NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[Togo]

As for Kosovo--mass graves have been found. You ignored the article I linked last time you made that claim.

Shouldn't have bothered, I've told the pro-russians about the evidence for mass graves on multiple occasions to no effect. It seems to be one of those bizarrely out of context talking points that inexplicably gets thrown around by members of the pro-russian crowd as if they genuinely think its an argument for Russia doing what it's done.

That's the peril of taking your position from a script, rather than thinking it through from first principles.

 

[tupac chopra]

NATO which, of course, means the US, appears to have formulated a new insane policy toward the Ukraine crisis to replace the old, failed insane policy.

Yes, this is true.
The USA specialises in starting wars. The specialise in killing people. They start more wars and kill more people than all the other nations combined I'd say

Our Ukrainian policy has always been, first and foremost, all about provoking Russia. But why?

America thinks that they are the good guys, called by god to lead the world. They think they are the indispensable nation, the exceptional people. They are quite open about this. They think they are special.
They have a foreign policy which openly proclaims they they and they alone should lead and rule the world. None of this is hidden.
But it is they that are the greatest threat to world peace, and polls consistently show that most of the world understands this.

They do not think that Russia or China or anyone has the right to challenge their hegemony, so they are wanting to neutralise any military threat from Russia by surrounding them with military installations that will neutralize any threat to to USA.
Add to this the fact that American corporations want to loot and exploit the Ukraine.

So they want to provoke Russia in order to inflict a military defeat on them while they can. Then to orchestrate a regime change in Russia. They are insane.

 

[tupac chopra]

America and NATO have no intention of finding a peaceful solution in the Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing to work towards a peaceful solution. They always want war, and here they can have it by pitting some Ukrainians against other Ukrainians. American corporations will benefit if they are successful.

Yet, imbeciles from the USA, Australia, Canada, Holland, England, and various other countries cheer them on.

 

[tupac chopra]

The NATO article in your opening post falls into the same category: It suggests that NATO has a plan to kill and or otherwise ethnicaly cleanse millions of people in Eastern Ukraine just for shits and giggles.

It does not say that at all. NATO led by the USA does it for the reasons I mentioned.
1.The USA's very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia.
2.To open up the Ukraine to American corporations.

 

[Harry Bosch]

America and NATO have no intention of finding a peaceful solution in the Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing to work towards a peaceful solution. They always want war, and here they can have it by pitting some Ukrainians against other Ukrainians. American corporations will benefit if they are successful. Yet, imbeciles from the USA, Australia, Canada, Holland, England, and various other countries cheer them on.

Same script, different day!

 

[Jayjay]

The NATO article in your opening post falls into the same category: It suggests that NATO has a plan to kill and or otherwise ethnicaly cleanse millions of people in Eastern Ukraine just for shits and giggles.

It does not say that at all. NATO led by the USA does it for the reasons I mentioned.
1.The USA's very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia.
2.To open up the Ukraine to American corporations.

Because that's worked so well in the past? A conspiracy theorist will always find some imaginary reason. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence presented that NATO would actually have this kind of plans.

So they want to provoke Russia in order to inflict a military defeat on them while they can. Then to orchestrate a regime change in Russia. They are insane.

It's also interesting that the "script" of the pro-Russians changes right in tune with Putin. Nobody suggested that NATO or US is trying to overthrow Russian government until Putin said it out loud. Now suddenly all the putinists come out of the woodwork with the same conspiracy theory. An amazing coincidence, don't you think?

 

[dystopian]

America and NATO have no intention of finding a peaceful solution in the Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing to work towards a peaceful solution. They always want war, and here they can have it by pitting some Ukrainians against other Ukrainians. American corporations will benefit if they are successful.[/qu

Yet, imbeciles from the USA, Australia, Canada, Holland, England, and various other countries cheer them on.

Apparently in Russia, invading countries counts as working towards a peaceful solution, while the west standing by and telling Russia "No, bad Russia, you can't do that" counts as wanting war.

 

[Turambar]

The NATO article in your opening post falls into the same category: It suggests that NATO has a plan to kill and or otherwise ethnicaly cleanse millions of people in Eastern Ukraine just for shits and giggles.

It does not say that at all. NATO led by the USA does it for the reasons I mentioned.
1.The USA's very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia.
2.To open up the Ukraine to American corporations.

