Bear with me. Hear me out! ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

I read the cartoons here on DU this morning. I laughed at the "Rethug" clips (as I always do), I found myself nodding in agreement to most to the others clips, as well. But two clips, the "Ukraine" and the "military budget" clips got me to thinking ... especially the military toon that said, "I declare the cold war now open."

Am I the only one that sees a link between the recently announced shift in military focus (i.e., smaller armies, scrapping of weaponry to combat cold war era (type) opponents, etc.) and the heating up of the cold war era opposition?

Let's see ... (Civilian Government): announce mothballing of the tank-busting A-10 flights, because new generation combatants don't have many tanks. Announce scrapping of F-35 purchase programs because this model would be largely useless against new generation combatants that do not have an Air Force. MIC/PTB's response: Get a lot of noise from potential combatants that HAVE tanks and air forces.

[snooper2]

1. that was a movie

[upaloopa]

2. So you are in favor of a new arms race.

I'll raise you one tank buster and call!

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. No ...

not at all! But I can imagine there are several defense contractors that would.

[Fumesucker]

3. Oh *now* conspiracy theories are good things, eh?

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Not at all ...

where have I implied that I thought this is a good thing? (You're the second person to provide such a response)

[Fumesucker]

7. No, the *theory* is a good thing, not what you are theorizing about

All conspiracy theories are equal but some are more equal than others.

[Sanity Claws]

4. I agree with you

I am quite suspicious of what is going on in Ukraine.
No doubt there are some people who were unhappy with the regime there but I feel there is more going on than is being reported.

[Downwinder]

8. If Iraq and Afghanistan are emblematic of 21st Century wars

then wars will be against civilians with no organized military component.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Iraq and Afghanistan are 21st century wars ...

not because its against civilians; but because there are/will be against loosely defined combatants (no uniforms/no nation-states) that do not have tanks or an air forces ... so we don't need tank-killers or advanced air to air combat planes.

[okaawhatever]

10. I don't think so. The Yanukovych regime has been increasingly divisive in the country. The current

protests began when Yanukovych scrapped an agreement with the EU that was years in the making and instead signed a deal with Russia that wasn't transparent or expected. It was more or less the last straw I think. There have been protests over other moves of his, for example, his agreeing to extend the lease to the Russian Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol. That was incredibly controversial, even to the point of physical fighting in their parliament.
The Russian deal was viewed negatively by members of the world wide press. With the internet it wasn't something that could be hidden by the administration.
Yanukovych's Presidency has been marked by suppression of rights and pro-Russian reforms. Shortly after taking office he challenged the constitutional reforms of the Orange Revolution and the courts agreed, forcing a change back to the government set-up that sparked the Revolution.

There are many elements to all this, and I understand your thinking, but this change has been in the making for some time. Putin desperately needs the base at Sevastopol. It is his only warm water port besides Tartus, Syria and we know how well that's going right now. Putin needs to keep Ukraine dependent on it's gas. Putin needs Ukraine to be weak so they won't cause problems for the pipelines Russia has running through the country. (Putin normally negotiates gas prices in the winter and has shut off the gas supply several times in the last decade).

Here's a resource or two to give you some understanding of the situation if you're interested:
http://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/globalstudies/assets/docs/publications/President-Yanukovych.pdf