Lavrov Accuses West Of Seeking 'Regime Change' In Russia
Source: REUTERS
By Polina Devitt
MOSCOW Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:09pm EST
(Reuters) - Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the West on Saturday of trying to use sanctions imposed on Moscow in the Ukraine crisis to seek "regime change" in Russia.
His comments stepped up Moscow's war of words with the United States and the European Union in their worst diplomatic standoff since the Cold War ended.
"As for the concept behind to the use of coercive measures, the West is making clear it does not want to force Russia to change policy but wants to secure regime change," Tass news agency quoted Lavrov as telling a meeting of the advisory Foreign and Defense Policy Council in Moscow.
He said that when international sanctions had been used against other countries such as Iran and North Korea, they had been designed not to harm the national economy.
"Now public figures in Western countries say there is a need to impose sanctions that will destroy the economy and cause public protests," Lavrov said.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/22/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKCN0J609G20141122
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Just get the idiot in charge to stop invading and annexing parts of other sovereign nations. I am sure he can still be in charge as he has been for the last few years and when nobody was calling for regime change then either.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
Cha
(297,196 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 23, 2014, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)
propaganda.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)that's about how many believe anything that Putin/the FOX-like Kremlin-controlled media says
Cha
(297,196 posts)bullshite of all stripes for RW Corporate Bullshit.. same as RT
And then there's the putin pushers on DU.. rofl Protect putin at all costs.. hate on the USA 24/7.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Unless you can cite a part of Mexico or Canada we've conquered and annexed.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)list them. They are well known.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)does not engage in this kind of dishonest, self-pitying attempt to claim victim status.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Your sarcasm, while consistent, is not warranted here.
Lavrov is really over the top here. First off, how can he say that the Iran and NK sanctions do not hurt those economies? Can you seriously explain ANY sanctions issued by large parts of the international community that do not affect the target's economy? In fact, THAT is exactly what they are designed to do. (Even things like BDS (against things made by Israel in the West Bank) or the various de-investment efforts employed against South Africa last century try in a non governmental way to accomplish the same thing.) Not to mention his boss, Putin, says the sanctions don't hurt Russia (!) -
http://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-russia-not-isolated-tass-093254058.html
What Lavrov is whining about is that the US led in calling for sanctions because Russia is very clearly invading its neighboring country. Remember that both the Putin fans here (and the RW) argued that sanctions were nothing -- and that Obama and Kerry were powerless. The RW wanted "stronger action", but never said what. The Putin fans spoke of cookies and Nazis - ignoring that Lavrov either lied to Kerry and the EU FMs or was used by Putin saying Russia would not invade, and would definitely not annex Crimea. Oh, and those mysterious green uniformed men - who he swore were not Russian - were weeks later praised and called Russian soldiers by Putin.
I assume that YOU would be the first to post here if Obama sent Kerry out to say something patently untrue - and Obama later pretended the US government had never said that. Instead, here you don't even see that it is Lavrov's credibility that is being shredded to pieces. His only saving grace is that there are issues where US and USSR issues are in line -- and Kerry, a FAR BETTER MAN, will not sacrifice help that could make the world safer just because the country and foreign minister lied straightfaced to the world.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)So while you think Obama and Kerry have been truthful about Ukraine, you have no evidence either way.
It has been a long term policy of the PNACers to wrestle Ukraine away from the Russian sphere and thus the coup is very suspicious to people like me.
It is also the PNACer doctrine to maintain US as the sole superpower so we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. Whilst the jingoists like this, it creates a more dangerous world. We need multiple powers as checks and balances and Russia is one. This may sound like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg but it is manifestly true.
American history has been littered with attacks on small defenseless countries willy-nilly for power and resources. "Regime Change" is a phrase used repeatedly with respect to many countries. If we uttered it, we own it.
The sanctions are geared specifically to weaken and destabilize Russia and to cause a revolt against Putin. It has also been expressed openly. How is it not an attempt at "regime change?"
I personally think that Lavrov has far more credibility here because he probably has seen secret State and Defense documents obtained by the KGB. Rest of us are in the dark.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)1) Are sanctions - whether against Russia, Iran or NK - effective in hurting the country that it is aimed against? Lavrov seems to think that this happens just in Russia --- however, Putin is taking a stranger position - saying the ones against Russia do not hurt it.
2) Neither Obama or Kerry were PNAC signers --- and Kerry had a long history opposing people like Eliott Abrams etc -- in fact, the charges against Abrahms that GHWB pardoned him for were for lying to Kerry about aiding the Contras.
3) Your assumption that Lavrov is claiming regime change because of secret state department documents that the KGB probably has is pretty creative -- but not based on anything the least bit realistic.
The sanctions were designed to force Putin to change course on Ukraine. The set of actions that Ukraine, Europe, and the US had at their disposal was pretty limited. Military was completely off the table for obvious good reasons. No matter what Putin says about not letting others to put Russia behind an iron curtain - ignores that THEY created that iron curtain the first time and that this is inconsistent with saying the sanctions did not hurt.
pampango
(24,692 posts)against Putin."
Sanctions did not happen until Russia annexed part of Ukraine. The business community in the US and Europe (particularly in Europe) are not happy about sanctions since Russia has been one of their best customers. They are losing a lot of money not being able to sell to and buy from Russia.
