Busted: Kiev MPs try to fool US senator with ‘proof’ of Russian tanks in Ukraine



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3OFKyL7z0Q


These clowns in power in Ukraine are just cracking me up. Putin wins again!

http://vineyardsaker..com/2015/02/busted-kiev-mps-try-to-fool-us-senator.html?m=1

vladimir putin
a man percieved to be a ferocious leader,ex-KGB,and grand chess-master.but is he really that cunning?.putin is pushing into ukraine,albeit indirectly through the hands of disgruntled rebels,but isnt it such a dangerous tete~a~tete.yes,i must applaud him on his efforts so far,he has made sure that ukraine will never be united again.
but is it prudent to force NATO's hand?,russia has no defense allies{since the warsaw pact was dismantled}.the 'west' are a wicked and devious world leader,we live under the supreme authority of the euro~american empire,and they will never allow russia to reassemble a new soviet that will threaten the world order.
perhaps,russia's reasons for 'aiding' ukraine's subjugation are justified,given NATO's quest to surround russia with its allies.but you can never fight such a powerful opponent alone.russia needs allies,i mean a real alliance similar to the NATO treaty.

NairaMinted, how does Putin win again?

The economy is suffering, the poverty rate rising, his country is isolated, the demographics of the country (with people getting older and having fewer children) are yet to take a toll on the country and he has not presented any solutions yet. How does he win? He is going down.

And to be honest, I am not happy about it, first because of the people who suffer from this kind of madness and secondly because a desperate person is likely to take desperate measures.

He might have military power but he will go down like the Soviet Union, which spent a lot of money on weapons, being obsessed with demonstrating power when its people had not enough to eat.

EVarn:
vladimir putin
a man percieved to be a ferocious leader,ex-KGB,and grand chess-master.but is he really that cunning?.putin is pushing into ukraine,albeit indirectly through the hands of disgruntled rebels,but isnt it such a dangerous tete~a~tete.yes,i must applaud him on his efforts so far,he has made sure that ukraine will never be united again.
but is it prudent to force NATO's hand?,russia has no defense allies{since the warsaw pact was dismantled}.the 'west' are a wicked and devious world leader,we live under the supreme authority of the euro~american empire,and they will never allow russia to reassemble a new soviet that will threaten the world order.
perhaps,russia's reasons for 'aiding' ukraine's subjugation are justified,given NATO's quest to surround russia with its allies.but you can never fight such a powerful opponent alone.russia needs allies,i mean a real alliance similar to the NATO treaty.

Define the term "empire".

carefreewannabe:



Define the term "empire".

an empire is a group of countries,states and organisations controlled by one government.
this is a fitting definition for the US led "western world",cemented through a combined 'NATO' army.we live in a world governed by western ideologies,that is why we need to ask ourselves,what brought about ISIS?,what is the cause for islamic extremism?,are they just murderous megalomaniacs or are they simply struggling against the yoke of western imperialism and forced ideology?.this new world,where the west seeks to spread its influence by forcefully introducing alien ideologies into secular races and religions has caused huge damages.ironically,the west's next greatest challenge{adversary} will emerge from the muslim world.the war against terrorism is an ideo-religious battle.that aside.
when i said we live in the euro-american 'empire',what i meant is that we are in a world governed by the west,through military and ideology.

EVarn:
an empire is a group of countries,states and organisations controlled by one government.this is a fitting definition for the US led "western world",cemented through a combined 'NATO' army.

According to this definition, there is no American-European Empire as there are several governments. There is no emperor or empress.

we live in a world governed by western ideologies,that is why we need to ask ourselves,what brought about ISIS?,what is the cause for islamic extremism?,are they just murderous megalomaniacs or are they simply struggling against the yoke of western imperialism and forced ideology?

It's a good question and I agree that terrorism and extremism is ALSO the result of the foreign policies of some countries.
The Bush era did more harm than good, to give an example but blaming other countries for the deficiencies in some Arab countries is too simple and does not help solve the problem.

The discrimination that some religious groups experienced from their own governments or despots is another reason.

Poverty and lack of promising future prospects is another.

Then the access or the lack of high-quality education, which intensifies the problem of poverty.

It must also be considered that Islam is a comparatively young religion and we all know that Christianity has also a history of extremism that cost millions of people their lives.

.this new world,where the west seeks to spread its influence by forcefully introducing alien ideologies into secular races and religions has caused huge damages.ironically,the west's next greatest challenge{adversary} will emerge from the muslim world.the war against terrorism is an ideo-religious battle.that aside.

The gay movement aside, which I have a problem with when it is forced on nations from the outside, which ideologies does the West try to force on other countries?

when i said we live in the euro-american 'empire',what i meant is that we are in a world governed by the west,through military and ideology.

How does the West govern Russia or even Nigeria?

carefreewannabe:
NairaMinted, how does Putin win again?

The economy is suffering, the poverty rate rising, his country is isolated, the demographics of the country (with people getting older and having fewer children) are yet to take a toll on the country and he has not presented any solutions yet. How does he win? He is going down.

And to be honest, I am not happy about it, first because of the people who suffer from this kind of madness and secondly because a desperate person is likely to take desperate measures.

He might have military power but he will go down like the Soviet Union, which spent a lot of money on weapons, being obsessed with demonstrating power when its people had not enough to eat.

Wrong! The economy may be taking a hit at the moment but it will bounce back. The longer the sanctions are in effect, the more other European countries will be affected as well.
Besides the leaders of Europe such as Merkel & Hollabde are taking more inilateral steps and trying to defuse the situation without the involvement of the Empire of Chaos. There is growing discontent that the U.S. is pushing Europe into a conflict that only serves the U.S. interests.

On a lighter note, the Minsk 2 Deal:

@carefreewannabe
i will endeavor to broaden my convictions:
1.according to my definition of empire,many different countries can be under the direct influence of one country{just like the ancient roman empire}.as in the case of the US,and its 'allies',therefore i simply dubbed it the euro-american empire.
2.i am indeed resting most of the blame of islamic extremism on the US.poverty,religious intolerance and other criterias you mentioned are not defining factors.
3.apart from the gay movement,other western ideologies include: capitalist democracy,dollarization of global trade currency,conscription of all sovereign nations to the UN,forceful push against death sentences and other percieved 'human right violations' etc...
4.the US 'governs' the world
(i)by using its veto,and that of its allies{UK,France,Germany} to tip the balance of global geopolitical dominance.
(ii)forming binding alliances{like NATO},military ties and regional allies to garner influence and spread soft power all over the world.

