RussiaGate

[Cheerful Charlie]

...except when they try to overthrow other governments

Name one case where they were pro-active in that? USSR did support a lot of popular uprising in Africa and to a lesser degree in Latin America, but it was all rather passive. The best example of "aggression" was Afhganistan, but then we learned that CIA instigated it.
In case of US, we have very long list - Iran, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, all over Latin America.

Post-WW2. Poland. Hungary. Bulgaria. Romania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Czechoslovakia.

 

[barbos]

Name one case where they were pro-active in that? USSR did support a lot of popular uprising in Africa and to a lesser degree in Latin America, but it was all rather passive. The best example of "aggression" was Afhganistan, but then we learned that CIA instigated it.
In case of US, we have very long list - Iran, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, all over Latin America.

Post-WW2. Poland. Hungary. Bulgaria. Romania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Czechoslovakia.

Not good enough. These were "occupied" as a result of war with nazi germany. Their becoming socialist was a natural result of that.

- - - Updated - - -

You are projecting. As I said, historically USSR and now Russia has not been as bad as US in terms of meddling in other countries. You look at what US does then take into account that Russia is considered to be generally worse and then project that Russia must be worse than US in every category, but they are not, not in every category.
You keep mentioning Ukraine over and over again, as if they have been independent (from Russia) country forever. Until this latest maidan bullshit Ukraine and Russia had been living together in the state of not finalized divorce where Russia were paying Ukraine big bucks ($250bil over 25 years) for being nice. Now they want out of that arrangement and Russia says "OK, we are taking our stuff back (Crimea)". I wish Russia had this divorce in the 1993, but it's happening now, or maybe not happening, we don't know what's going to happen.

I think that you're being a little niave if you think that Russia only wants Crimea!

I don't think that. I think Russia wants US stop meddling in Russia and Ukraine too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Post-WW2. Poland. Hungary. Bulgaria. Romania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Czechoslovakia.

Not good enough. These were "occupied" as a result of war with nazi germany. Their becoming socialist was a natural result of that.

- - - Updated - - -

You are projecting. As I said, historically USSR and now Russia has not been as bad as US in terms of meddling in other countries. You look at what US does then take into account that Russia is considered to be generally worse and then project that Russia must be worse than US in every category, but they are not, not in every category.
You keep mentioning Ukraine over and over again, as if they have been independent (from Russia) country forever. Until this latest maidan bullshit Ukraine and Russia had been living together in the state of not finalized divorce where Russia were paying Ukraine big bucks ($250bil over 25 years) for being nice. Now they want out of that arrangement and Russia says "OK, we are taking our stuff back (Crimea)". I wish Russia had this divorce in the 1993, but it's happening now, or maybe not happening, we don't know what's going to happen.

I think that you're being a little niave if you think that Russia only wants Crimea!

I don't think that. I think Russia wants US stop meddling in Russia and Ukraine too.

So US meddling justifies Russian invasion of countries?

 

[barbos]

So US meddling justifies Russian invasion of countries?

Well, US invades countries with no justification whatsoever.
Yes, USSR invaded Afghanistan as a result of US meddling. And US invaded Cuba, Vietnam without any justification. But yeah, meddling sometimes justifies invasion. Imagine Russia starts meddling in Canada to the point where they stop being US ally and demand US to get their stuff out of Canada and then Russia moves their stuff instead, what do you thing will happen?

 

[Harry Bosch]

So US meddling justifies Russian invasion of countries?

Well, US invades countries with no justification whatsoever.
Yes, USSR invaded Afghanistan as a result of US meddling. And US invaded Cuba, Vietnam without any justification. But yeah, meddling sometimes justifies invasion. Imagine Russia starts meddling in Canada to the point where they stop being US ally and demand US to get their stuff out of Canada and then Russia moves their stuff instead, what do you thing will happen?

One of the differences between you and I is that I see plenty of faults in the US. I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business. However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia! All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

 

[barbos]

Well, US invades countries with no justification whatsoever.
Yes, USSR invaded Afghanistan as a result of US meddling. And US invaded Cuba, Vietnam without any justification. But yeah, meddling sometimes justifies invasion. Imagine Russia starts meddling in Canada to the point where they stop being US ally and demand US to get their stuff out of Canada and then Russia moves their stuff instead, what do you thing will happen?