1. First of all I think that there is no such thing as a "very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia" from the US government. There is no official document saying "We the USA declare we do not want rivals in Eurasia" . I view it differently: The US has a "very open policy" of promoting its economic model. You may disagree with it and prefer some sort of alternative system, but I do not think the US is actively looking for rivals to start the next war. Wars are costly and wars are usually bad for the political party in power. Also, the US is very different from the conquering empires of the past. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with most of the wars that the US government has started, but at the same time I know human history enough to tell you that the US armed forces of the 21st century are one of the most highly trained, ethical armies in all of the world's history: If and when they commit war crimes, usually their actions get shitloads of media attention and the perpetrators are punished swiftly. Go ahead, ask any armed rebel from te myriads of terrorist organisations out there whether they prefer to be taken captive by the US army or by the Russian army....
2. As I said the US wants to promote its own economic view of the world, and that of course means open markets and as you say, open the Ukraine to American corporations. So I agree with you in that point, but, may I ask, where is the evil in that? Sure corporations unfortunately do not act ethically always (that is why the "evil" American model you despise also promotes a strong legal system), but let's not forget that they usually also bring investment and jobs to a country. I can mention many countries that have open themselves to foreign corporations in the last decades and their populations are far better off now in terms of living standards.

So yes this is a battle of ideas. Western ideas vs. Russian ideas, but all you have to do is take a look at the statistics and there is a clear winner as of which system has so far provided the best living standards for a majority of their population. That does not mean that a "western" system of free markets with state welfare is perfect, it is by all means a work in progress, but compared to the misery of other systems it is the best one we've got at this point in humanity's history. And by the way: I am not even an American.

 

[Togo]

Apparently in Russia, invading countries counts as working towards a peaceful solution, while the west standing by and telling Russia "No, bad Russia, you can't do that" counts as wanting war.

Apparently people allying with your alliance is territorial expansion, while anexing land to your own country is not.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. All this hand wringing going on here. there will be some combat p to the point where Russia needs to reinforce to gain success. As has been noted in the press there is no shortage of volunteers willing to help Ukraine in stopping Russians which is already one variable beyond that which Russia has anticipated. Russia might even be defeated with no western help beyond some advisers and lots of conventional weapons. Facing such a defeat against just Ukraine will Russia use the bomb card? Nope.

How about a cost-benefits analysis. Lets take cost to Russia versus benefits they will gain leverage with NATO or the Economic Union. Inputs. Available bodies - lots short term; technology - inferior, little, the bomb card - rejected every time they got to it before; potential gains - short term Russian pride during economic catastrophe, very large feeling Putin penis; potential loses - internal revolution and further decay of Russian empire, rejection of Putin. Calculations: given inputs what are likelihood of success either demise of NATO or retreat by EU - not a rats chance in a display of rat traps; cost of success - complete depletion of resources available to Russia; with bonus calculation of size of Putin Penis estimate - about three cm.

Post BS. There is no battle of ideas here. There is just economics and penis envy.

 

[boneyard bill]

All of these articles are documented. Did you bother to read them?

I looked at the first one for example: "U.S. is Responsible for the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Liberian Scientist". The documentation is some conspiracy theorist scientist claiming that DoD is conducting experiments in West Africa by injecting people with Ebola. The article has a correction that this isn't actually true. The rest of it just talks about the Syphilis experiments in 1930s in New Guinea.

It's a bunch of conspiracy theorist drivel that's not worth my time.

The NATO article in your opening post falls into the same category: It suggests that NATO has a plan to kill and or otherwise ethnicaly cleanse millions of people in Eastern Ukraine just for shits and giggles. Yeah sure, if the some politicians mislead about health care law of course it means that they are planning to commit mass murder abroad, inject people with ebola and syphilis, deliberately poison American people with flouride, and were behind the 9/11 attacks and Bostom marathon bombing.

The first article cited the Liberian scientist and then cited the other work as a precedent for US behavior. In other words, the Liberian scientists claim should NOT be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" (although I don't know what's wrong with conspiracy theories. It's not like conspiracies never happen).

The OP did not claim the point of the invasion of Eastern Ukraine was just for "shits and giggles" although it is true that millions of Russian speaker Ukrainians could be killed as a result of such an invasion.

The fact that the US government lies (routinely) to the American people certainly DOES mean that you should take what it says with a grain of salt. Yet the US media does virtually nothing but repeat White House and State Department propaganda.

 

[boneyard bill]

All of these articles are documented. Did you bother to read them? Or are you going to say that our government, which told us about "mass graves in Kosovo," WMD in Iraq," and "If you like your health care plan you can keep it," would never lie to us?

You mean you don't recognize those things are crackpot??

As for Kosovo--mass graves have been found. You ignored the article I linked last time you made that claim.

I don't recall any such link, or perhaps it was a link to a few graves that had no apparent connection to the pretext for attacking Yugoslavia. If you can find the link again, I would be very interested in it, but I suspect that I don't remember it because it wasn't actually relevant.

