Can a new Cold War be avoided?

[boneyard bill]

We started the whole incident in Ukraine. We sponsored the coup against Yanukovich in Kiev, and we stabbed the EU in the back at the same time. The Ukrainian crisis had been a resolved. A new government had been formed. Early elections were to be held. All this brokered by the EU. But it didn't include our puppet, Yatsenyuk, as PM so we turned loose the armed neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Right Sector who provoked a shooting incident and eventually took over the Maidan and forced Yanukovich to flee for his life.

That's jst bullshit and you know it. There was no deal brokered by EU (and certainly not one that would not have included Yatsenyuk), and the US didn't turn anyone loose.

If anything, the West can be blamed for being too naive as to how far Russia would go to fuck up Ukraine.

The deal the EU had brokered would not have included Yatsenyuk as premier. That is exactly what Nuland was complaining about in her phone conversation. I never said that Yatsenyuk wasn't included at all.

Putin did absolutely nothing to fuck up Ukraine. He helped Crimea secede only AFTER the coup in Kiev. Prior to that he offered Yanukovich a deal that was far better than the deal offered by the West. That's why the protests began and the coup was instituted. Yanukovich was planning to accept the Russian offer.

We've discussed this before, and I've offered plenty of links on this issue, but you just keep denying it all. There really isn't much more to discuss.

 

[boneyard bill]

Loren Pechtel writes:

If Russia didn't have territorial ambitions the republics becoming part of NATO wouldn't matter.

Of course they would if WE have territorial ambitions and that is exactly the case. These territories have been annexed into NATO and the EU. What more evidence do you want of US/NATO ambitions? The US runs NATO so it amounts to US ambitions. Russia has every reason to be worried.

And Serbia decided ethnic cleansing was a good idea. We warned them to stop it, they kept at it. You think we should have simply sat back and let the massacres continue?

Nonsense! Where were the mass graves? They were never found. Clinton lied us into war in Serbia every bit as much as Bush lied us into war in Iraq. The OSCE had observers on the ground all this time. They reported 2,000 violent deaths in Kosovo in the year before the war. Virtually all of them were combat related, and 1/3 of them were Serbs.

We started the whole incident in Ukraine. We sponsored the coup against Yanukovich in Kiev, and we stabbed the EU in the back at the same time. The Ukrainian crisis had been a resolved. A new government had been formed. Early elections were to be held. All this brokered by the EU. But it didn't include our puppet, Yatsenyuk, as PM so we turned loose the armed neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Right Sector who provoked a shooting incident and eventually took over the Maidan and forced Yanukovich to flee for his life.

Oh, come on now. Yanukovich was a Russian puppet. When they lost their inside man they switched to military action.

Yanukovich was democratically elected in internationally supervised elections. Why were we supporting people who were trying to overthrow him? I thought we supported democratic regimes, not street thugs. At the very least, American policy here has been outrageously hypocritical. But Putin would not have acted simply because of American hypocrisy. It goes far beyond that.

If Putin wanted Ukraine, he could have had it by now. One of the earliest EU pronouncements was that they weren't going to use armed force. So he had a free hand if had chosen to use it. He also could have intervened after the rebels crushed the Ukrainian forces in Donetsk. The road to Kiev was virtually open. The Ukrainian army was either captured or dispersed. Instead, Putin called for a cease fire and restrained the rebel forces.

When the Berlin Wall fell, it was the desire of the Russians from the leaders on down to join the West. One big reason for this was fear of China. Our actions since then have been so provocative toward Russia that we have forced them into a "strategic partnership" with China.

The Berlin wall fell because of the actions of a local official, not Moscow.

Clearly, Moscow could have prevented the tearing down of the wall as they had done for thirty years.

 

[Jayjay]

That's jst bullshit and you know it. There was no deal brokered by EU (and certainly not one that would not have included Yatsenyuk), and the US didn't turn anyone loose.

If anything, the West can be blamed for being too naive as to how far Russia would go to fuck up Ukraine.

The deal the EU had brokered would not have included Yatsenyuk as premier.

Source? Yatsenyuk was the head of the biggest opposition bloc. He was a natural choice for premier in case of any deal.

That is exactly what Nuland was complaining about in her phone conversation.