One of the differences between you and I is that I see plenty of faults in the US.

No, you don't, otherwise would have agreed with former US ambassador to Russia who himself affectively agreed with .....Putin.

I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business.

I wish that too.

However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia!

I see plenty of faults but they are mostly internal to Russia.

All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

Well, I explained why and how.

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

You can disagree all you want, but that's what happens in reality.
Russians warned US, they did not listen, now you have Trump, enjoy

 

[Harry Bosch]

One of the differences between you and I is that I see plenty of faults in the US.

No, you don't, otherwise would have agreed with former US ambassador to Russia who himself affectively agreed with .....Putin.

I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business.

I wish that too.

However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia!

I see plenty of faults but they are mostly internal to Russia.

All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

Well, I explained why and how.

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

You can disagree all you want, but that's what happens in reality.
Russians warned US, they did not listen, now you have Trump, enjoy

Odd post! I say that I often disagree with US meddling (was very much against Iraq invasion, aggressive expansion of Nato, ME policy, pushing NK to war and etc.). You disagree because I didn't agree with some ambassador?? Then you say that you see fault in Russia, but it is all internal (what does that mean?).

But then you bring it home and admit that it's okay to invade when another country "meddles". I appreciate your honesty but wonder if this a typical Russian opinion? IMO this view is morally bankrupt because it provides the excuse for an aggressive nation to invade. Every country "meddles" in other countries. Sure US meddles worse than some. If this is a dominant view in Russia, maybe NATO expansion is warranted in order to make future Russian invasion too dangerous. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

And yes I know that we have Russia to thank for Trump presidency.

 

[barbos]

No, you don't, otherwise would have agreed with former US ambassador to Russia who himself affectively agreed with .....Putin.

I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business.

I wish that too.

However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia!

I see plenty of faults but they are mostly internal to Russia.

All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

Well, I explained why and how.

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

You can disagree all you want, but that's what happens in reality.
Russians warned US, they did not listen, now you have Trump, enjoy

Odd post! I say that I often disagree with US meddling (was very much against Iraq invasion, aggressive expansion of Nato, ME policy, pushing NK to war and etc.). You disagree because I didn't agree with some ambassador??

I have heard these vague proclamations a million times. Be more concrete. Do you agree with US conducting a coup in Ukraine? and what do you think Russia should have done about it? nothing? Do you agree with US support of Saakashvili attack on russsian peace-keepers?
Do you agree that CIA director secrete voyage to Ukraine after the coup was a great idea and should not be viewed as suspicious by russians?
Do you think new ukrainian government starting to refer to rebels as terrorists right after the CIA director visit was just a coincidence?

Then you say that you see fault in Russia, but it is all internal (what does that mean?).

It means it's related to internal business in Russia - economy, freedom of the press, corruption, etc.

But then you bring it home and admit that it's okay to invade when another country "meddles". I appreciate your honesty but wonder if this a typical Russian opinion? The reason why I think that this view is morally bankrupt is because this means that Russia always has an excuse to invade others. Every country "meddles" in other countries. Sure US meddles worse than some. If this is a dominant view in Russia, maybe NATO expansion is warranted in order to make future Russian invasion too dangerous. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

You keep confusing cause and effect.

And yes I know that we have Russia to thank for Trump presidency.

It was a joke, you elected him fair and square yourself.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, you don't, otherwise would have agreed with former US ambassador to Russia who himself affectively agreed with .....Putin.

I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business.

I wish that too.

However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia!

I see plenty of faults but they are mostly internal to Russia.

All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

Well, I explained why and how.

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

You can disagree all you want, but that's what happens in reality.
Russians warned US, they did not listen, now you have Trump, enjoy

Odd post! I say that I often disagree with US meddling (was very much against Iraq invasion, aggressive expansion of Nato, ME policy, pushing NK to war and etc.). You disagree because I didn't agree with some ambassador??