NairaMinted:


Wrong! The economy may be taking a hit at the moment but it will bounce back. The longer the sanctions are in effect, the more other European countries will be affected as well.

What makes you think that the economy will "bounce back"?

Russia's economic power does not even amount to one sixth to that of the USA.

Even before the sanctions came into effect, the economy was shrinking. Putin missed the chance to modernize it.

More than 60% of Russia's income stemmed from oil and gas exports.

The population is aging and shrinking and Russia is not a country of and for immigrants.

Face the facts instead of taking sides with someone who is demonstrating fake power just because you share "enemies".

As much as I have some understanding for Putin, I also see that a leader must be mad to isolate his country when the economy depends on exports so much. Psychologists call it megalomania.

Besides the leaders of Europe such as Merkel & Hollabde are taking more inilateral steps and trying to defuse the situation without the involvement of the Empire of Chaos. There is growing discontent that the U.S. is pushing Europe into a conflict that only serves the U.S. interests.

What is inilateral?

I very much support Merkel and Hollande's approach. Dialogue and if necessary sanctions are the way, there is no military solution to the problem.
The sanctions Russia has had to deal with so far is just a puff compared to what is still possible.

Yes, there is a growing discontent in Europe over the stand of SOME U.S. politicians to take military action of any kind and I share this discontent, yet this is not a reason for me to support and celebrate Putin.

If Putin was our leader, we would not be able to have the conversation we are having now.

EVarn:
@carefreewannabe
i will endeavor to broaden my convictions:
1.according to my definition of empire,many different countries can be under the direct influence of one country{just like the ancient roman empire}.as in the case of the US,and its 'allies',therefore i simply dubbed it the euro-american empire.

Which countries are under whose rule?
Explain to me, how America and Europe rule Russia or even Nigeria.

2.i am indeed resting most of the blame of islamic extremism on the US.poverty,religious intolerance and other criterias you mentioned are not defining factors.

This is your opinion. The reality is more complex.

3.apart from the gay movement,other western ideologies include: capitalist democracy,dollarization of global trade currency,conscription of all sovereign nations to the UN,forceful push against death sentences and other percieved 'human right violations' etc...

First of all, in democratic countries, in which free and fair elections are ensured, people can vote for their leaders. In most of these countries, they have a choice between parties who push for capitalism, even in its most brutal form, and socialist or even communist parties. Consequently, citizens of a country, in which their own leaders allow them to vote freely, have a choice between capitalism and communism. No Western country aims at taking this right away from people to shape their economies and the underlying ideology by means of free elections.

Secondly, the global trade cannot function without a loosely common currency. If it can, explain to me how and provide an alternative to the current situation. It would be grateful, because the world wide economic crisis that started in the US also affected me, so I would be happy if people stopped complaining and suggested an alternative.


Thirdly, the membership in the UN is free and not by force. And in case you don't know, Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council too and, like the USA, has the right of veto. MOREOVER, the UN is an organization comprising of 193 nations. So how is it dominated by the West or a tool of the West to dominate the world?

4.the US 'governs' the world
(i)by using its veto,and that of its allies{UK,France,Germany} to tip the balance of global geopolitical dominance.

So do Russia and China. Forgotten?

(ii)forming binding alliances{like NATO},military ties and regional allies to garner influence and spread soft power all over the world.

Who hinders other countries to form allies?

Is it illegal to cooperate for the sake of security and or economic development?
No, it is very smart to do so.

This is what Putin and Nigerians can learn from Europeans.
Most Eastern European nations are suspicious of Putin and did not want to remain part of Russia / Soviet Union after its fall.
Why? Because Russia's leaders have not learned to treat other countries with respect, if they could, they would re-build an empire and subjugate other countries instead of treating them like their partners.

In today's Poland most people would rather trust German leaders than Russian leaders. Russia is still considered a threat, Germany is not.

Instead of complaining about how successful Western countries cooperate, tell Nigerians to develop and stop thinking in tribal terms so that African countries can flourish in a globalized world in which nations become less relevant and the association of states more important.

carefreewannabe

You have raise some interesting points but it will be very naive to think that Russia's action is not a predictable reaction of any great power. History determines how nations react to what the see as existential threats. Russia without Ukraine and Belarus as neutral state is a threat to their national security. It sounds unfair but that is how the world works. Big countries dictates and shape the foreign policy of the smaller ones.

It wasnt widely reported but when it looked like Yanukovich will stay in power, Western Ukrainians in Lvov and Galicia wanted the same thing the Eastern Ukrainians were yearning for and fighting for now (Self Government) But when Yanukovich was toppled, They acted like victors and wont negotiate with their fellow countrymen to settle their grievances because they had political support from the EU and the US. What do you want Putin to do? sit down and watch as ethnic Russians are killed in the east?

There is no Russia leader in history that will not act the same way Putin did on this issue. What will be Obama's response if Canada elect a pro Chinese government that wants to leave NATO and have a military alliance with China that may allow Chinese troop deployments in Vancouver?.

In fact Putin is one of the most moderate Russian leaders. He has always been fair in his dealings with the West before Obama showed up. Have you seen the opposition? Like Vladimir Zhirinovsky , Navalny or the communist party? Russian tanks will be at Odessa now.

Missy89:
carefreewannabe

You have raise some interesting points but it will be very naive to think that Russia's action is not a predictable reaction of any great power. History determines how nations react to what the see as existential threats. Russia without Ukraine and Belarus as neutral state is a threat to their national security. It sounds unfair but that is how the world works. Big countries dictates and shape the foreign policy of the smaller ones.

You have raised some valid arguments. Russia's reaction was quite predictable and Russia felt threatened by the developments in and around Ukraine.
The West has had several chances to integrate Russia in a way that they would not feel threatened and even humiliated but they have failed. Russia and some Western countries were all motivated by their historical experiences, they are at least equal in this matter.

It wasnt widely reported but when it looked like Yanukovich will stay in power, Western Ukrainians in Lvov and Galicia wanted the same thing the Eastern Ukrainians were yearning for and fighting for now (Self Government) But when Yanukovich was toppled, They acted like victors and wont negotiate with their fellow countrymen to settle their grievances because they had political support from the EU and the US. What do you want Putin to do? sit down and watch as ethnic Russians are killed in the east?

