US Goes Ballistic Over Ukraine as Both Sides There Wage Peace

[eridani]

My overall sense of what is going is that the easterners are not so much interested in separation as in more autonomy within a federal system.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/28995-focus-us-goes-ballistic-over-ukraine-as-both-sides-there-wage-peace

American combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim they’re there only as “advisors” or “trainers,” not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying to arm Ukraine with “defensive” anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.

To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties). The government in Kievand the would-be governments of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they’re not hell-bent on mutually assured destruction after all. They’ve exchanged prisoners. They’ve agreed to double the number of ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They’ve pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the random shelling that has caused “heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded,” according to the March 2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

The calmer heads of Europe, in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the fear-mongered countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another devastating war in which those near-Russia countries would be the first to feel the pain. But fornow, most of Europe seems willing to accept the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost of further Russian advances outweighs any rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.

[Binkie The Clown]

1. Rule of Acquisition #34

"War is good for business." --Ferengi Commerce Authority

[calimary]

37. "Money trumps peace sometimes." -- george dubya (AKA bush2), 2/14/2007.

One of the stupefying and rather galling moments when he actually told the truth. And don't forget the "heh-heh..." at the end.

[elleng]

2. Wesley Clark: Ukraine must be armed right now.

The Kremlin has been waging a covert, hybrid war against Ukraine since February 2014. In this war, Moscow has used a combination of local separatist forces, irregular volunteers and Russian special forces and regular (conventional) forces. Since the original Minsk I cease-fire in September and the Minsk II cease-fire in February, the Kremlin-directed forces have taken additional territory.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/wesley-clark-ukraine-must-be-armed-right-now-385334.html

[sabrina 1]

3. The neocons warmongers have been very busy in Ukraine, desperate for more war. Good for the

Europeans who like everyone else, are growing weary of US brutality around the globe, especially when it is costing THEM not just money, but unrest among their own people who were sick of it before it all began.

Go home McCain, Nuland and your neocon buddies, the world has had it with all the dead bodies scattered around the countries you stick your noses in.

Not to mention being caught on tape planning the coup and supporting neo nazis with no regard for the innocent lives lost.

[vlakitti]

5. Amen, and thank you.

A war against Iran would be devastating and totally stupid.

WAR-MONGERING AGAINST RUSSIA AND ITS ALLIES WOULD BE FLAT OUT SUICIDAL.

Is this some neocon feint to blow up the Iran-US detente?

[sabrina 1]

12. I wondered about the connection to the Iran Deal also re Ukraine. The demonization of

Putin eg. Perhaps hoping to get Russia out of the negotiations?

Too many Americans don't get the news they need to be able to see through what is going on.

I doubt most Americans even knew that Russia was one of the six countries involved in the Iran Deal.

When you look at who has been stirring things up in Ukraine, it's difficult NOT to come to the conclusion they were trying desperately to start a war between the West and Russia.

And THAT could definitely have damaged the Iran negotiations.

They succeeded in getting thousands of innocent people killed in Ukr sadly, before someone put a stop to them.

[malaise]

8. +1,000

Funny how the chicken hawks love war

[LittleBlue]

72. Well said

[silverweb]

6. First Iran, now Ukraine.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Two steps closer to "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"

[salib]

7. Peace.

Simply peace.

[jeff47]

9. Yes, those closer countries are just "fear-mongered"

There isn't a thousand years of history where Russia repeatedly conquered them. And Chechnya and Georgia never happened. And Crimea just wandered to the other side of the Russian border.

[eridani]

17. Or they conquered Russia. Crimea "wandered" to the Ukraine in 1956

Get back to us when Russia has 900 military bases on every continent.

[NuclearDem]

18. Get back to us when the number of US military bases

has anything to do with Russia's blatantly illegal act of aggression.

[eridani]

22. You are a citizen of a country with no standing to call out illegal acts of aggression n/t

[NuclearDem]

23. If I were a representative of the US government, that would mean something.

I opposed bombing Syria back in 2013 and opposed the invasion of Iraq. I'll call out Russia's war of aggression if I damned well feel like it.

Why you're so damn committed to defend that war of aggression I have no idea.

[eridani]

24. Not seeing it. Easterners would be fine with more autonomy.

Don't see any drive for separation at all.

