From Russia with Love

[angrychair]

I STRESS THIS AS CLEARLY AS I CAN, no sane person wants war. No sane person wants worldwide conflict.

I've read several OPs here and while I get the fact that people love analogizing our potential involvement in Ukraine to our poorly contrived "adventure" into Vietnam and evoking the misspoken and poorly conceived "domino Theory" about all of Asia falling into communism and the control of China. I would counter that analogy is bogus and more a knee-jerk reaction to a very unnerving and potentially violent situation.

Secondly, I love how some couch it as a "civil war". What civil war? A civil war would be an INTERNAL conflict between Ukrainians on how to govern their country. I would be the first to agree that we should think long and hard on being involved in such a conflict. This is NOT a civil war. This is an attack by an OUTSIDE military power and its attempt to manipulate the political and economic future of the Ukrainian people.


What is the situation?

First, we have a man who imagines himself a world leader that people should FEAR and RESPECT (neither is a trait for a real world leader). A man that has shaped his own cult of personality and uses it. A man who is egotistical at best, a megalomaniac at worse. A man that has kept himself in power by changing the constitution and laws in his own country by shear force of his cult of personality. A man that has manipulated elections in former Soviet republics to install puppet governments (Ukraine for example). A man who is known to yearn for the "glory" days of Russia as a Warsaw Pact superpower that dominates the land around him as far as he can see. If you don't think that is who Putin is than you are lying to me or worse, to yourself.

Second, we have a former Soviet republic, long suffering under the Russian yoke, that has decided it has had enough and decides to break out and form a real government free of Russia's influence. There are many former Warsaw Pact countries and its people, that hold such feelings dear to their hearts and would happily risk all in defense of it. Why we may not be willing to go to war, if you think they are not than you need to read up what countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Germany went through and how they gained their independence.

Lastly, as a person that has first hand experience of the "Cold War" in Europe during in the '70's and '80's and remembers waking every day and wondering if this was my last day. Knew the soldiers and people that lived with that specter every day. I counter that a new "Cold War" is a Chinese Water Torture I don't want to live through again.

So, it begs the question, what now? I don't want nuclear death raining down around my friends and family but I am just as unwilling to concede the Ukrainian people and potentially others in Europe, in some implausible attempt to save my own ass.

Given the current course of action by Russia, worldwide conflict is more likely than it is not. Yes, things could change. Yes, we should make every attempt to resolve the issue without conflict (every attempt that doesn't concede Ukraine or any other part of Europe).

P.S.
to "head to your military recruiter now" crowd, I am medically unfit for duty and a little to old at this point. That point aside, I will defend country's shores to my last breath.

[RobertEarl]

1. No

The world learned that bush type reactions are not smart.

Putin knows it. There will be no 'worldwide' conflict.

Now, Fukushima? That IS something that is a worldwide conflict.

[angrychair]

2. Respectfully

I disagree that Putin knows that. If he did than he would not be on his current course of action. I concur that "Bush type reactions" are a recipe for failure. I stand by my final point, barring a significant change in the current course of events, a regional at best (Europe) or global at worse, conflict is coming. If I or you or any of us, want it or not. How I personally feel about all of this (afraid, sad and stressed and wishing it would just stop) does not change the reality we face.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. storm in a teacup

[TBF]

3. Your rhetoric is from the 1950s -

we are in a new century.

[angrychair]

5. sorry

You don't get to do a one-liner and run. How is my rhetoric from the 1950's?

Did I ask people to start diving under desk or use their root Cellars as fallout shelters?

Did I invoke the term "better dead than red" somewhere and not realize it?

No. What I did do was give honest analysis of a potentially dangerous situation unfolding in front of us in real time. Every major regional and worldwide conflict has a trigger point, a point in history that set in motion everything after it. I also interjected my first-hand experience with what the "Cold War" was like. Because it seems some may have forgot what it was really about and what it was really like. Not to mention the added "benefit" of ingraining into our culture this ultra-nationalist, xenophobic bullshit that has only help foster the current situation we are in.

[TBF]

6. Your analysis is outdated -

and I'm very sorry but anyone under 40 has no idea what you're talking about (I barely do because my mom is 70 and has told the stories). We have up to date communications now and weapon systems in several countries that can blow up this planet. All they really are good for is the big powers to keep each other in check.