Your analysis of the conflict here is imprecise. Yanukovych made several mistakes and acted more like a despot than a democratically elected representative of his nation. He and his ministers promised to sign a deal with the European Union for more than a year, the free trade agreement, and there was a significant support from the Ukrainian public of this agreement. When Yanukovytch went back on his own promise, people went out on the streets to demonstrate against him. Note that this was not the only, but last decision among many, that brought his former popularity to an end and which was the last straw for the Ukrainian people.

There is no Russia leader in history that will not act the same way Putin did on this issue. What will be Obama's response if Canada elect a pro Chinese government that wants to leave NATO and have a military alliance with China that may allow Chinese troop deployments in Vancouver?.

If Canada chooses to elect a pro-Chinese government and decides to leave the NATO, which is highly unlikely, then it is their choice. I doubt Obama would enter Canada and annex Ontario.

However, Ukraine's NATO membership was not even on the agenda because most leaders were aware of Russia's sensitivities. And at this point we should ask ourselves if Russia is in the position to dictate Ukraine which defense alliance they should be allowed to join.

Why are you even comparing the relations between the USA and China with those of Russia, Ukraine and the EU?

In fact Putin is one of the most moderate Russian leaders. He has always been fair in his dealings with the West before Obama showed up. Have you seen the opposition? Like Vladimir Zhirinovsky , Navalny or the communist party? Russian tanks will be at Odessa now.

No, Putin is not the most moderate Russian leader. That was Gorbachev.

There is no opposition in Russia in the true sense of the word. It is not even a proper democracy. In countries such as Russia, there can only be a pseudo-opposition and that's the way it is.

Moreover, no freedom of press and no freedom of opinion.

Putin and Russians would help themselves a lot if they strived after economic instead of military power in the first place and drop their nostalgia for a Russian Empire.

carefreewannabe:


Your analysis of the conflict here is imprecise. Yanukovych made several mistakes and acted more like a despot than a democratically elected representative of his nation. He and his ministers promised to sign a deal with the European Union for more than a year, the free trade agreement, and there was a significant support from the Ukrainian public of this agreement. When Yanukovytch went back on his own promise, people went out on the streets to demonstrate against him. Note that this was not the only, but last decision among many, that brought his former popularity to an end and which was the last straw for the Ukrainian people.



If Canada chooses to elect a pro-Chinese government and decides to leave the NATO, which is highly unlikely, then it is their choice. I doubt Obama would enter Canada and annex Ontario.

However, Ukraine's NATO membership was not even on the agenda because most leaders were aware of Russia's sensitivities. And at this point we should ask ourselves if Russia is in the position to dictate Ukraine which defense alliance they should be allowed to join.

Why are you even comparing the relations between the USA and China with those of Russia, Ukraine and the EU?



No, Putin is not the most moderate Russian leader. That was Gorbachev.

There is no opposition in Russia in the true sense of the word. It is not even a proper democracy. In countries such as Russia, there can only be a pseudo-opposition and that's the way it is.

Moreover, no freedom of press and no freedom of opinion.

Putin and Russians would help themselves a lot if they strived after economic instead of military power in the first place and drop their nostalgia for a Russian Empire.

Gorbachev is not a Russian leader he was a soviet leader. I am talking about the Russian federation not the Soviet Union. When you talk about press freedom, that can be said about the West also. When you look at all the MSM, they all agree on the Western policy as regards Russia. That should tell you that something is fishy. Only few Analyst have been able to criticize the West position and they have been branded as traitors or paid hacks. Even respected scholars like Stephen Cohen and the rest have gone silent in other to preserve their positions.

If you say there is no opposition in Russia, lets take a good look at American democracy too and we can say it is no real democracy and there is no opposition as well. If the 2 political parties agree on the same foreign policy (Auto pilot policy) and winners are propped up even before elections, where is the democracy? It looks more like an illusion.

When you say America will allow Canada to dictate its own foreign policy no matter which way it chooses to go, this is not true and any one with good knowledge of geopolitics will tell u the same thing. Even the US military and Politicians strictly believe in the Monroe doctrine which means every other major power is prevented from interfering with the affairs on the American continent. US will NEVER allow it. That was demonstrated in the Cuba missile crisis. Afterall Cuba is a sovereign nation why was America worried about its alliance with the Soviet? You see how your answer does not add up?

If Ukraine's membership is not in play, why did the Ukrainians vote to remove their status as a neutral state? The problem is the west is not giving Russia assurances that Ukraine will NEVER join.

And about Yanukovich, when does acting like a despot make u illegitimate if you are elected legally? When you talk about Ukrainian people you should be aware that they have never agreed on anything and their opinion is always divided so when you say Ukrainian people which part of Ukraine are you talking about? Russia initial proposal was that the EU and Russia sit and give Ukraine a join deal that will benefit all sides and it was refuted. Now this was Russia's concern : Most of What Ukraine produce goes to Russia for free without import duties. The problem with signing a deal with the EU is that EU member states can flood Ukraine with their goods and they can enter Russia without duties through Ukraine which will kill local markets. The EU didn't even want to debate or sit down and talk about it.

If you study Russia's economic and political situation from 1991-late 2003/4 You will understand why a strong military is necessary for the survival of the state.

European security can never be achieved if Russia's concerns are not addressed. The earlier they understand this the better. Anti Russian policies are always propped up by former soviet bloc states like Poland hiding behind NATO and it is allowed by the bigger powers. Calm heads should prevail.
The west might not like Putin but his people do and they should live with it. They had their chance with Mededev But Obama burned that bridge and brought Putin back with his Libya Policy

Missy89:


Gorbachev is not a Russian leader he was a soviet leader. I am talking about the Russian federation not the Soviet Union. When you talk about press freedom, that can be said about the West also. When you look at all the MSM, they all agree on the Western policy as regards Russia. That should tell you that something is fishy. Only few Analyst have been able to criticize the West position and they have been branded as traitors or paid hacks. Even respected scholars like Stephen Cohen and the rest have gone silent in other to preserve their positions.