[NuclearDem]

26. Not seeing a war of aggression?

You've got to be kidding me.

[eridani]

27. If Russia wanted to do to Ukraine what they did to Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968--

--they'd have already done it.

[NuclearDem]

30. I can't see how you think that's a good argument.

"Well, Putin didn't roll tanks in and slaughter protestors, so why are you claiming about him illegally invading Crimea?"

[eridani]

39. The Crimeans don't seem to mind. Did they get a choice in 1956 about whether they wanted to

--be turned over to Ukraine?

[jeff47]

41. There are virtually no Crimeans left.

Russia shipped them off to make room for Russians to settle in Crimea back when the USSR still existed.

So you're about 60 years too late to give a fuck about the Crimeans.

[eridani]

66. And then transferred all of them to Ukraine. At least this time there was a vote

However halfassed

[NuclearDem]

45. How does that in any way justify Russia invading and occupying another country?

[eridani]

67. If it's ok with the people who live there, it's OK by me

Do you suppose the Russians spend a lot of time worrying about the US war on some drugs and its deleterious effect on Mexico?

[NuclearDem]

75. So as long as they're greeted as liberators...

...then illegal invasions are just fine and dandy to you.

[Man from Pickens]

51. stop wasting your time

you're arguing with someone who admits to wanting multiple wars

someone who almost certainly does not expect either to fight them or pay for them (although pay, we all will)

just put him on ignore and save your sanity

[NuclearDem]

62. You again?

Still waiting for the apparent evidence that I support these "multiple wars."

someone who almost certainly does not expect either to fight them or pay for them

PROTIP: When accusing someone of being a chickenhawk, make sure they are not, in fact, veterans with PTSD who have no interest in new wars.

[jeff47]

44. No, Russia hasn't been successfully conquered since Genghis Khan.

The "Conquest" you speak of was the USSR handing Crimea to Ukraine while both were still part of the USSR. And keep in mind Russia only "owned" Crimea because Russia conquered it long before.

Russia has invaded Poland at least 3 times. The Baltic states have been conquered by Russia repeatedly. Russia beat the shit out of the Chechens. Russia decided to steal two cities from Georgia.

Meanwhile, NATO has built some bases.

Ooooooh. Bases. So much scarier than actually conquering your neighbors.

[Igel]

10. Yup. Peace in our time.

More armored vehicles are moving into the Donbas from Russia. A steady trickle.

A village was taken over a couple of days ago by the DNR.

Ukr army soldiers died today from booby traps placed not far from the border.

And the rhetoric of "occupying Kiev" and "liberating Mariupol" continues unabated, even as arrangements are (again?) made to make sure that LNR high-ed establishments issue Russian diplomas and certificates and pensions or other things are paid for in rubles. The ed system is increasingly Russified with Russian textbooks according to Russian standards, the OSCE is not welcomed in certain areas, and one anthropologist has gone on record to show that from neolithic times, the population of Lugansk has been racially distinct from the (inferior) Ukrainians to the West--a common leitmotif among the race, religion, nationalism, and military-obsessed LNR and DNR leaders.

Mostly it's peaceful. But the endgame that some see as peace would be to have a large chunk of Ukraine Russia-loyal helping to determine Ukrainian national policy, and ready to bolt or fight if it's not "listened to." As the Western reaches of the country pointed out when, last summer, the east was saying, "We just want to be listened to" the east had been listened to for years. It had an oligarch from the east who appointed oligarchs from the east to run the country for the east. It was when the west demanded a turn suddenly the east found it needed to be listened. Rather like a parent telling a child, "You listen to me, boy!" For us, "listen" means "take the views into account to some measure." When a parent says that to a kid, it's "you obey me."

It's worth nothing that "peace" does not mean well-being and is not always a good or even a viable goal. Peace at any cost would be to deny the entire idea behind "No justice, no peace." Self-determination struggles would put the onus for peace squarely on those seeking independence. Peace through genocide is, historically, a common occurrence.

[NuclearDem]

31. What people seem to forget is that appeasement didn't work.

And it's certainly not working now.

[ronnie624]

11. Lol.

The war-mongers here seem unable to write a coherent post supporting their position. That's not surprising, considering the lack of logic in war.

[RobertEarl]

15. Indeed, ronnie

But then warmongers are a twisted bunch. I almost feel sorry for them, but I save my good thoughts for those the warmongers have hurt with their warmongering.