I have heard these vague proclamations a million times. Be more concrete. Do you agree with US conducting a coup in Ukraine? and what do you think Russia should have done about it? nothing? Do you agree with US support of Saakashvili attack on russsian peace-keepers?
Do you agree that CIA director secrete voyage to Ukraine after the coup was a great idea and should not be viewed as suspicious by russians?
Do you think new ukrainian government starting to refer to rebels as terrorists right after the CIA director visit was just a coincidence?

Then you say that you see fault in Russia, but it is all internal (what does that mean?).

It means it's related to internal business in Russia - economy, freedom of the press, corruption, etc.

But then you bring it home and admit that it's okay to invade when another country "meddles". I appreciate your honesty but wonder if this a typical Russian opinion? The reason why I think that this view is morally bankrupt is because this means that Russia always has an excuse to invade others. Every country "meddles" in other countries. Sure US meddles worse than some. If this is a dominant view in Russia, maybe NATO expansion is warranted in order to make future Russian invasion too dangerous. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

You keep confusing cause and effect.

And yes I know that we have Russia to thank for Trump presidency.

It was a joke, you elected him fair and square yourself.

No, I don't believe that the US conducted a coup in the Ukraine. But please, go easy on me, I also don't believe that Elvis is alive or the earth is 6,000 years old. The good news is that I'm easy to convince otherwise, but require proof. It is very clear though that the Ukrainian protesters (who were a little tired that Yanukovych was killing protestors) had very few weapons. They mostly used self-made Molotov cocktails. They had no heavy weapons, machine guns, or gernades. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. There were no CIA agents in Kiev. In contrast, Russia sent plane loads of police weapons to Ukraine, along with advisers, to suppress the protests. Flight manifests are available with full listings of grenades, bullets, rifles, etc. Specific Russian experts have been named, hotels where they stayed, etc - Russia is not denying this. So, what happens when your people lose? - blame the CIA.

However, it is clear that the US isn't blameless in the Ukraine mess either. A big contributing factor is NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It started under Clinton, continued under Bush. NATO expansion fired up the Russian base and embarrassed them. It pissed off Russia because they wanted a "zone of influence" in E. Europe. Ukraine was essentially a 50-50. About half the country wanted to turn their economy towards the west and western democracy, the other half wanted the Russian way.

Bottom line, the people in Eastern Europe want to define their own future. They don't want outsiders telling them what to do. They experienced Russian economics already. And most want something better.

 

[barbos]

No, you don't, otherwise would have agreed with former US ambassador to Russia who himself affectively agreed with .....Putin.

I wish that we'd butt the hell out of most countries business.

I wish that too.

However, you see no fault in the actions of Russia!

I see plenty of faults but they are mostly internal to Russia.

All Russian invasions and/or meddling is the direct result of outsiders (the US) prodding them into action!

Well, I explained why and how.

A second difference is that I disagree that meddling justifies invasion.

You can disagree all you want, but that's what happens in reality.
Russians warned US, they did not listen, now you have Trump, enjoy

Odd post! I say that I often disagree with US meddling (was very much against Iraq invasion, aggressive expansion of Nato, ME policy, pushing NK to war and etc.). You disagree because I didn't agree with some ambassador??

I have heard these vague proclamations a million times. Be more concrete. Do you agree with US conducting a coup in Ukraine? and what do you think Russia should have done about it? nothing? Do you agree with US support of Saakashvili attack on russsian peace-keepers?
Do you agree that CIA director secrete voyage to Ukraine after the coup was a great idea and should not be viewed as suspicious by russians?
Do you think new ukrainian government starting to refer to rebels as terrorists right after the CIA director visit was just a coincidence?

Then you say that you see fault in Russia, but it is all internal (what does that mean?).

It means it's related to internal business in Russia - economy, freedom of the press, corruption, etc.

But then you bring it home and admit that it's okay to invade when another country "meddles". I appreciate your honesty but wonder if this a typical Russian opinion? The reason why I think that this view is morally bankrupt is because this means that Russia always has an excuse to invade others. Every country "meddles" in other countries. Sure US meddles worse than some. If this is a dominant view in Russia, maybe NATO expansion is warranted in order to make future Russian invasion too dangerous. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

You keep confusing cause and effect.

And yes I know that we have Russia to thank for Trump presidency.

It was a joke, you elected him fair and square yourself.