Russian presidents:

Boris Yeltsin: 1991-1999

Vladimir Putin: 2000-2008

Dmitry Medvedev: 2008-2012

Vladimir Putin: 2012 - still in office



Now explain to me how Putin is more moderate than Yeltsin and Medvedvev in shaping foreign policies. I am looking forward to your response and how you will get yourself out of it.

As for your statement that there is no freedom of press in the West, do you know any journalist that was killed or jailed in either Britain, the US, Germany or Poland for criticizing the government?

I live in the West and I read various newspapers here. The positions on the Ukraine crisis are versatile and journalists don't have to be afraid that they will be jailed for expressing them.

And please, don't post sources you yourself are not able to understand like the youtube videos you did last time.

If you say there is no opposition in Russia, lets take a good look at American democracy too and we can say it is no real democracy and there is no opposition as well. If the 2 political parties agree on the same foreign policy (Auto pilot policy) and winners are propped up even before elections, where is the democracy? It looks more like an illusion.

Did I say that there is no opposition when two of the biggest parties in a country agree on foreign policies?
It happens all the time. All political parties in Germany agree that Germany should not support Ukraine by military means, is Germany a dictatorship?

The real opposition in Russia does not even sit in parliament and has no access to state-controlled television. Mr Putin ensured that it seems that there is an opposition when in fact the true opposition cannot even pass through the "justice" ministry and take part in elections.

When you say America will allow Canada to dictate its own foreign policy no matter which way it chooses to go, this is not true and any one with good knowledge of geopolitics will tell u the same thing. Even the US military and Politicians strictly believe in the Monroe doctrine which means every other major power is prevented from interfering with the affairs on the American continent. US will NEVER allow it. That was demonstrated in the Cuba missile crisis. Afterall Cuba is a sovereign nation why was America worried about its alliance with the Soviet? You see how your answer does not add up?

My answers do add up, it's just that they run counter your one-sided perspective and naive world-view, in which the good fights the evil.

If Ukraine's membership is not in play, why did the Ukrainians vote to remove their status as a neutral state? The problem is the west is not giving Russia assurances that Ukraine will NEVER join.

Russia was reassured that Ukraine will not join the NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin was repeatedly reassured that Ukraine's membership is not on the agenda. Wrongly whatsoever because Ukraine should choose for themselves, should they not? Or is it Mr Putin's job to dictate Ukraine how they should go on about their security?

And about Yanukovich, when does acting like a despot make u illegitimate if you are elected legally? When you talk about Ukrainian people you should be aware that they have never agreed on anything and their opinion is always divided so when you say Ukrainian people which part of Ukraine are you talking about? Russia initial proposal was that the EU and Russia sit and give Ukraine a join deal that will benefit all sides and it was refuted. Now this was Russia's concern : Most of What Ukraine produce goes to Russia for free without import duties. The problem with signing a deal with the EU is that EU member states can flood Ukraine with their goods and they can enter Russia without duties through Ukraine which will kill local markets. The EU didn't even want to debate or sit down and talk about it.

So once a leader is elected he can do whatever he wants, not what he was elected for? Maybe in Nigeria, obviously not in Ukraine.
Yanukovych was elected promising to draw the country closer to the EU and he broke this promise. As he was elected by majority of people, majority of people wanted a pro-European stand. It's that simple. This is what he stood for prior to being elected.

If you study Russia's economic and political situation from 1991-late 2003/4 You will understand why a strong military is necessary for the survival of the state.

I am sure you can explain to me why it is more important to have a strong military in Russia and less important to have a flourishing economy and less poverty, which will serve you to establish a sophisticated defense and security system without stretch your national budget to the limit making people want to live in the Western countries, you were actually fighting.

carefreewannabe:


Russian presidents:

Boris Yeltsin: 1991-1999

Vladimir Putin: 2000-2008

Dmitry Medvedev: 2008-2012

Vladimir Putin: 2012 - still in office

Now explain to me how Putin is more moderate than Yeltsin and Medvedvev in shaping foreign policies. I am looking forward to your response and how you will get yourself out of it.

Yeltsin administration cannot be compared to the other two because Russia was close to bankrupt during his regime and the west dictated nearly all the terms in fact there was no independent Russian foreign Policy in the 90s. It was a moment of chaos at home in Chechnya, and places like Igushetia. They couldn't even help Yugoslavia cut a deal with NATO.

Now when Putin came to office a year before 911. after it happened, He allowed US overflights and agreed to open up Central Asia to the US military to conduct operations in Afghanistan by allowing US bases in places like Kyrgyzstan. When Bush wanted missile shields in eastern Europe instead of confrontation, he proposed a join missile defense with Russian defense architecture to be included in the defense system after all, the west claimed it was to prevent missiles from Iran and north Korea they declined. He allowed a NATO hub on Russian soil in Ulyanovsk and allow Afghan supply routes. He agreed to join the US sanction policy on Iran. The only area he disagreed with the US is NATO enlargement and war in Iraq and Syria

(Read ‘Risky Westward Turn’? Putin’s 9–11 Script and Ordinary Russians & 9/11 AND US-RUSSIA RELATIONS: MISSED CHANCES, FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES)


Medvedev on the other hand threatened to deploy tactical nuclear weapons (Iskander missiles) to Kaliningrad when the NATO will not back down on missile defense (The eventually did). He invaded Georgia. Recognized Separatists states in Georgia, Supported Libya bombing (even disagreed with Putin openly when Putin criticized the campaign)
The Russian policy of giving Russian passports to Russian speakers in another country and invading the place when they are attacked using the cover of protecting Russian citizens was his brainchild (Study the Medvedev doctrine) https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy

He failed to veto UN resolution against Libya after cutting a deal with NATO that they will allow Gadaffi to go on self exile but they killed him instead and this is one of the main reason why he lost support among the Russia's elite. (Same reason why Putin is not backing down on Syria because NATO's words are not worth the paper it is written on)
He tried too hard to be liked the the West (Buying Mistrals from France at double the price even thou the lubricant that will be essential for operating the assault ship is not locally made which means Russia will have to keep depending on foreign supply for a critical military infrastructure)

But like i said earlier, Medvedev might have been a better choice in the long term because he is younger and represents the future but the West burnt that bridge in Libya (I stated this on another thread on how i was dissapointed on Obama's Russia policy when Medvedev was in office) and Putin will not make the same mistake in his second coming hence his tough stance.

