Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,602
#4,602
volprof said:
Here's an article that suggests otherwise, for what it's worth:

Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results - Forbes

Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I apologize if I'm doing so. Please correct me if needed. But I've kind of gathered that you're like Rasputin (not as bad though) in that you unabashedly support the "self-determination" of ethnic Russians, yet simply cast the "self-determination" of ethnic Ukrainians as some sort of Western plot. (I don't think you're quite so sold on that as Rasputin, admittedly.) Further, you two (especially Ras) seem to support the self-determination of ethnic Russians in Ukraine yet act like Ukraine, well, it's a pseudo-state that really belongs to Russia anyhow, or at least did in the past. So, we don't really have any business there, while Russia does.

These are contradictory.

Like I said, if this is not what you think, then please clarify. I'll apologize as well. I am convinced, however, that this is what Rasputin thinks, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
My belief on the situation is quite complicated and I haven't completely made up my mind on all the issues. I find myself very critical of our foreign policy lately, and I believe the media's handling of this situation in particular is irresponsible as well as negligent in most cases.

I do believe the US was instrumental in the overthrow of the old Ukrainian government because they were backing out of the EU proposal. I find there's a pattern with countries that don't willingly fall under our sphere of influence. The book Confessions of an Economic Hitman illustrates that pattern in Central America. If a leader can be bought, fine; if not intimidated or isolated and overthrown/killed. I don't disagree with those tactics when national security is at stake, but it seems more and more the beneficiaries are the global corporations. Gen Smedley Butler brings up some good points in his book War is a Racket. Although I haven't read the book in its' entirety, he brings up some good points about who profits and who pays the price in wars.

As for the sovereignty of Ukraine, like many Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries, the boundaries seem artificially drawn to fit some bureaucrat's idea of what a country should look like. Just looking at the ethnicity breakdown and the terrain, it doesn't make sense to be one country (much like Iraq).

Regarding self determination, it appears to me the Ukrainians are imposing their will on the eastern half. That's why I make comments favorable to the ethnic Russians.
 
#4,603
#4,603
You know, I was thinking, it's kind of weird how the US and Russia were once the best of buds (or something damn near close). Russian nobles used to even come here to hunt, squired about by US politicians and dignitaries. And I'm sure Americans went to Russia in a similar visiting capacity as well.

With the exception of what I call the "Yeltsin Flourish" (which wasn't always peachy itself), it's all been downhill from those days.

Although long gone, the Bolsheviks are still watching us.
 
#4,604
#4,604
red butler said:
My belief on the situation is quite complicated and I haven't completely made up my mind on all the issues. I find myself very critical of our foreign policy lately, and I believe the media's handling of this situation in particular is irresponsible as well as negligent in most cases.

I do believe the US was instrumental in the overthrow of the old Ukrainian government because they were backing out of the EU proposal. I find there's a pattern with countries that don't willingly fall under our sphere of influence. The book Confessions of an Economic Hitman illustrates that pattern in Central America. If a leader can be bought, fine; if not intimidated or isolated and overthrown/killed. I don't disagree with those tactics when national security is at stake, but it seems more and more the beneficiaries are the global corporations. Gen Smedley Butler brings up some good points in his book War is a Racket. Although I haven't read the book in its' entirety, he brings up some good points about who profits and who pays the price in wars.

As for the sovereignty of Ukraine, like many Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries, the boundaries seem artificially drawn to fit some bureaucrat's idea of what a country should look like. Just looking at the ethnicity breakdown and the terrain, it doesn't make sense to be one country (much like Iraq).

Regarding self determination, it appears to me the Ukrainians are imposing their will on the eastern half. That's why I make comments favorable to the ethnic Russians.
Click to expand...

What if I told you that the Donbass wasn't a heavily "Russian" locale until the 1930s? And would you care to take a stab at how that came about?
 
#4,605
#4,605
volprof said:
What if I told you that the Donbass wasn't a heavily "Russian" locale until the 1930s? And would you care to take a stab at how that came about?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it was mostly Tatars and I'm sure it wasn't pretty. That gives me a good idea... we should reinstate the Ottoman Empire.

But by the same token, should we give America back to the Native Americans?
 
#4,606
#4,606
volprof said:
You know, I was thinking, it's kind of weird how the US and Russia were once the best of buds (or something damn near close). Russian nobles used to even come here to hunt, squired about by US politicians and dignitaries. And I'm sure Americans went to Russia in a similar visiting capacity as well.

With the exception of what I call the "Yeltsin Flourish" (which wasn't always peachy itself), it's all been downhill from those days.

Although long gone, the Bolsheviks are still watching us.
Click to expand...