If Russia restored Ukraine's territorial integrity, sanctions would fall apart in no time. There may be a few hawks in the US and Europe who would like to see Putin gone, just like their are hawks in Russia who would prefer a Europe without an EU. There are always hawks everywhere. If you think that these hawks would convince the US and EU governments to continue with sanctions after a restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, we disagree.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and lack the bigger picture.
Guantanamo is part of Cuba and has always been. It is also an important naval base. Will the US ever let Cuba control the naval base?
Same thing with Crimea -- why is it so hard to understand that Russia will never give up that base or let it be under control of a hostile regime?
pampango
(24,692 posts)of Crimea that it is located in. That would be like a country annexing the whole state of Connecticut (similar in area to Crimea) just to control the submarine base in Groton.
The US use of Guantanamo is illegal but it did not annex the base and make it part of the US and does not occupy, claim or use any territory in the province(s) around the naval base there.
Obviously, no one was asking Russia to 'give up' that base. A lease had been signed that was good for another 28 years. That base was not going anywhere and Russia knew it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The US doesn't care about Guantánamo because Cuba doesn't have any muscle to fight for it nor does Cuba have any powerful friends to help it.
The PNAC plot of wrstling control of Ukraine and making it join NATO could have caused a permanent loss of the base to Russia and Russia couldn't have fought NATO to get it back.
Why don't you comment on the scheme of purposely lowering oil prices with heavy production by the Saudis to hurt Russia? Ohhhh -- it didn't happen -- people just started conserving all of a sudden etc etc
pampango
(24,692 posts)Cuba did have a powerful friend in the USSR for a long time. The U.S. did not annex any of the provinces in Cuba around the base.
Russia has a lease on the base for another 28 years. You can make that seem meaningless but it is not. There is a question in some minds whether NATO would respond if the Baltic states were attacked and they are members of NATO.
The idea that NATO would launch an offensive to take the Sevastopol naval base despite a long term lease is ridiculous. It's the kind of straw man that a neocon offers to justify taking "preemptive" military action.
Yeah, the increase in US oil production and in many other oil producing countries is all a big conspiracy aimed at hurting Russia. That's all that matters to oil exporting countries. "How does this affect Russia?"
Perhaps Russia should diversify its economy so that it does not rely on exporting its own natural resources.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that has little to no power? Is the US policy of President Obama regime change in Russia?
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)And one of his sons advised McCain
Ms. Brzezinski bristled at the comment, saying: “Supporter of Senator Obama? I’m not sure I would characterize myself that way.”
Later, she repeated her objection and reminded viewers that her brother, Ian Brzezinski, is working on Mr. McCain’s campaign.
“Take care of my brother,” she said to Mr. McCain. “Say hi to Ian for me.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/mccain-spars-with-morning-joe-co-host/?_r=0
...
Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire
However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/president-obamas-former-foreign-policy-adviser-said-1997-u-s-gain-control-ukraine.html
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)14 years ago, you are really reaching. Hell back then even Russia was moving to the west. Then Putin came back and started annexing parts of sovereign nations and invading other parts of them. Now NATO will get even more funding and equipment.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)The USA shows that it will have good relations with China and plenty of other effed up countries if they behave with minimum standards in terms of their neighbors. (In my opinion, USA is too kind to China given the occupation of Tibet.) No, the USA would be happy to deal with, trade with, work with Russia--but it's ruled by a dictator creep with a Napoleon complex.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)...
The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
and they were on peaceful path and NATO was becoming obsolete and was on the verge of being downsized to the point it would barely exist. Not anymore, many of the small eastern countries are scared shitless that they will be next in the annex chain to "protect" ethnic Russians.
Cha
(297,196 posts)snip//
"Russia's lower house of parliament on Jan. 25 voted to support a bill that makes public events and dissemination of information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors punishable by fines of up to $16,000. The bill still requires the parliament's and the president's final approval.
Lavrov spoke at a news conference with Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who on Feb. 1 had urged Russia not to put the bill into law and said he would raise the issue with Lavrov.
"Discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable. Gay rights are human rights and Russia must adhere to its international obligations," Timmermans had said, calling on the Russian parliament not to approve the bill.
At the news conference, Timmermans said he and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton believe that the legislation "could infringe on fundamental rights."
Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, but homophobia remains strong in the country. Authorities routinely ban gay rallies and parades.
MOre..
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russias-foreign-minister-defends-anti-gay-bill
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
tsuki
(11,994 posts)of Putin? You might be interested. He's not posturing.
Cha
(297,196 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on the planet.
But, Putin's subjects are pretty much brainwashed authoritarians so of course tegu will believe this.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Go fuck yourself, Sergei! 
Igel
(35,300 posts)You never hear about the "Merkel regime" or "Obama regime."
You do hear about the Saddam regime, the Assad regime, and strongman or military-run "regimes."
So RT--or Lavrov--is putting Putin in the same class of strong, authoritarian or militaristic figures.
(Then again, Saddam did have his supporters in the US in 2002, calling for lifting sanctions, stopping the "aggression" of negative polemic, etc. They didn't argue that there'd be Islamist chaos. Just that the US was bad and Hussein not so.)
newthinking
(3,982 posts)You guys are just sounding silly anymore (the five or six people on the site who keep trying to fill anything related to Russia with rhetoric)
If you really cared about the things you say you care about you would take a different approach. Tabloiding the situation, propagandizing, hate as a motivator, that is the kind of thing that is for domestic consumption. But not very wise and does nothing to solve problems.