to determine the political arrangements of a particular locality, then U.S. government is going to have to perform a major overhaul of its own policies.

I have it! Send John Kerry to Putin and extract a pledge from him that he has no more territorial claims in the Ukraine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Th video below, made before the government switched hands, shows the face of the Ukrainian opposition (now in control). It seems clear to me that at least a portion of the population wants freedom, justice, and democracy and, in my view, supporting them is the morally right thing to do.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is rather huge,

By sentiment and culture, west and central Ukraine are 'ukrainian', while east and crimea are 'russian'.

The main issue, then, is whether or not the nation should be pro-west or pro-russian, ostensibly involving trade.

Since the divison is so neat, Putin is able to seize pro-russian areas with relative impunty, as he can assume that the population will support him. For precidences, of course, we have the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, German occupation of the Sudetenland and Kashubia, the British hold on Ulster..perhaps even the zionist presence in Palestine.

In other words, people want to form their own government based on ethnicity all of the time, thereby creating smaller minorities within the new borders.

My prediction is an east + crimean vs west breakup with an eventual re-integration of the former into Russia.

Therefore the Americans can do nothing because east+crimean sentiment is so passionately pro-russian--a fact that takes precidence over the understanding that Putin is a thug.

In other words, he did what he was able to do ...

Eva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now