No, she was not. She was clearly just not happy with waiting for EU to get its act together, becasue in fact EU had not broked any deal at the time and would not do so until it was too late.

Putin did absolutely nothing to fuck up Ukraine. He helped Crimea secede only AFTER the coup in Kiev. Prior to that he offered Yanukovich a deal that was far better than the deal offered by the West. That's why the protests began and the coup was instituted. Yanukovich was planning to accept the Russian offer.

We've discussed this before, and I've offered plenty of links on this issue, but you just keep denying it all. There really isn't much more to discuss.

Actually, I can recall asking for source for the claim that EU did not want Yatsenyuk as premier or that EU had any preference in the matter at all, but I can't recall ever seeing any apart from some article pointing out how Klitschko speaks German. And we've both read the phone call transcript so we both know there is nothing in there that backs up your claim. So what sources are you referring to? I can use google, but I can't read your mind.

The Russian offers are a joke, of course Russia wanted to keep Ukraine away from EU. Russian ambition was and still is a customs union between some former Soviet states that is not unlike the EU in economic terms but tightly controlled from Kreml. Having Ukraine even get closer with trade agreements with EU would be a major setback and Russia is doing all it can to prevent that from happening. This is the only reason why Putin has for now stopped its military advancement: it managed to convince EU to postpone the implementation of the EU-Ukraine association agreement until beginning of 2016 in exchange for a ceasefire (though I doubt it'll hold completely, the separatists have been drooling after Donetsk airport for a while now).

 

[boneyard bill]

Jayjay writes:

The deal the EU had brokered would not have included Yatsenyuk as premier.

Source? Yatsenyuk was the head of the biggest opposition bloc. He was a natural choice for premier in case of any deal.

No he wasn't. The logical choice in a coalition cabinet would have been someone from the majority. Yatsenyuk might have been the logical choice for Deputy Premier, but the EU was pushing Klitschko for that position.

That is exactly what Nuland was complaining about in her phone conversation.

No, she was not. She was clearly just not happy with waiting for EU to get its act together, becasue in fact EU had not broked any deal at the time and would not do so until it was too late.

So you admit that the EU HAD brokered a deal. Why was it too late? Why didn't the West support the deal after Yanukovich fled? That is exactly what Lavrov proposed. Why shouldn't negotiations begin with what has already been negotiated. But Kerry rejected the idea. But why are you asking me for a source for the deal when you already admit that it had happened?

Putin did absolutely nothing to fuck up Ukraine. He helped Crimea secede only AFTER the coup in Kiev. Prior to that he offered Yanukovich a deal that was far better than the deal offered by the West. That's why the protests began and the coup was instituted. Yanukovich was planning to accept the Russian offer.

We've discussed this before, and I've offered plenty of links on this issue, but you just keep denying it all. There really isn't much more to discuss.

Actually, I can recall asking for source for the claim that EU did not want Yatsenyuk as premier or that EU had any preference in the matter at all, but I can't recall ever seeing any apart from some article pointing out how Klitschko speaks German. And we've both read the phone call transcript so we both know there is nothing in there that backs up your claim. So what sources are you referring to? I can use google, but I can't read your mind.

The Nuland phone conversation makes that very clear. She wanted Yatsenyuk and the EU was pushing Klitschko.

The Russian offers are a joke, of course Russia wanted to keep Ukraine away from EU. Russian ambition was and still is a customs union between some former Soviet states that is not unlike the EU in economic terms but tightly controlled from Kreml. Having Ukraine even get closer with trade agreements with EU would be a major setback and Russia is doing all it can to prevent that from happening. This is the only reason why Putin has for now stopped its military advancement: it managed to convince EU to postpone the implementation of the EU-Ukraine association agreement until beginning of 2016 in exchange for a ceasefire (though I doubt it'll hold completely, the separatists have been drooling after Donetsk airport for a while now).

It's the Ukrainians who have violated the cease-fire. They don't deny it. They just claim that Russia is massing troops and that's why they're doing it. But they have offered no evidence to back up their claim. Russia's offer to Yanukovich did not include any requirement that it align with the Eurasian trade pact and there are no European members of that pact except Russia herself. (And perhaps Belarus. I'm not sure, but I don't think even Belarus is it). Russia would not want Ukraine to open herself to Europe and compete with Russian products when Russia is helping Ukraine. But the deal with the EU did not involve any membership in that organization.