What time frame are you referring to? It is interesting how we choose our enemies. I was talking to my buddy who is a military history buff the other day. He had been reading about how American soldiers in the world wars felt like they had more in common with the German POWs than the French and English. I've never understood why we got involved with WWI and the second one probably would have been avoided if we hadn't.
 
#4,607
#4,607
red butler said:
I'm guessing it was mostly Tatars and I'm sure it wasn't pretty. That gives me a good idea... we should reinstate the Ottoman Empire.

But by the same token, should we give America back to the Native Americans?
Click to expand...

First of all, 50 years in those days was quite a lot of time.

Second, no, it was mostly a Cossack collection (both ethnic Ukrainian and Russian). They were basically annihilated by the Soviets and numerous ethnic Russian friendly to the Bolsheviks were shipped in. It is a particularly strategic region due to its industrial resources, so the Bolsheviks wanted to ensure their control by having Russians entrenched there.

Uncle Joe was a lot of things, but dumb he was not. He and the Bolsheviks did such things precisely in anticipation of events like this current crisis. Ethnic Russians, with interests primarily in Moscow, would become too entrenched and, therefore, offer a counterweight to other nationalities in the region.
 
#4,608
#4,608
red butler said:
What time frame are you referring to? It is interesting how we choose our enemies. I was talking to my buddy who is a military history buff the other day. He had been reading about how American soldiers in the world wars felt like they had more in common with the German POWs than the French and English. I've never understood why we got involved with WWI and the second one probably would have been avoided if we hadn't.
Click to expand...

1850s-1910s. Basically, the late Romanov period.
 
#4,609
#4,609
volprof said:
First of all, 50 years in those days was quite a lot of time.

Second, no, it was mostly a Cossack collection (both ethnic Ukrainian and Russian). They were basically annihilated by the Soviets and numerous ethnic Russian friendly to the Bolsheviks were shipped in. It is a particularly strategic region due to its industrial resources, so the Bolsheviks wanted to ensure their control by having Russians entrenched there.

Uncle Joe was a lot of things, but dumb he was not. He and the Bolsheviks did such things precisely in anticipation of events like this current crisis. Ethnic Russians, with interests primarily in Moscow, would become too entrenched and, therefore, offer a counterweight to other nationalities in the region.
Click to expand...

yup and china is trying it out now too. Tibet and Taiwan, also a couple of their other western provinces are being 'invaded' by chinese.
 
#4,610
#4,610
Hey, red, I can tell you seem to like Russian history like myself. If you haven't already, you might consider giving Martin Sixsmith's "Russia: A Thousand Year Chronicle of the Wild East" a read. My wife bought it for me for our anniversary, and I enjoyed every bit of it.

Also, if pressed for time, this is another good guide that the History Channel did some years ago. "Russia: Land of the Tsars." I love watching it. I find the ending particularly profound and poignant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r_WXKto268&list=PL658EE0F2CE09D44E
 
#4,611
#4,611
LouderVol said:
yup and china is trying it out now too. Tibet and Taiwan, also a couple of their other western provinces are being 'invaded' by chinese.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. The western half, roughly, of China is not historically "Chinese."

I guess all three of us major powers have ghosts in our closets though.
 
#4,612
#4,612
volprof said:
Yes, you are right. The western half, roughly, of China is not historically "Chinese."

I guess all three of us major powers have ghosts in our closets though.
Click to expand...

that's all history is. The displacement and removal of different cultures as new ones move in.
 
#4,613
#4,613
three things a culture can do to survive a new culture moving into their area, the three Fs, fight, flee or f*&k (interbreed and become a single culture).
 
#4,614
#4,614
LouderVol said:
that's all history is. The displacement and removal of different cultures as new ones move in.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is true, thus rendering us all hypocrites. But at some point it has to stop, at least theoretically in the eyes of international law.

Of course it won't though.
 
#4,615
#4,615
volprof said:
Sadly, this is true, thus rendering us all hypocrites. But at some point it has to stop, at least theoretically in the eyes of international law.

Of course it won't though.
Click to expand...

its the way of the world, as conditions change animals move, flora and fauna are showing up in regions never seen before as weather changes, so will humans. Even though we like to think otherwise we are just animals with better processing brainpower.

OT, but a couple of my professors talked about how certain orange trees still won't grow in Florida because it is still too cold for them to survive.
 
#4,617
#4,617
Velo Vol said:
How?
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly how but there is enough evidence for me to believe we were behind it.