Ukraine is not going to provoke WWIII - not even a modern version of it. Putin is guarding the south Ukraine ports where the folks support him anyway. He didn't take over Kiev. The US/EU would love the whole country to join w/them (as evidenced by their covert activity) but I'm sure they'll take what they can get. Ukraine will be split (west and central to EU; south and east to Russia). End of story ...

[angrychair]

10. I respectfully disagree

It is historically accepted that the trigger-point for WWI was the assassination of a minor political figure (Archduke Ferdinand) and the cause of WWII was the destabilizing effect of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany that fostered an environment that gave rise to an ultra-nationalist like Hitler.
Neither of these things seemed a game-changer when they first happened.

Come on....the 1970's and 1980's was not that long ago...have a little mercy
Putin is an old-school Russian. He is, by trade, a soviet-era KGB agent.
I never said this was WWIII only that we should not ignore the specifics and understand the very dark history of all the players.
Please realize that Crimea is part of Ukraine, not Russia.That Crimea is histortically Tartar and Ukrainian and not Russian. That over 75% of Ukraine is ethnic Ukrainians and that only 17% are ethnic Russian.

[MBS]

11. sorry, but your analysis is naive.

Angrychair is doing a service by providing some important history to those "under 40 (who have) no idea " what angrychair is talking about. I know what he/she is talking about, and you should make some effort to figure it out, too.

Many DUers seem to be unduly enamored by simplistic thinking on this issue. But the thing is, it's not simple. It's a serious crisis, one with serious consequences, a delicate, volatile situation with many geographical, cultural, religious, linguistic, and political dimensions, and a tangled history that goes back at least 500 years. And that history matters. One part of the history that matters is the cold war history that you and others on this thread dismiss, incorrectly, as irrelevant. It matters because Putin clearly sees the world this way. .And the deeper history matters too. See http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/22-maps-that-explain-the-centuries-long-conflict-in-the-ukraine

This doesn't mean that we should go to war; it does mean, though, that we (the US, the UN, the EU, Ukraine, whoever else) really need to understand both the full history of the situation and take into account all its complexities in contemplating the serious, long-term consequences of any action (or inaction) that is taken. It's a very high-stakes chess match, and every move has to be thought through.

Personally, I'm very grateful to have the thoughtfulness of Obama and the experienced, nimble, dedicated efforts of SoS Kerry during this crisis. Kudos for Sec. Kerry for showing up in Kiev tomorrow.

[TBF]

12. Naive to understand both the EU/US

and Russia are involved in a country that they should exit from?

But that will not happen because of this --

Ukraine, the most heavily-populated and economically important of the Soviet republics – after Russia – would, understandably, play an important role in the break-up of the USSR in December 1991, perhaps best illustrated by the following brief account (in chronological order) of events concerning same, to be found in “The World Almanac of 1993” (Pan Books) on pages 1 & 2:

Dec. 1 [1991] : “On that day the people of the Ukraine, the so-called breadbasket of the Soviet Union, voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence from the USSR”.

Dec. 2: “Pres. George Bush directed Sec. of State James Baker to visit the Ukraine to explore establishing diplomatic relations and to discuss control of nuclear weapons on its territory”.

Dec. 3: Contrary to Gorbachev’s appeal, “Yeltsin recognized the Ukraine as an independent state”.

Dec. 5: Ukraine parliament endorsed result of referendum of Dec 1st.

Dec. 8: Leaders of the three Slavic USSR republics – Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia – signed an agreement to form a “Commonwealth of Independent States” – and invited other USSR republics to join.

Dec. 9: “Gorbachev denounced the agreement as illegal”.

Dec.12: Kravchuk, Pres. of the Ukraine, “declared himself commander of all Soviet troops in Ukraine territory”.

Dec. 21: Leaders of 11 republics met in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, and signed agreements creating the Commonwealth.

The USSR no longer existed, and the oil and gas reserves of Russia would now be available to Corporate America – to say nothing of that vulnerable ‘breadbasket’ – Ukraine!

Alternative history here for those who would like to read something other than State Dept talking points: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitical-history-of-ukraine/5371491

[okaawhatever]

13. Funny that you should mention "state dept talking points" while simultaneously using an even

more propagandist source. GlobalResearch's shilling for Muammar al-Gaddafi has that effect on your reputation. Not to mention articles written by it's founder like this:

Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change, by Michel Chossudovsky, globalresearch.ca

From globalresearch on Qaddafi:

Muammar Qaddafi has handed out over one million Kalashnikovs to the Libyan people. If he was the brutal dictator that NATO would have us believe him to be, then the armed population could have turned their guns on him and the revolutionary armed forces by now, especially as they would have NATO’s full backing if they did so.