 

[boneyard bill]

If Putin is trying to reconquer former Russian lands, why didn't he stay Georgia after the Georgian War? In fact, he didn't even set up a puppet regime. The Georgian government is still hostile to Russia.

Want to try again?

http://news.yahoo.com/deal-gives-russia-greater-control-over-abkhazia-140627302.html

What's your point? The link clearly establishes that Russia did not annex Georgia or set up a puppet regime as I claimed. Russia did recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after the war and those countries are, and will continue to be, dependent upon Russia for defense against Georgian irredentism, but Putin hasn't even annexed them. So I don't see how this link support anything that you are claiming and support everything that I am claiming.

 

[boneyard bill]

America and NATO have no intention of finding a peaceful solution in the Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing to work towards a peaceful solution. They always want war, and here they can have it by pitting some Ukrainians against other Ukrainians. American corporations will benefit if they are successful.[/qu

Yet, imbeciles from the USA, Australia, Canada, Holland, England, and various other countries cheer them on.

Apparently in Russia, invading countries counts as working towards a peaceful solution, while the west standing by and telling Russia "No, bad Russia, you can't do that" counts as wanting war.

It's the Kiev regime which has consistently violated the current "cease fire," and the accusation made here is that they are re-arming with US support in order to break the cease fire altogether. The US has consistently rejected all Russian proposals to begin negotiations for a peaceful settlement.

 

[boneyard bill]

It does not say that at all. NATO led by the USA does it for the reasons I mentioned.
1.The USA's very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia.
2.To open up the Ukraine to American corporations.

1. First of all I think that there is no such thing as a "very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia" from the US government. There is no official document saying "We the USA declare we do not want rivals in Eurasia" . I view it differently: The US has a "very open policy" of promoting its economic model. You may disagree with it and prefer some sort of alternative system, but I do not think the US is actively looking for rivals to start the next war. Wars are costly and wars are usually bad for the political party in power. Also, the US is very different from the conquering empires of the past. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with most of the wars that the US government has started, but at the same time I know human history enough to tell you that the US armed forces of the 21st century are one of the most highly trained, ethical armies in all of the world's history: If and when they commit war crimes, usually their actions get shitloads of media attention and the perpetrators are punished swiftly. Go ahead, ask any armed rebel from te myriads of terrorist organisations out there whether they prefer to be taken captive by the US army or by the Russian army....
2. As I said the US wants to promote its own economic view of the world, and that of course means open markets and as you say, open the Ukraine to American corporations. So I agree with you in that point, but, may I ask, where is the evil in that? Sure corporations unfortunately do not act ethically always (that is why the "evil" American model you despise also promotes a strong legal system), but let's not forget that they usually also bring investment and jobs to a country. I can mention many countries that have open themselves to foreign corporations in the last decades and their populations are far better off now in terms of living standards.

So yes this is a battle of ideas. Western ideas vs. Russian ideas, but all you have to do is take a look at the statistics and there is a clear winner as of which system has so far provided the best living standards for a majority of their population. That does not mean that a "western" system of free markets with state welfare is perfect, it is by all means a work in progress, but compared to the misery of other systems it is the best one we've got at this point in humanity's history. And by the way: I am not even an American.

What you say about the American economic system may be a fairly accurate description of US history, but today, the American system has become so corrupt that it is on the verge of collapse. With respect to Ukraine, the deal that Putin was offering Yanukovich was definitely preferable to the deal offered by the West. That's why he had to be overthrown. But the US had been thirsting for Ukraine in NATO since long before that. In fact, we had sponsored Ukraine for NATO membership even before the Georgian War.

 

[Togo]

With respect to Ukraine, the deal that Putin was offering Yanukovich was definitely preferable to the deal offered by the West.

Can you give a brief run-down of the two deals, and how you decided one was better than the other?

 

[boneyard bill]

Wow. All this hand wringing going on here. there will be some combat p to the point where Russia needs to reinforce to gain success. As has been noted in the press there is no shortage of volunteers willing to help Ukraine in stopping Russians which is already one variable beyond that which Russia has anticipated. Russia might even be defeated with no western help beyond some advisers and lots of conventional weapons. Facing such a defeat against just Ukraine will Russia use the bomb card? Nope.