I will answer the rest of your question if you give me an appropriate response to the simple questions i asked.

Why did the US threatened war with the Soviet Union when they deployed troops and nukes in Cuba? Is Cuba not entitled to their own foreign policy as a sovereign country?

If Ukraine is not planning to join NATO, why did the parliament remove the neutrality policy when Poroshenko was president? And if Russia was reassured after the Soviet Union fell, Why was there a Membership Action Plan in Bucharest in 2008 to include Ukraine and Georgia to NATO?. It took the intervention of France and Germany to stop it. This is a documented fact. Assurances and no guarantees. The only guarantee was removed by the Ukrainian Parliament few months ago



And you dont expect me to do all the work for you. i sent you a video because there is no English version. If you are interested in hearing what he said you can always use captions, read the comments, get the YouTube transcripts and translate it online It is very easy.


Cheers

Missy89,

I don't have enough time now but I will reply later in the day or tomorrow. I recommend that you proofread your last post again before I do it.

EVarn:
vladimir putin
a man percieved to be a ferocious leader,ex-KGB,and grand chess-master.but is he really that cunning?.putin is pushing into ukraine,albeit indirectly through the hands of disgruntled rebels,but isnt it such a dangerous tete~a~tete.yes,i must applaud him on his efforts so far,he has made sure that ukraine will never be united again.
but is it prudent to force NATO's hand?,russia has no defense allies{since the warsaw pact was dismantled}.the 'west' are a wicked and devious world leader,we live under the supreme authority of the euro~american empire,and they will never allow russia to reassemble a new soviet that will threaten the world order.
perhaps,russia's reasons for 'aiding' ukraine's subjugation are justified,given NATO's quest to surround russia with its allies.but you can never fight such a powerful opponent alone.russia needs allies,i mean a real alliance similar to the NATO treaty.

Don't say Russia has no defence allies

One thing for sure, US won't dare arm Ukraine with weapons, this situation is completely different from the usual

What they are currently proposing is arming Ukraine with defense weapons, lol, whatever the fk that is

EVarn:
an empire is a group of countries,states and organisations controlled by one government.
this is a fitting definition for the US led "western world",cemented through a combined 'NATO' army.we live in a world governed by western ideologies,that is why we need to ask ourselves,what brought about ISIS?,what is the cause for islamic extremism?,are they just murderous megalomaniacs or are they simply struggling against the yoke of western imperialism and forced ideology?.this new world,where the west seeks to spread its influence by forcefully introducing alien ideologies into secular races and religions has caused huge damages.ironically,the west's next greatest challenge{adversary} will emerge from the muslim world.the war against terrorism is an ideo-religious battle.that aside.
when i said we live in the euro-american 'empire',what i meant is that we are in a world governed by the west,through military and ideology.

On the contrary the Russian has been doing very well before the drop in oil prices. Stop depending wholly on foreign propagandist news houses

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/08/12/despite-us-and-eu-sanctions-russias-economy-is-still-growing/

Now Libya is on the brink collapse and probably a longer and more destructive war, we'll that's another issue for another day.

carefreewannabe:


According to this definition, there is no American-European Empire as there are several governments. There is no emperor or empress.



It's a good question and I agree that terrorism and extremism is ALSO the result of the foreign policies of some countries.
The Bush era did more harm than good, to give an example but blaming other countries for the deficiencies in some Arab countries is too simple and does not help solve the problem.

The discrimination that some religious groups experienced from their own governments or despots is another reason.

Poverty and lack of promising future prospects is another.

Then the access or the lack of high-quality education, which intensifies the problem of poverty.

It must also be considered that Islam is a comparatively young religion and we all know that Christianity has also a history of extremism that cost millions of people their lives.




The gay movement aside, which I have a problem with when it is forced on nations from the outside, which ideologies does the West try to force on other countries?



How does the West govern Russia or even Nigeria?

Blocking several of our arms deal.. israel? South-Africa?

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/us-blocks-nigeria-s-purchase-of-chinook-helicopters-from-israel/189710/

Unthinkable conditions for providing support and training to our men while supporting and backing Chad's fight against Boko-Haram. Who is fooling who?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LK19420150216?irpc=932

Propagandist news about Boko-Haram and the military. CNNs Boko-Haram spreading to South-west? Control of 21 local govt?

Now the propaganda extends to our elections, with that ugly fathead, kerry.

https://www.nairaland.com/2140379/open-letter-senator-john-kerry#30602296

No empire? See this: http://m.ibtimes.com/nsa-has-planted-surveillance-software-deep-within-hard-drives-2001-kaspersky-1818398?ft=643ja

Promhize:

Don't say Russia has no defence allies
One thing for sure, US won't dare arm Ukraine with weapons, this situation is completely different from the usual
What they are currently proposing is arming Ukraine with defense weapons, lol, whatever the fk that is

lol.Mention russia's defense allies if you think it has any.
The US will arm ukraine if it conforms with its national interests.but currently,it would benefit the US to sustain sanctions on russia,provoke more russian aggression against ukraine and the EU,and also fabricate economic potholes that will topple the eurozone.
Thereby giving the US more hold on the eurasian continent.

Promhize:


On the contrary the Russian has been doing very well before the drop in oil prices. Stop depending wholly on foreign propagandist news houses

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/08/12/despite-us-and-eu-sanctions-russias-economy-is-still-growing/

Now Libya is on the brink collapse and probably a longer and more destructive war, we'll that's another issue for another day.

i do not pander to foreign propagandist news.
The truth is that the russian economy will not last long under prolonged economic sanctions.even its ability to sell weapons have been crippled.
Russia need allies in order to be able to fight off western distabilization and augments its economic growth.

Promhize:


Blocking several of our arms deal.. israel? South-Africa?

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/us-blocks-nigeria-s-purchase-of-chinook-helicopters-from-israel/189710/

Unthinkable conditions for providing support and training to our men while supporting and backing Chad's fight against Boko-Haram. Who is fooling who?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LK19420150216?irpc=932

Propagandist news about Boko-Haram and the military. CNNs Boko-Haram spreading to South-west? Control of 21 local govt?

Now the propaganda extends to our elections, with that ugly fathead, kerry.

https://www.nairaland.com/2140379/open-letter-senator-john-kerry#30602296

No empire? See this: http://m.ibtimes.com/nsa-has-planted-surveillance-software-deep-within-hard-drives-2001-kaspersky-1818398?ft=643ja

I have a job.