I can't wait till all the war freaks die off and leave us in peace.

[NuclearDem]

19. Indeed.

Though you seem to be confused about who the warmongers are in this situation.

[atreides1]

28. Anyone who advocates for war

That's a warmonger!

If you fit that definition then you belong in that category...if you don't fit that definition then you're not one!!!

[Fred Sanders]

32. The lusting foreign war mongers even use the same talking point words of the neo-cons.."appeasement". Nuts

Trying to remove "peace" from the discussion and replace with their Goebells picked word "appeasement".

Just words, so the neo-cons can call peace whatever they like, "peace" is peace.

Everyone knows it when they see it.

[randome]

13. "White House war crowd."

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[ronnie624]

14. Yeah!

Whoever heard of the US waging war in foreign countries for power and profit?

That's just crazy-talk.

[NuclearDem]

20. You guys need some new schtick.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Russia is an easier to sell as a really scary bogeyman that ensures more "defense" spending.

[NuclearDem]

21. Or sometimes an imperialist warmongering asshole

is just an imperialist warmongering asshole.

[RobertEarl]

56. Like bush and Mccain?

And our defense budget and our invasions and over 700 overseas bases?

Do you support them and the defense budget?

[joeybee12]

25. Disgusting that this has 24 recs...

Yeah, Putin is waging peace in the Ukraine. Unbelievable.

[L0oniX]

29. I rec'd it just for you. Enjoy.

[stevenleser]

33. Proof that some folks are determined to see situations fit their narrative even when the

Facts on the ground completely contradict it.

For them, the U.S. simply must be at fault in every situation. They insist on twisting every situation to fit that narrative, even here where you have a clear cut case of Russian aggression against a third party. Even where international law has very firm standards of what is and is not considered an unprovoked war of aggression (ie a war crime).

Russia was not attacked, no one was massing troops at the border to attack Russia, and the UN did not give permission for Russia to attack Ukraine. Therefore, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an unprovoked war of aggression. It's that simple.

Without Orwells treatise of nationalism, particularly his description of negative nationalism, the behavior of these folks would be a mystery to me. But when you read Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" it becomes clear that folks who swallow the pro-Russian line on Ukraine are negative nationalists with the U.S. as their selected antagonist.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Russia is not allowed to deploy the Munroe Doctrine ever, but America, of course, is? Got it.

[stevenleser]

35. Nope. I'm also not a nationalist FOR America. I'm just not a negative nationalist either. Nt

[stevenleser]

36. By the way, I never made the argument you are attacking

In other words you created a straw man and proceeded to beat it up.

I realize that's much easier than addressing a persons actual arguments but there are plenty of folks on DU that know logical fallacies when they see them and it completely discredits the person who uses them so you might want to check that behavior.

[Fred Sanders]

38. A geo-political parallel, with a historical example, is not a straw man fallacy! Nope.

Though it does make the situation painfully clearer.

[jeff47]

46. Ok, if you're gonna dig up the Monroe doctrine and claim it's relevant

Then we'll also talk about Stalin invading Poland and the Baltics.

And the Tsar invading Poland and the Baltics.

And the Tsar invading Crimea.

And the Tsars invading a lot of other countries to make themselves Tsars.

And all the other invasions in Russia's history.

[NuclearDem]

50. No, it's a strawman because absolutely no one here is defending the Monroe Doctrine.

And you brought it up just so you could instantly demolish a completely imaginary argument.

[stevenleser]

57. You can't explain your straw man away. You did it. Nt

[NuclearDem]

47. Where on earth did you get that?

The US has no more business telling Cuba or Venezuela what to do than Russia has with Ukraine or the Baltics.

[stevenleser]

58. They made up a straw man to attack because they couldn't attack what I said

Now they are trying to pretend what they did was something other than a straw man.

[guillaumeb]

43. Was Victor Yanukovych defeated in an election,

or was he ousted in a Parliamentary coup?

Is billionaire Petro Poroshenko a US puppet?

Does his support come from neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine?
http://www.workers.org/articles/2014/07/11/dissecting-ukraines-democracy-poroshenko-neo-nazis/

and if the above link is not to your political taste, try:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955

matters are rarely black and white. How do these facts fit YOUR narrative?