How about a cost-benefits analysis. Lets take cost to Russia versus benefits they will gain leverage with NATO or the Economic Union. Inputs. Available bodies - lots short term; technology - inferior, little, the bomb card - rejected every time they got to it before; potential gains - short term Russian pride during economic catastrophe, very large feeling Putin penis; potential loses - internal revolution and further decay of Russian empire, rejection of Putin. Calculations: given inputs what are likelihood of success either demise of NATO or retreat by EU - not a rats chance in a display of rat traps; cost of success - complete depletion of resources available to Russia; with bonus calculation of size of Putin Penis estimate - about three cm.

Post BS. There is no battle of ideas here. There is just economics and penis envy.

The Ukrainian army performance against the separatists was pitiful. I don't see how they can train even older recruits to perform better in a short period of time. So the real threat is that Western forces will be deployed sub rosa. But the real problem isn't that Ukraine might lose. The real problem is that they will win. Russia will not let that happen, and they have the tactical advantage in Ukraine. So then we face the prospect of nuclear war.

Russia has recently announced that they have reclassified NATO in their strategic policy as an "enemy" and have said, ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, that Russia would resort to nuclear weapons in a war against the West since they cannot afford to match NATO in conventional military strength.

People who dismiss these concerns as "conspiracy theories" have their heads in the sand. If the West tries to take eastern Ukraine, they are creating a very great risk of World War III. That's why this policy is truly and literally "insane." It doesn't matter who is right or wrong according to some abstract notions of law or morality. The power relationships here make US policy a stupidity of the highest order if we actually go ahead with this.

 

[boneyard bill]

With respect to Ukraine, the deal that Putin was offering Yanukovich was definitely preferable to the deal offered by the West.

Can you give a brief run-down of the two deals, and how you decided one was better than the other?

Putin offered Ukraine $15 billion in loans. No strings attached. Plus a discount on their natural gas purchases from Russia. The EU offered a trade agreement but no loans. They referred Ukraine instead to the IMF. Loans from the IMF always have lots of strings attached to them which usually include a devaluation of the currency and privatization of government owned industries to provide collateral.

 

[boneyard bill]

I don't think the posters here have a clue to how serious our policy is, and they certainly aren't getting it from the mainstream media which merely serves these days as the US Ministry of Propaganda. Here is a link to a video interview with Stephen Cohen, a Russian expert from Princeton University. The interview took place on RT because, as Cohen notes, he is never invited to speak on mainstream media any more as our other critics of US-Russia policy. But even people like Henry Kissinger has criticized our NATO expansion policy without getting Ministry of Propaganda coverage.

The video is about 24 minutes long but well worth watching in part because Sophie Schevardnaze is hot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzFBkdBuvs

 

[Harry Bosch]

1. First of all I think that there is no such thing as a "very open policy of no rivals in Eurasia" from the US government. There is no official document saying "We the USA declare we do not want rivals in Eurasia" . I view it differently: The US has a "very open policy" of promoting its economic model. You may disagree with it and prefer some sort of alternative system, but I do not think the US is actively looking for rivals to start the next war. Wars are costly and wars are usually bad for the political party in power. Also, the US is very different from the conquering empires of the past. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with most of the wars that the US government has started, but at the same time I know human history enough to tell you that the US armed forces of the 21st century are one of the most highly trained, ethical armies in all of the world's history: If and when they commit war crimes, usually their actions get shitloads of media attention and the perpetrators are punished swiftly. Go ahead, ask any armed rebel from te myriads of terrorist organisations out there whether they prefer to be taken captive by the US army or by the Russian army....
2. As I said the US wants to promote its own economic view of the world, and that of course means open markets and as you say, open the Ukraine to American corporations. So I agree with you in that point, but, may I ask, where is the evil in that? Sure corporations unfortunately do not act ethically always (that is why the "evil" American model you despise also promotes a strong legal system), but let's not forget that they usually also bring investment and jobs to a country. I can mention many countries that have open themselves to foreign corporations in the last decades and their populations are far better off now in terms of living standards.

So yes this is a battle of ideas. Western ideas vs. Russian ideas, but all you have to do is take a look at the statistics and there is a clear winner as of which system has so far provided the best living standards for a majority of their population. That does not mean that a "western" system of free markets with state welfare is perfect, it is by all means a work in progress, but compared to the misery of other systems it is the best one we've got at this point in humanity's history. And by the way: I am not even an American.

What you say about the American economic system may be a fairly accurate description of US history, but today, the American system has become so corrupt that it is on the verge of collapse. With respect to Ukraine, the deal that Putin was offering Yanukovich was definitely preferable to the deal offered by the West. That's why he had to be overthrown. But the US had been thirsting for Ukraine in NATO since long before that. In fact, we had sponsored Ukraine for NATO membership even before the Georgian War.

Would you happen to have a link that supports your position that the US (and/or the west or Nato or whatever) overthrew Yanuko?