Make your points or quote passages from these articles so that I can address specific points instead of having to read several links.

Missy89:


Yeltsin administration cannot be compared to the other two because Russia was close to bankrupt during his regime and the west dictated nearly all the terms in fact there was no independent Russian foreign Policy in the 90s. It was a moment of chaos at home in Chechnya, and places like Igushetia. They couldn't even help Yugoslavia cut a deal with NATO.

You said that Putin had been the most moderate Russian leader. Now that I mentioned Yeltsin, you claim that he cannot be compared to the other two because of the situation the country had to face after the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyway. Various experts would disagree with you when it comes to the reassessment of Medvedev's foreign policies as compared to Putin's.

Now when Putin came to office a year before 911. after it happened, He allowed US overflights and agreed to open up Central Asia to the US military to conduct operations in Afghanistan by allowing US bases in places like Kyrgyzstan. When Bush wanted missile shields in eastern Europe instead of confrontation, he proposed a join missile defense with Russian defense architecture to be included in the defense system after all, the west claimed it was to prevent missiles from Iran and north Korea they declined. He allowed a NATO hub on Russian soil in Ulyanovsk and allow Afghan supply routes. He agreed to join the US sanction policy on Iran. The only area he disagreed with the US is NATO enlargement and war in Iraq and Syria

And what makes you think that Putin acted the way he did because he was more moderate rather than following his own interests?

Is Kyrgyzstan Russian? What is it with Putin telling other countries who they collaborate with and how? How is he any different from Obama, Bush and other US presidents in this respect?

Here is the summary of an assessment and comparison of the foreign policies of the two presidents. There are plenty of scholarly articles that disagree with you that Putin was more moderate than Medvedev when it comes to Russia's relations with the West.

Following the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency, the specific features of Russian foreign policy under the 2008-12 presidency of Dmitrii Medvedev can now be analysed. This paper investigates how significant the foreign policy differences were between Medvedev and Putin; the importance of Medvedev’s influence and the achievements of Russian foreign policy under his presidency. It argues that Medvedev’s presidency did not lead to fundamental change in Russia foreign policy, but allowed an improvement in relations with the West and the maintenance of the strategic partnership with China. However, both Putin and Medvedev shared a belief in Russia as a great power and a pragmatic outlook. Both opposed NATO enlargement into the former Soviet Union although Medvedev leaned more towards collaboration with the West, and Putin towards integration based on the CIS. Relations with the West deteriorated at the end of the Medvedev presidency following the announcement of Putin’s planned return to the Kremlin and the rigging of parliamentary elections. However, five major foreign-policy achievements can be identified: the postponement of NATO enlargement into post-Soviet space following war with Georgia; the defeat of the leaders of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine; the ‘New START’ treaty; entry to the WTO; and the implementation of the Common Economic Space with Belarus and Kazakhstan.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/docs/research-publications-documents/cepsi-working-papers/batman-and-robin.pdf

(Read ‘Risky Westward Turn’? Putin’s 9–11 Script and Ordinary Russians & 9/11 AND US-RUSSIA RELATIONS: MISSED CHANCES, FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES)

I will consider.

Medvedev on the other hand threatened to deploy tactical nuclear weapons (Iskander missiles) to Kaliningrad when the NATO will not back down on missile defense (The eventually did). He invaded Georgia. Recognized Separatists states in Georgia, Supported Libya bombing (even disagreed with Putin openly when Putin criticized the campaign)
The Russian policy of giving Russian passports to Russian speakers in another country and invading the place when they are attacked using the cover of protecting Russian citizens was his brainchild (Study the Medvedev doctrine)https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy

How does Medvedev's support for the war on Libya make him less moderate from the Western perspective?

He failed to veto UN resolution against Libya after cutting a deal with NATO that they will allow Gadaffi to go on self exile but they killed him instead and this is one of the main reason why he lost support among the Russia's elite. (Same reason why Putin is not backing down on Syria because NATO's words are not worth the paper it is written on)

And this is one of the reasons he is considered MORE moderate by the West than Putin. He was, at times, more leaned toward collaboration with the West than Putin.

He tried too hard to be liked the the West (Buying Mistrals from France at double the price even thou the lubricant that will be essential for operating the assault ship is not locally made which means Russia will have to keep depending on foreign supply for a critical military infrastructure)
But like i said earlier, Medvedev might have been a better choice in the long term because he is younger and represents the future but the West burnt that bridge in Libya (I stated this on another thread on how i was dissapointed on Obama's Russia policy when Medvedev was in office) and Putin will not make the same mistake in his second coming hence his tough stance.

You are again contradicting yourself. Did you not argue that Putin had been more moderate when it comes to US-Russian and EU-Russian relations?
Your statements above prove the contrary.

I will answer the rest of your question if you give me an appropriate response to the simple questions i asked.
Why did the US threatened war with the Soviet Union when they deployed troops and nukes in Cuba? Is Cuba not entitled to their own foreign policy as a sovereign country?

Am I an advocate of US foreign policies? Have I tried to justify their role in shaping the relations on the international stage?

All I am trying to do is to show people here how in*sanely st*upid it is to support Putin just because one considers the USA the common enemy.

If Ukraine is not planning to join NATO, why did the parliament remove the neutrality policy when Poroshenko was president? And if Russia was reassured after the Soviet Union fell, Why was there a Membership Action Plan in Bucharest in 2008 to include Ukraine and Georgia to NATO?. It took the intervention of France and Germany to stop it. This is a documented fact. Assurances and no guarantees. The only guarantee was removed by the Ukrainian Parliament few months ago

I have never said that Ukraine would not want to join the NATO. Read carefully. I have said that Putin was reassured by the EU that Ukraine's membership in the NATO is not on the agenda. Ukraine's wish, however, to join the NATO is understandable (considering the country's history and Russia's crimes on its people) and the country should be free to join whichever intergovernmental alliance it wishes to or is Ukraine part of Russia again and Putin in the position to dictate their foreign policies?

How does this attitude make him different or even better than some US leaders?

And you dont expect me to do all the work for you. i sent you a video because there is no English version. If you are interested in hearing what he said you can always use captions, read the comments, get the YouTube transcripts and translate it online It is very easy.