 

[Perspicuo]

If you analyze the personalities of Stalin, Hitler, and others, Putin is a far cry.
Putin is a braggadocio, more like a Latin American dictator like Noriega.

There is no ideological foundation for a sort of Soviet empire or a fascist Reich.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren Pechtel writes:



Of course they would if WE have territorial ambitions and that is exactly the case. These territories have been annexed into NATO and the EU. What more evidence do you want of US/NATO ambitions? The US runs NATO so it amounts to US ambitions. Russia has every reason to be worried.

NATO was designed from the start as a *DEFENSIVE* alliance. It is *NOT* an offensive alliance--if a NATO country attacks someone there's no obligation on other NATO countries to join in. Defensive alliances are only a threat to warmongers who want to eat them piecemeal.

And Serbia decided ethnic cleansing was a good idea. We warned them to stop it, they kept at it. You think we should have simply sat back and let the massacres continue?

Nonsense! Where were the mass graves? They were never found. Clinton lied us into war in Serbia every bit as much as Bush lied us into war in Iraq. The OSCE had observers on the ground all this time. They reported 2,000 violent deaths in Kosovo in the year before the war. Virtually all of them were combat related, and 1/3 of them were Serbs.

Mass graves were found. Try Google.

 

[barbos]

You are good.
Now explain away CIA director visit to Ukraine

What's there to explain? That happened months later.

You do realize that CIA director had never visited Ukraine before that visit?
The next day after the visit, they started calling rebels "terrorists".
So I think you need to explain that better.

 

[Ford]

You do realize that CIA director had never visited Ukraine before that visti? .

Of course when the CIA director visits a country, that is indisputable evidence that the CIA is in complete control of that country.


Visit = CIA runs country.


I wonder what other countries the CIA director has visited? No matter...all of them have been taken over by the US!

 

[barbos]

NATO was designed from the start as a *DEFENSIVE* alliance. It is *NOT* an offensive alliance

That's a relieve. But why did not you say so in the beginning? In 1949? when Churchill tried to convince NATO member USA to nuke Russia.

 

[barbos]

You do realize that CIA director had never visited Ukraine before that visti? .

Of course when the CIA director visits a country, that is indisputable evidence that the CIA is in complete control of that country.


Visit = CIA runs country.

Well, in this case it's pretty much established fact.

I wonder what other countries the CIA director has visited? No matter...all of them have been taken over by the US!

I don't recall him visiting Russia.
You make it sound as if CIA director is just tourist which just drives around the world.

- - - Updated - - -

NATO was designed from the start as a *DEFENSIVE* alliance. It is *NOT* an offensive alliance--if a NATO country attacks someone there's no obligation on other NATO countries to join in. Defensive alliances are only a threat to warmongers who want to eat them piecemeal.

And Serbia decided ethnic cleansing was a good idea. We warned them to stop it, they kept at it. You think we should have simply sat back and let the massacres continue?

Nonsense! Where were the mass graves? They were never found. Clinton lied us into war in Serbia every bit as much as Bush lied us into war in Iraq. The OSCE had observers on the ground all this time. They reported 2,000 violent deaths in Kosovo in the year before the war. Virtually all of them were combat related, and 1/3 of them were Serbs.

Mass graves were found. Try Google.

Wow, google in the business of searching mass graves too. these guys are everywhere.

 

[Ford]

NATO was designed from the start as a *DEFENSIVE* alliance. It is *NOT* an offensive alliance

That's a relieve. But why did not you say so in the beginning? In 1949? when Churchill tried to convince NATO member USA to nuke Russia.

A relieve indeed. When Russia was Soviet Union they were peaceful and never provoked anyone. Just read issues of Pravda back then and they'll tell you how decadent West was trying to destroy peaceful Soviets!

 

[barbos]

That's a relieve. But why did not you say so in the beginning? In 1949? when Churchill tried to convince NATO member USA to nuke Russia.

A relieve indeed. When Russia was Soviet Union they were peaceful and never provoked anyone. Just read issues of Pravda back then and they'll tell you how decadent West was trying to destroy peaceful Soviets!