No, I don't believe that the US conducted a coup in the Ukraine. But please, go easy on me, I also don't believe that Elvis is alive or the earth is 6,000 years old.

Ambassador Matlock must believe Elvis is alive then.

The good news is that I'm easy to convince otherwise, but require proof. It is very clear though that the Ukrainian protesters (who were a little tired that Yanukovych was killing protestors) had very few weapons.

That's a lie, even "protesters" themselves admit that. Not to mention video footage.

They mostly used self-made Molotov cocktails. They had no heavy weapons, machine guns, or gernades. Their actions were fairly chaotic, but when 300,000 people pour on the streets, little can be done in response. There were no CIA agents in Kiev.

That's an incredible statement to say. You do realize that US has an embassy in Kiev?

In contrast, Russia sent plane loads of police weapons to Ukraine, along with advisers, to suppress the protests. Flight manifests are available with full listings of grenades, bullets, rifles, etc. Specific Russian experts have been named, hotels where they stayed, etc - Russia is not denying this. So, what happens when your people lose? - blame the CIA.

You did not answer my question about CIA director visit to Kiev.
Yes, Russia did send some police equipment to legal Ukrainian government. So did US to Egypt.

However, it is clear that the US isn't blameless in the Ukraine mess either. A big contributing factor is NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It started under Clinton, continued under Bush. NATO expansion fired up the Russian base and embarrassed them. It pissed off Russia because they wanted a "zone of influence" in E. Europe. Ukraine was essentially a 50-50. About half the country wanted to turn their economy towards the west and western democracy, the other half wanted the Russian way.

It was not 50-50, It was students who wanted free pass to EU to get the hell out of Ukraine and the rest of the country. Then it was nazis who saw the opportunity and who had help from US in the forms of money. Yes, US funded neo-nazis in Ukraine, State Departement admitted that and was quite proud of that.

Bottom line, the people in Eastern Europe want to define their own future.

Yeah, yeah, except these people in Crimea and Donbas,

They don't want outsiders telling them what to do. They experienced Russian economics already. And most want something better.

They experienced Ukrainian economy and they wanted free pass to Western Europe, these initial protesters had no plans to stay in Ukraine.
Some of them are now in ..... Russia

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep mentioning Ukraine over and over again, as if they have been independent (from Russia) country forever. Until this latest maidan bullshit Ukraine and Russia had been living together in the state of not finalized divorce where Russia were paying Ukraine big bucks ($250bil over 25 years) for being nice. Now they want out of that arrangement and Russia says "OK, we are taking our stuff back (Crimea)". I wish Russia had this divorce in the 1993, but it's happening now, or maybe not happening, we don't know what's going to happen.

Ukraine is want they want to conquer now. And you don't get to take gifts back, even if you later regret them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...except when they try to overthrow other governments

Name one case where they were pro-active in that? USSR did support a lot of popular uprising in Africa and to a lesser degree in Latin America, but it was all rather passive. The best example of "aggression" was Afhganistan, but then we learned that CIA instigated it.
In case of US, we have very long list - Iran, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, all over Latin America.

Afghanistan? You're forgetting the Soviet-backed puppet government, followed by an invasion to "protect" it. The CIA backed the resistance to that Russian invasion, we didn't start things.

And most of the rest of your list is similar---we were reacting to what Moscow did.

- - - Updated - - -

Post-WW2. Poland. Hungary. Bulgaria. Romania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Czechoslovakia.

Not good enough. These were "occupied" as a result of war with nazi germany. Their becoming socialist was a natural result of that.

No, their becoming "socialist" was a result if it being imposed by Moscow in all areas they controlled. The countries were supposed to be free to go their own way. We permitted that in the West, Moscow treated the East as a conquest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have heard these vague proclamations a million times. Be more concrete. Do you agree with US conducting a coup in Ukraine?

We conducted no coup. The Ukrainians removed a Russian puppet from power.

and what do you think Russia should have done about it? nothing?

Nothing. You lost your puppet. Too bad.

Do you agree with US support of Saakashvili attack on russsian peace-keepers?