Cheers

I found the video with English subtitles. It took me some time but I was able to find it eventually. That's a separate topic so I will not comment on the video for now.

I would like you to answer the following question:

If you had to choose between the USA and Russia, which country would you rather want to live in?

And why is it that so many of the former Soviet States would rather collaborate with the USA and the EU rather than Russia?

carefreewannabe:


You said that Putin had been the most moderate Russian leader. Now that I mentioned Yeltsin, you claim that he cannot be compared to the other two because of the situation the country had to face after the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyway. Various experts would disagree with you when it comes to the reassessment of Medvedev's foreign policies as compared to Putin's.




And what makes you think that Putin acted the way he did because he was more moderate rather than following his own interests?

Is Kyrgyzstan Russian? What is it with Putin telling other countries who they collaborate with and how? How is he any different from Obama, Bush and other US presidents in this respect?

Here is the summary of an assessment and comparison of the foreign policies of the two presidents. There are plenty of scholarly articles that disagree with you that Putin was more moderate than Medvedev when it comes to Russia's relations with the West.

Following the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency, the specific features of Russian foreign policy under the 2008-12 presidency of Dmitrii Medvedev can now be analysed. This paper investigates how significant the foreign policy differences were between Medvedev and Putin; the importance of Medvedev’s influence and the achievements of Russian foreign policy under his presidency. It argues that Medvedev’s presidency did not lead to fundamental change in Russia foreign policy, but allowed an improvement in relations with the West and the maintenance of the strategic partnership with China. However, both Putin and Medvedev shared a belief in Russia as a great power and a pragmatic outlook. Both opposed NATO enlargement into the former Soviet Union although Medvedev leaned more towards collaboration with the West, and Putin towards integration based on the CIS. Relations with the West deteriorated at the end of the Medvedev presidency following the announcement of Putin’s planned return to the Kremlin and the rigging of parliamentary elections. However, five major foreign-policy achievements can be identified: the postponement of NATO enlargement into post-Soviet space following war with Georgia; the defeat of the leaders of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine; the ‘New START’ treaty; entry to the WTO; and the implementation of the Common Economic Space with Belarus and Kazakhstan.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/docs/research-publications-documents/cepsi-working-papers/batman-and-robin.pdf



I will consider.




How does Medvedev's support for the war on Libya make him less moderate from the Western perspective?



And this is one of the reasons he is considered MORE moderate by the West than Putin. He was, at times, more leaned toward collaboration with the West than Putin.



You are again contradicting yourself. Did you not argue that Putin had been more moderate when it comes to US-Russian and EU-Russian relations?
Your statements above prove the contrary.



Am I an advocate of US foreign policies? Have I tried to justify their role in shaping the relations on the international stage?

All I am trying to do is to show people here how in*sanely st*upid it is to support Putin just because one considers the USA the common enemy.



I have never said that Ukraine would not want to join the NATO. Read carefully. I have said that Putin was reassured by the EU that Ukraine's membership in the NATO is not on the agenda. Ukraine's wish, however, to join the NATO is understandable (considering the country's history and Russia's crimes on its people) and the country should be free to join whichever intergovernmental alliance it wishes to or is Ukraine part of Russia again and Putin in the position to dictate their foreign policies?

How does this attitude make him different or even better than some US leaders?



I found the video with English subtitles. It took me some time but I was able to find it eventually. That's a separate topic so I will not comment on the video for now.

I would like you to answer the following question:

If you had to choose between the USA and Russia, which country would you rather want to live in?

And why is it that so many of the former Soviet States would rather collaborate with the USA and the EU rather than Russia?

While i enjoy the debate, I will appreciate if you do a little bit of research before posting your replies. When you ask if Kyrgyzstan is Russian, It sounded a little big ignorant on your part. Russia controls most of the countries in Central Asia and they have been under Russia's protection since the fall of the soviet Union. Most of them are client states and will only do what Russia tells them. They depend heavily on Russia for economic and military support and when US wanted to go into Afghanistan, They had to get Putin's support before they could deploy there.

If we are arguing based on right and wrong that is a different thing but if this debate is about geopolitics which is not black and white, you wont need me to tell you most of the things you are asking me. My arguments and strictly based on geopolitics if that is not the same logic you are applying then we wont get anywhere.


If you say Putin acted the way he did post 911 because of his own interest. What are those interest and what did he gain by helping America post 911?

I remember stating earlier that no Russian president will agree to NATO enlargement so pointing out that Putin and Mededev were against NATO enlargement just proved my point.The difference is When they were both faced with the same issue, Mededev choose to threatened with tactical nukes and radar jamming deployment to Kalinigrad and Invaded Georgia, while Putin invaded Ukraine covertly and supported the separatists there while leaving a room for diplomacy.

I pointed out the Libya invasion to give you an example of how Mededev will not hesitate use force or advocate for it. Remember, I am against illegitimate use of force(either in the US or Russia) so i was only pointing out Mededev complicity in aiding NATO when the use of force is not justified and at the same time gave you examples of where Putin did not collaborate or advocate for it (Iraq) Putin collaboration has been based on what threatened global peace not global hegemony. Putin's stance since he got back is a result of their previous deceit where strategic collaboration has lead to nothing in return.

You said Canada will be free to pursue any foreign policy even if it is against US interest and i asked you a simple question you are refusing to answer. Why did the US threaten to go to war with Cuba when it collaborated with the Soviets. Is Cuba not entitled to their own foreign policy as a sovereign state? If The US can dictate to Cuba for national security reasons, why should Russia not do the same?

I have lived in both but i still dont understand how your question affects geopolitics. My choice will be determined by various factors (Language, Culture etc which is suited to the west) and dont forget the after the US, Russia second country that gets most immigrants (I remember you said nobody immigrates there. well not according to the numbers.)

The Soviet Union broke into 15 states, Only the Baltic states, and Georgia (Not anymore) wanted full EU alignment. The remaining countries want to have a good relationship with both blocs.

And I dont support Putin and i dont see the US as an enemy. My point is i understand Putin/Russia's POV and the only way peace can be guaranteed is if the security concerns of both blocs is considered and not through "take it or leave it" diplomacy.