In the face of this all out aggression, over 10,000 bombing raids and into its fifth month, the Libyan patriotic and revolutionary armed forces and the vast majority of Libyans have remained steadfast and loyal, defending their revolution and its leader.

NATO – North Atlantic Terrorist Organization

NATO is a terrorist organization. Originally created to check the spread of Soviet Communism into Western Europe, this European organization has now reinvented itself as an enforcer and defender of White supremacy. On a global crusade, NATO brutally enforces neo-colonialism worldwide under the guise of ‘spreading democracy’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’.

The number of Iraqis slaughtered in the ongoing US war and occupation of Iraq – now in its ninth year, is estimated at 1,455,590, let alone the numbers murdered in Afghanistan, Somalia, Cote d’Ivoire and conflicts all over the world – set in motion either covertly or overtly by these terrorists. No people in the entire history of humanity have made war on all peoples and murdered more people than these North Atlantic Tribes. This is an historical fact.
________________

AYFKM #1: One million Kalashnikovs??
AYFKM #2 NATO countries have killed more people in history than anyone else? Hello, think China and Russia.
AYFKM #3 Numbers on the Iraq deaths have been calculated by several countries, NGOs, international non-profits and human rights orgs. Even wikileaks revealed the number of deaths America had calculated. It was fewer than 200,000. The remainder were a result of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical and murderous regime.

You have zero credibility when you quote fringe lunatics to back up your point.

[TBF]

14. Can't refute the facts so you turn

to attacking the source. So typical.

[okaawhatever]

15. Well, I could do that, too. Can you defend the credibility of that whack job source of yours? Prove

how what they've said is even close to being true?

[TBF]

16. Name-calling, attacking sources,

and making demands with no substance whatsoever. OKaawhatever ...

Such an appropriate username.

[JayhawkSD]

4. You have a poor grasp of the situation

First, Putin did not engineer a violent overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine. To the extent that anyone did, it was the United States that did so, spending some $5 billion in the process. If the election was rigged, violent overthrow would not be a proper solution, any more than it would have been in this nation in 2000.

Second, for large portions of Ukraine your rhetoric about "long suffering under the Russian yoke" is entirely misplaced. In the Eastern half of Ukraine more than half of the population is ethnically Russian, speaks Russian, carries Russian passports and has considered themselves Russian for centuries.

Third if you think that Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Germany are going to get into a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine you are delusional. They fought a Soviet occupation, but they are not going to set Europe on fire over something that is of only minor interest to their own security. If Putin invaded them, sure, but he is not going to do that.

"Given the current course of action by Russia, worldwide conflict is more likely than it is not." It's current course of action consiste entirely of securing its own interests in Crimea and presents absolutely no threat of continental armed conflict, let anone "worldwide conflict." Even if it were to emulate its course of action in Georgia, tensions in Europe would be high, but "worldwide conflict" erupting? That is simply absurd.

[angrychair]

9. ok

First paragraph:
You conjecture here is that the Ukrainian people should shut up and suck it up. That a Putin puppet government is better than conflict. Comparing the US style of elections and government to those in Ukraine is way over-simplifying the issues.

Second:

Do you actually know any Ukrainians? Your statement makes that seem unlikely. According to 2012 population statistics, Ukrainians make up over 75% of the population (Russians are about 17%). Are you stating that an ethnic-minority should dictate the politics for the Ukrainian people? While there are some Russian-aligned people in eastern Ukraine (being right next Russia makes that likely) the Kremlin's influence drops as you move west toward Kiev and Russian influence dies off as you reach Lviv on the far west side. What about Crimea? It is historically Tartar, not Russian. Point of fact, Russians did not become a predominant ethnic group there until Stalin ordered the ethnic cleansing aka forced relocation, of native Tartars. Crimea is still part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Former Soviet-bloc nations are already securing more NATO support for their countries and I would also reference comments by both Germany and Poland.

Regardless, my point was to seek a non-military alternative but not be blind to the reality of the situation. As it stands now it looks more and more likely that money, aka Russia's economic situation, will be more important than its pride.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. All Obama needs to do is pick the phone and talk to Putin

make him an offer that he can't refuse

besides who can afford a war these days?