Those "peacekeepers" are occupation forces.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, it is clear that the US isn't blameless in the Ukraine mess either. A big contributing factor is NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It started under Clinton, continued under Bush. NATO expansion fired up the Russian base and embarrassed them. It pissed off Russia because they wanted a "zone of influence" in E. Europe. Ukraine was essentially a 50-50. About half the country wanted to turn their economy towards the west and western democracy, the other half wanted the Russian way.

They wanted the eastern-bloc countries back under their thumb. The expansion of NATO meant they couldn't just take them over again. If the eastern-bloc countries weren't afraid of Russian conquest they would have had no reason to join NATO. Note how many of the countries that didn't join NATO have been reconquered by Moscow.

 

[barbos]

However, it is clear that the US isn't blameless in the Ukraine mess either. A big contributing factor is NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It started under Clinton, continued under Bush. NATO expansion fired up the Russian base and embarrassed them. It pissed off Russia because they wanted a "zone of influence" in E. Europe. Ukraine was essentially a 50-50. About half the country wanted to turn their economy towards the west and western democracy, the other half wanted the Russian way.

They wanted the eastern-bloc countries back under their thumb. The expansion of NATO meant they couldn't just take them over again. If the eastern-bloc countries weren't afraid of Russian conquest they would have had no reason to join NATO. Note how many of the countries that didn't join NATO have been reconquered by Moscow.

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

 

[barbos]

We conducted no coup. The Ukrainians removed a Russian puppet from power.

Sure, that's what you are told to believe.

and what do you think Russia should have done about it? nothing?

Nothing. You lost your puppet. Too bad.

And you are about to lose yours.

Do you agree with US support of Saakashvili attack on russsian peace-keepers?

Those "peacekeepers" are occupation forces.

Are you a troll?

 

[barbos]

You keep mentioning Ukraine over and over again, as if they have been independent (from Russia) country forever. Until this latest maidan bullshit Ukraine and Russia had been living together in the state of not finalized divorce where Russia were paying Ukraine big bucks ($250bil over 25 years) for being nice. Now they want out of that arrangement and Russia says "OK, we are taking our stuff back (Crimea)". I wish Russia had this divorce in the 1993, but it's happening now, or maybe not happening, we don't know what's going to happen.

Ukraine is want they want to conquer now. And you don't get to take gifts back, even if you later regret them.

It was not a a gift, it was common property.

 

[barbos]

Name one case where they were pro-active in that? USSR did support a lot of popular uprising in Africa and to a lesser degree in Latin America, but it was all rather passive. The best example of "aggression" was Afhganistan, but then we learned that CIA instigated it.
In case of US, we have very long list - Iran, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, all over Latin America.

Afghanistan? You're forgetting the Soviet-backed puppet government, followed by an invasion to "protect" it. The CIA backed the resistance to that Russian invasion, we didn't start things.

You are out of touch with history. US admitted that they went to Afghanistan first with sole purpose to draw USSR in and make it their Vietnam.

And most of the rest of your list is similar---we were reacting to what Moscow did.

- - - Updated - - -

Post-WW2. Poland. Hungary. Bulgaria. Romania. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Czechoslovakia.

Not good enough. These were "occupied" as a result of war with nazi germany. Their becoming socialist was a natural result of that.

No, their becoming "socialist" was a result if it being imposed by Moscow in all areas they controlled. The countries were supposed to be free to go their own way.

Tell that to Japan and West Germany.

We permitted that in the West, Moscow treated the East as a conquest.

Nope, they treated it as a historical inevitability.

 

[Frikki]

They wanted the eastern-bloc countries back under their thumb. The expansion of NATO meant they couldn't just take them over again. If the eastern-bloc countries weren't afraid of Russian conquest they would have had no reason to join NATO. Note how many of the countries that didn't join NATO have been reconquered by Moscow.

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

Why would the Eastern European countries not want to move towards NATO and the EU who are rich and awesome and away from Russia which is poor, shitty and produces nothing of value except for petrochemicals. Who would defend Russia it´s a gas station with an outdated military and a failing economy and culture.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

Another irony meter blown... (prob'ly made in Russia junk).\

Nothing barbos has ever posted here reflects anything but an unthinking, unquestioning consumer and promoter of Russian party-line propaganda.