[stevenleser]

59. Ukraine's internal politics do not justify Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine

We can argue about what happened in Ukraine, but that has nothing to do with Russia's unprovoked war of aggression.

[guillaumeb]

68. I agree

But the war of aggression, to use your words, did not occur in a vacuum. Ukraine borders Russia, and any interference by NATO countries will be seen as an aggressive move by the Russians. Especially if the US is suspected of having a hand in the interference. And given the long history of US interference in the affairs of countries all over the world, who could blame the Russians for acting?

What would a US response be to an internal struggle in Canada or Mexico if there was a hint of outside interference? We both know the answer.

Another way to frame the question would be to ask why the US feels that the demands of empire require that the US engage in regime change and interference all over the world? But questions about the US empire and its effect on US politics cannot be discussed by the corporate media.

[guillaumeb]

40. liked your observation, especially when you said:

My overall sense of what is going is that the easterners are not so much interested in separation as in more autonomy within a federal system."

That sentiment could describe Quebecker politics, as well as many states' rights issues in the United States. But war is so much more profitable than peace, especially for the war industry.

Also interesting that the US has over 700 military bases all over the world while Russia has one base, in Ukraine. Yet Russia is painted as the aggressor and Putin is called a would be emperor. Boggles the mind.

[jeff47]

48. That would make some sense if the Easterners had been advocating for that.

But it's a new request. They didn't used to want more autonomy within a federal system, instead they worked within the system as it existed, governing with the Western portion of the country.

Also interesting that the US has over 700 military bases all over the world while Russia has one base, in Ukraine. Yet Russia is painted as the aggressor and Putin is called a would be emperor. Boggles the mind.

Yeah, it's not like Russia just forcefully annexed territory from Ukraine. Or Georga. And they just wanted to give Daiquiris to the Chechens.

And it's not like they invaded the Baltic states or Poland over and over again in their history.

Nope. It's all about bases on the other side of the planet. Bases man! They're WAY scarier than actually seizing territory from your neighbors!

[guillaumeb]

52. name a country

that the US has not invaded in the Americas?

Tell me when the US has not been at war?

Which country used nuclear devices twice?

Which country has over 700 bases and the biggest war budget on the planet?

Why does it have them, if not for power projection in defense of an Empire?

[jeff47]

54. Sure. All of them.

During the time that Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and pseudo-invaded Chechnia (they still technically owned it, they invaded to take away the autonomy they had granted to it), the US has invaded zero countries in the Americas.

Did we invade several of them in the past? Yep. But the point is we are not invading them now. Russia is invading them now.

Why does it have them, if not for power projection in defense of an Empire?

Because we agreed to cover the defense spending of our allies. Our military isn't just the US military. It's also the UK military, the French military, the German military, the Italian military, the Dutch military, the Norwegian military, the Japanese military, the Korean military, the Saudi military........and so on and so on.

All of those countries were able to cut their military spending because we insanely increased our military spending. For example, Japan doesn't have to build a military that can fend off China, because they know the US would help.

And yes, we are getting screwed by this financially, and it leads to dangerous "hey, let's go use these toys!" stupidity.

But none of that changes what Russia has been actually doing to its neighbors.

[guillaumeb]

69. The US is an Empire. It was created to be an empire.

The US currently has over 700 bases. Their purpose is not primarily protection, it is for power projection. The US asserts a "right" to interfere in the internal affairs of every country on earth, and first exercised that "right" even before the Revolutionary War was won.

And the US has invaded, directly or by proxy, every country in the Americas. Some more than once.

In addition to the US "right" to interfere in the affairs of every nation on earth, the US also asserts that other countries have no concomitant right to do the same thing. Thus when Russia intervenes in the Ukraine to stabilize the country after the coup, THAT is considered "unprovoked aggression". When the US interferes/intervenes it is called saving democracy, or another deceptive term designed to avoid the truth.

[NuclearDem]

60. What does any of this have to do with Russia's history?

Like I said before, you guys need some new schtick.

[Fred Sanders]

49. The folks known as "rebels" had been pleading for peace talks for exactly that...then what happened?

Poroshenko's militias got themselves trapped in a military junction town on the verge of annihilation by the thousands, then and only then did the Western powers come running to the peace talks that have eventually resulted in the actual, for real, not much in the news current truce, and further talks.