So, what Russia did before 1949 to provoke Churchill? other than beating the crap out of Hitler.
You claimed that NATO was a defensive organization, Nuking Russia does not sound very defensive to me.

 

[Ford]

A relieve indeed. When Russia was Soviet Union they were peaceful and never provoked anyone. Just read issues of Pravda back then and they'll tell you how decadent West was trying to destroy peaceful Soviets!

So, what Russia did before 1949 to provoke Churchill? other than beating the crap out of Hitler.
You claimed that NATO was a defensive organization, Nuking Russia does not sound very defensive to me.

Hey, I'm with you, man. You've managed to change my view. Russia (USSR) has always been a peaceful land which has never tried to influence another country, ever. Putin is a leader in that mold, and I wonder why he hasn't been picked to succeed the Dalai Lama.


Everyone in the West always lies. Russia always tells the truth. Putin is tantamount to Jesus.


p.s. can I have a job spreading Kremlin propaganda on the internet? I promise I'll never say anything bad about Russia!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

NATO was designed from the start as a *DEFENSIVE* alliance. It is *NOT* an offensive alliance

That's a relieve. But why did not you say so in the beginning? In 1949? when Churchill tried to convince NATO member USA to nuke Russia.

And what's that got to do with NATO?

 

[dystopian]

You have to have a GOAL and that GOAL must be PEACE.

Peace without justice is not a worthwhile goal. Peace that is achieved through the appeasement of a warmongerer is not lasting peace. I don't know why you seem to think that both 'sides' are on equal footing in this matter. One side's going around invading and stealing territory... and the other side, is not. In that context talking about how we need to 'get out' and how peace *must* be the goal just harkens back to the likes of Chamberlain.

 

[dystopian]

Of course they would if WE have territorial ambitions and that is exactly the case. These territories have been annexed into NATO and the EU. What more evidence do you want of US/NATO ambitions? The US runs NATO so it amounts to US ambitions.

I find it impressive how people can think that NATO, an organization that was initiated by Europe, is headquartered in Europe, and really only serves to protect Europe, is "run" by the US. If it was actually run by the US, you'd think the US wouldn't be constantly bitching about how the European members need to pay more into it than they do.

Nonsense! Where were the mass graves? They were never found.

Yes they were. All you have to do is google 'Serbia Mass Graves' and you'll find plenty of articles documenting the discovery of mass graves.

Yanukovich was democratically elected in internationally supervised elections.

He was also democratically ousted from power, but that's something you seem to gloss over.

He also had an extensive history of corruption before and during his most recent reign. But that's also something you seem to gloss over.

 

[dystopian]

If you analyze the personalities of Stalin, Hitler, and others, Putin is a far cry.
Putin is a braggadocio, more like a Latin American dictator like Noriega.

There is no ideological foundation for a sort of Soviet empire or a fascist Reich.

I don't know why you'd think that. Putin rather consistently talks up the glory days of Russia's past. Much of his support at home comes from ultra-nationalists, who don't hide the fact that they want to take back what Russia has lost. Even former Putin advisors say that his ultimate goal is to take back the baltics, finnish territory, and so on. Plus, with Crimea and Georgia, he's demonstrated that he's more than just a braggart, he's someone willing to turn that into action.

 

[arkirk]

It's Loren we are talking about here:
Germany unification - will of the people.
Crimea voting to leave Ukraine and reunite with Russia - that's illegal invasion and occupation.

You don't get to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

It's funny. We are mostly a bunch of atheists. We don't believe in gods or other religious theistic bullshit, yet we take sides in clearly nationalistic and religion driven conflicts. Ukraine is just one example of how our world leaders...Putin included act like spoiled children playing marbles. The problem is not just a matter of Putin in Ukraine. The Indians and Pakistanis, the Japanese and the Chinese, the Americans and everyone else excepting of course our demanding ally, Israel. Are there not greater overarching matters of importance in ALL OUR LIVES than this incessant name calling and rock throwing? The only difference between the Palestinians and the Americans...the Americans have MUCH BIGGER ROCKS and they fly by remote control. We humans have been doing this idiotic dance of death and mayhem as long as I have been alive. What question do we have to ask ourselves to even slow the dance a little? I just asked it.