-First of all, Putin had no reason to want the government overthrown.
-The government was overthrown within weeks of backing out of the EU proposal.
-The new government was recognized by the US almost immediately (when was the last time a government was overthrown and the US did that immediately)
-You have the Nuland conversations prior to the protests saying "Yatz" is our guy and f*** the EU (Yatz is a former head of a Central Bank by the way).
-At least $5bn went through Ukraine via USAID (USAID is a friendly sounding name, but if I were a country's leader I wouldn't let that organization in my borders).
-The riots started within weeks of visits from multiple people in the State Department as well as John McCain.
-The Nazi party was given very high appointments in the new cabinet (there are pictures of their leader with McCain).
-Biden's son and a close family friend of Kerry's were almost immediately put on the boards of Ukraine gas companies.
-It would be easy enough to put the shooters at the Maiden protests under CIA contract (admittedly this is a reach).
-There are several people that I listen too in the Spec Ops community that have no doubt the US was behind the overthrow.
-The first wave of troops Kiev sent to Eastern Ukraine put down their weapons. The shooting didn't start until a couple of days after the IMF bailout. One of the stipulations of continued IMF support was that Kiev regain control of Eastern Ukraine.
-The first election was sketchy at best, yet the US legitimized it.

Granted, there is no smoking gun but for me there are too many coincidences.
 
#4,618
#4,618
red butler said:
I don't know exactly how but there is enough evidence for me to believe we were behind it.

-First of all, Putin had no reason to want the government overthrown.
-The government was overthrown within weeks of backing out of the EU proposal.
-The new government was recognized by the US almost immediately (when was the last time a government was overthrown and the US did that immediately)
-You have the Nuland conversations prior to the protests saying "Yatz" is our guy and f*** the EU (Yatz is a former head of a Central Bank by the way).
-At least $5bn went through Ukraine via USAID (USAID is a friendly sounding name, but if I were a country's leader I wouldn't let that organization in my borders).
-The riots started within weeks of visits from multiple people in the State Department as well as John McCain.
-The Nazi party was given very high appointments in the new cabinet (there are pictures of their leader with McCain).
-Biden's son and a close family friend of Kerry's were almost immediately put on the boards of Ukraine gas companies.
-It would be easy enough to put the shooters at the Maiden protests under CIA contract (admittedly this is a reach).
-There are several people that I listen too in the Spec Ops community that have no doubt the US was behind the overthrow.
-The first wave of troops Kiev sent to Eastern Ukraine put down their weapons. The shooting didn't start until a couple of days after the IMF bailout. One of the stipulations of continued IMF support was that Kiev regain control of Eastern Ukraine.
-The first election was sketchy at best, yet the US legitimized it.

Granted, there is no smoking gun but for me there are too many coincidences.
Click to expand...

Now, take all of that, invert it, and times it by about 10 or so, and you have Russia's potential involvement.
 
#4,619
#4,619
red butler said:
You say this every time someone questions the established narrative. For the record, I don't get any information from RT. There are many former American intelligence/army/journalism professionals that have a problem with recent events; you just don't hear their side in the MSM. This is an excellent article from yesterday by an American Warning to the World: Washington and its NATO & EU Vassals are Insane -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org. There is a link in the article to a letter from former intelligence professionals that is also excellent.
Click to expand...
I posted a video from Paul Craig Roberts a few weeks ago regarding the threat to world peace and the possibility of some US officials believing we could win a first strike nuclear war and got this response:

volprof said:
Pardon my Hindi, but what would a former Reagan administrator know about our current state of affairs?
Click to expand...

The video in question...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lPeeGT8uVI[/youtube]
 
#4,620
#4,620
volprof said:
Now, take all of that, invert it, and times it by about 10 or so, and you have Russia's potential involvement.
Click to expand...

Russia had no motive to overthrow the government. They were backing out of joining the EU, they owed Russia billions of dollars, and the new government was anti-Russia.
 
#4,621
#4,621
red butler said:
You say this every time someone questions the established narrative. For the record, I don't get any information from RT. There are many former American intelligence/army/journalism professionals that have a problem with recent events; you just don't hear their side in the MSM. This is an excellent article from yesterday by an American Warning to the World: Washington and its NATO & EU Vassals are Insane -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org. There is a link in the article to a letter from former intelligence professionals that is also excellent.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize if you do get your news from RT or not. Most of the news stories being used by the opposing side come from such credible sources as MSNBC, NYT, CNN and the White House. Not to mention Vice...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,622
#4,622
volprof said:
And Roberts seems to be taking the Rasputin approach: that Russia is just sitting there looking out for its own interests but not actually getting involved militarily because, hey, if it did, it would only take 14 hours to wipe the Ukraine out! You would think a phd from UVA and a man with the worldly experience of a Roberts would understand the concepts of logistics, strategy, and special warfare. Apparently not though. I guess his only notion of Russian invasion involves T-90 tank divisions spearheading 50,000-200,000 Russian troops into Ukraine all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why the US has interest in The Ukraine if it isn't for their own interests? Are we just playing the benelovent Super Power trying to restore democracy in Ukraine? :crazy: Or do we have other motives?
 
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top