Peace is not news.
For some.

[guillaumeb]

53. Absolutely! And the news does not really contain information

for most in this country.

[stevenleser]

65. A war of aggression is a war of aggression no matter how many bases a country has overseas. nt

[guillaumeb]

70. I agree.

So when the US invaded and/or interfered with:
Haiti (numerous times)
Nicaragua, directly and by proxy,
Guatemala,
Chile, by proxy,
Canada, twice,
Mexico,
Panama,
Honduras,
Cuba,
the Philippines,
Vietnam,
Korea,
Laos,
Cambodia,
I will stop here, although the list could go on and on, these are all wars of aggression. Correct?

[NuclearDem]

76. Yes, those were wars of aggression.

Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine were also wars of aggression.

Hate to break it to you, but one country doing it doesn't make it ok for another to as well.

[guillaumeb]

77. I never said one excuses the other.

But ignoring the context of the present conflict makes it easy to "simplify" the situation as one of unprovoked Russian aggression.

When the coup took place, Viktor Yanukovych was illegally replaced by Parliament. Yanukovych appealed to Russia for help.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26427848

So was this an example of an elected leader asking another country for help? And given the history of the CIA in "replacing" leaders that the US did not like, who is to say that the coup was a spontaneous internal affair?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

[NuclearDem]

78. Speaking of simplifying it...

"Something happened in the world favorable to US interests, therefore, the CIA did it."

How did things ever happen in this world before the CIA existed?

[guillaumeb]

79. Once again, I did not say what you are arguing against.

Set up straw man, knock him down.

If you wish you can reread my actual posts.

[NuclearDem]

81. Yes, you did.

When the coup took place, Viktor Yanukovych was illegally replaced by Parliament. Yanukovych appealed to Russia for help.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26427848

So was this an example of an elected leader asking another country for help? And given the history of the CIA in "replacing" leaders that the US did not like, who is to say that the coup was a spontaneous internal affair?

You also simplified the many complexities behind Maidan and boiled everything down to "CIAdidit."

If you don't understand why Ukrainians might not want a future with Russia, you have no business commenting on this whole situation.

[guillaumeb]

82. so you are reading:

"And given the history of the CIA in "replacing" leaders that the US did not like, who is to say that the coup was a spontaneous internal affair? "

as me stating that the CIA is responsible for the Ukraine situation? If you take a poll on DU I believe most people would say that I was suggesting a possibility. Not definitively assigning blame.

[NuclearDem]

83. Yes, I am, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

And know exactly what you meant to say.

[guillaumeb]

84. a mind reader?

congratulations. Or perhaps you know what you wish to argue against and must reframe my words to fit your argument.

The CIA denied any involvement in the coup against Salvador Allende,
denied any involvement in plots against Castro,
and on and on and on. But eventually the truth came out.

But this is not proof that the CIA is the principal actor in Ukraine, or an actor at all.

[nationalize the fed]

42. k&r

To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners,

[BlueStreak]

55. Peace is bad for business. That kind of talk could get a person in trouble,

[SidDithers]

61. Who is William Boardman, and why the fuck should we care what he thinks about Ukraine?....

So a Small Claims Court judge from Vermont is an expert on Russia?



Sid

[elias49]

63. Where does he claim to be an expert?

He has an opinion. Is that OK with you?

[sabrina 1]

73. His opinions gel with many experts, so I guess he does know what he is talking about.

Why don't you link us to someone you believe is 'credible'?

If you're not happy with all the various sources most Liberals here have found to be credible for years, then provide us with what you believe are credible sources.

And please don't include our Corporate Media, we learned long ago not to trust a word they have to say on Foreign Policies and especially WAR.

[NuclearDem]

80. You can totally trust RT though.

They are, after all, watched by six quadrillion US households.

[sabrina 1]

86. I'm waiting for a list of credible sources. Perhaps you can provide us with a list??

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. That was written 4 weeks ago; 6 Ukrainian soldiers killed on Sunday, 3 on Saturday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32188232

[LittleBlue]

71. A federal system was always how this had to end

Much to the dismay of neoconservatives in the government and even a few MIC-loving types on DU. Ukraine will not be joining NATO. Sowwy

[Blue_Tires]

74. The "peace" has been unraveling for those not paying attention

and the hot take in the OP is dated 10 March...