You have to have a GOAL and that GOAL must be PEACE. Look into your arsenal of accusations sometime and you will see such logical inconsistencies as to render every contending political argument irrelevant to the cause of peace. When we build a bomb, we do not use the labor spent making that bomb building a house, or educating a child. Once built, we feel we must not let that labor and treasure go to waste, so what do we do? We see if we can use it as a threat to cajole out of others in the world the very things we have not done for ourselves. The U.S. is not the only country doing this, but to imagine somehow any political ideology (and that does include Capitalism) that demands the application of force can make peace is the ultimate unreachable pipe dream.

We human beings are doing a terrible job on this earth, destroying it for ourselves. A lot of our problems seem based in our utter belief in power and force. It has not done much for us...sure we have computers and vaccines, but mostly, nations are war machines always getting ready to destroy something or somebody. We need to allow people to settle any issue peaceably. That is what the United Nations was supposed to do, but the American and Russian warlords would not allow it the power to do its own job, giving themselves VETO POWER. This veto power is vested in the greatest recent imperialistic offenders only. The rest of the nations of the world are to the United Nations as working class citizens of the VETO POWER NATIONS are to their own government....relegated to spectator status.

I clearly see the war crimes of other nations. It is not just the U.S. It is the worst however ONLY BECAUSE IT IS THE STRONGEST ONE in military terms and is trying to enforce its economic hegemony on the entire world. It will be no more successful than Napoleion or Caesar or Hitler's machine and certainly is not in the least any more MORAL. What is progress is not predictable and never seems to be linear. We are squandering our best potentials by the minute. What a shame.

We have to get out of eastern Europe...and Korea. It is not ours. You cannot "win" a country with military conquest. Haven't we seen ample proof of this in the 20th and 21st centuries?

Who is "we"?? The US is in Korea; while the Russians are in Ukraine. Anyway, you and funinspace are attempting to derail the thread. I'd like to redirect the topic to can a new cold war be avoided?

How can you find the gaul to suggest thatI am trying to evade your probing quest quest for very contrived truths. What do you mean can we avoid another cold war? I just pointed out that we are in an unending hot and cold war and that we have existed in state every moment since before I was born. It is not our place or within our ability to prevent a cold war. It is instead our rightful duty to end the damned thing. You demand bluntness, well there it is. So why did you not ask if we could perhaps have a little peace. Your OP is a recipe for fearful cogitations on a lot of bad choices by our leadership. Every good choice...every act of good diplomacy moves the needle toward peace...even if it is not successful. Your question was answered by my post. It is not my fault you don't like my answer.

International politics is not a football game. it kills people, destroys whole cultures, This country spends too much money preparing for war to not at least have a cold one....all the time.

 

[arkirk]

You have to have a GOAL and that GOAL must be PEACE.

Peace without justice is not a worthwhile goal. Peace that is achieved through the appeasement of a warmongerer is not lasting peace. I don't know why you seem to think that both 'sides' are on equal footing in this matter. One side's going around invading and stealing territory... and the other side, is not. In that context talking about how we need to 'get out' and how peace *must* be the goal just harkens back to the likes of Chamberlain.

We have warmongers on both sides of the fence. That is what I am trying to tell you. We will count ourselves lucky if we can just get peace. Your idea of justice is what requires you to play a game and you are led by fear mongers and betrayers on your side as much as these enemies you hate. Ukraine started out being part of the Soviet Union. All of its citizens were once called Russians. The establishment of Ukraine as an independent nation was the forced separation of that area from Russia. The map merely demonstated a portion of the Soviet Union. Some of the people within that area regarded themselves more as Russians than Ukrainians. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand. Ukraine was the product of a gentleman's agreement. The U.S. violated the agreement and so did NATO. Ukraine had no referendum in the beginning of its short life as a soverign country. While I do think Putin is a slimy run of the mill politician, I do understand his concern and the inexorable press of NATO against the borders of Russia. You should understand that too. You really don't believe in democracy when you refer to illegitimate referendums and only recommend military threats to solve problems. Putin may be an ass, but he is not Hitler. You need to stop letting politicians stir up your fear and loathing of foreign politicians without questioning your own politicians,

 

[TV and credit cards]

p.s. can I have a job spreading Kremlin propaganda on the internet? I promise I'll never say anything bad about Russia!

That's Mother Russia to you and all good Russians around the world long to be held close to her bosom.