Missy89:


While i enjoy the debate, I will appreciate if you do a little bit of research before posting your replies. When you ask if Kyrgyzstan is Russian, It sounded a little big ignorant on your part. Russia controls most of the countries in Central Asia and they have been under Russia's protection since the fall of the soviet Union. Most of them are client states and will only do what Russia tells them. They depend heavily on Russia for economic and military support and when US wanted to go into Afghanistan, They had to get Putin's support before they could deploy there.

You said that Putin allowed US bases in Kyrgyzstan.
The truth is that he didn't pay Krygyzstan to stop it as it didn't pose a threat severe enough on his national security at this time and was therefore not a profitable investment.

The US base cost Americans a lot of money. It was supposed to be closed in 2009 but the US raised the annual rent from $17.4m to $60m and the base was allowed to stay.

Since the conflict in Ukraine heated up, Putin decided to invest in Kyrgyzstan writing off half a billion dollars of the impoverished country’s debt, invested in the country's military and in energy projects.

Therefore, it is wrong to use Kyrgyzstan as an example to prove that Putin has been the most moderate leader when in fact his decisions have not been the result of his moderate foreign policies and attitude but the result of strategy in given circumstances.

Kyrgyzstan is offered better deals by either the US or Russia depending on how important the country is strategically under the given circumstances and it acts according to the offers being made.

Now that Kyrgyzstan has become strategically more important for Russia, and less important to the US, Russia is ready to pay the country more than the USA.

If we are arguing based on right and wrong that is a different thing but if this debate is about geopolitics which is not black and white, you wont need me to tell you most of the things you are asking me. My arguments and strictly based on geopolitics if that is not the same logic you are applying then we wont get anywhere.

I am happy you say it because I have the impression that you are defending Putin, the good cop, and attacking Obama, the bad cop, as if geopolitics were black and white.

If you say Putin acted the way he did post 911 because of his own interest. What are those interest and what did he gain by helping America post 911?

I have already explained it. Kyrgyzstan decisions depend on who has to offer the country more. The USA were ready to invest in the country as long as it was strategically important to them. Since the situation in Afghanistan changed and since the country went through a severe economic crisis, they were not ready to invest in Kyrgyzstan as much as they used to after 9/11. Putin did not feel threatened enough after 9/11 as to invest in Kyrgyzstan and to pay the country more than the USA since he knew that he would have to pay a lot when Bush was ready to do anything to fight terrorism. Putin knew that the USA were primarily focused on terrorism and Afghanistan so the danger perceived was not threatening enough and the investment in Kyrgyzstan not profitable enough. Cold calculations.

I doubt he was interested in helping America.

I remember stating earlier that no Russian president will agree to NATO enlargement so pointing out that Putin and Mededev were against NATO enlargement just proved my point.The difference is When they were both faced with the same issue, Mededev choose to threatened with tactical nukes and radar jamming deployment to Kalinigrad and Invaded Georgia, while Putin invaded Ukraine covertly and supported the separatists there while leaving a room for diplomacy.

During Medvedev's presidency, Putin is said to have been a driving force behind the scenes, this is why they were referred to as the ruling tandem. That aside, it was Medvedev who signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the US.

In August 2008, when Georgia attempted to retake control of the Moscow-backed separatist region of South Ossetia, it was Putin -- not Medvedev -- who gave the first public reaction, even though Putin was attending the Beijing Summer Olympics at the time. Later, as Russia started to deploy massive force against Georgia, Putin paid a dramatic visit to North Ossetia to meet soldiers and refugees, reinforcing his image as a man of action.

But it was Medvedev, as the commander-in-chief of the Russian military, who gave the formal order for the so-called “operation to force peace” on Georgia, and who signed the ceasefire accord brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that ended the five-day conflict. [For background see EurasiaNet’s archive].

Sergei Mikheyev, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow, argues that this elaborate two-man performance showed that Putin and Medvedev shape foreign policy jointly.

“Some roles were filled by Medvedev, others by Putin. To say that Putin or Medvedev decided anything by themselves would be naïve,” Mikheyev said.


http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61010

The paragraph above perfectly illustrates why Putin is said to have never left the presidential position entirely and why Russia is very far from being a democracy. He was actively and heavily influencing as well as shaping Russia's foreign policies even though foreign policies are the domain of the president, not the prime minister, in Russia.

I pointed out the Libya invasion to give you an example of how Mededev will not hesitate use force or advocate for it. Remember, I am against illegitimate use of force(either in the US or Russia) so i was only pointing out Mededev complicity in aiding NATO when the use of force is not justified and at the same time gave you examples of where Putin did not collaborate or advocate for it (Iraq) Putin collaboration has been based on what threatened global peace not global hegemony. Putin's stance since he got back is a result of their previous deceit where strategic collaboration has lead to nothing in return.

I have just explained that Putin was acting behind the scenes all the time.

You said Canada will be free to pursue any foreign policy even if it is against US interest and i asked you a simple question you are refusing to answer. Why did the US threaten to go to war with Cuba when it collaborated with the Soviets. Is Cuba not entitled to their own foreign policy as a sovereign state? If The US can dictate to Cuba for national security reasons, why should Russia not do the same?

We are comparing apples to oranges here and elaborating or refusing to on highly unlikely scenarios, such as a pro-Chinese government in Canada and the Chinese threatening the USA. We both know why the USA felt threatened by the Soviets and vice versa during the Cold War.

To be honest, I am not even sure why we are discussing the Cuba crisis in this context. Remind me, please.

I have lived in both but i still dont understand how your question affects geopolitics. My choice will be determined by various factors (Language, Culture etc which is suited to the west) and dont forget the after the US, Russia second country that gets most immigrants (I remember you said nobody immigrates there. well not according to the numbers.)

I have said that people from Western countries do not emigrate to Russia as much as Russians emigrate to Western countries.

Your choice will be determined by factors such as language and cultures, the Russian people who leave Russia do so for reasons such as economic opportunity and human rights.

Let us not deceive ourselves, a friend of mine told me to always ask myself whether I would feel comfortable living in a certain country, if my answer was a big no, then most probably the people there don't feel comfortable living there either. I think, he has a point there.

The Soviet Union broke into 15 states, Only the Baltic states, and Georgia (Not anymore) wanted full EU alignment. The remaining countries want to have a good relationship with both blocs.

This is not entirely true. There are more former Soviet states that would want to become full members of the EU but the EU is not yet ready to accept them. Moreover, you should also look at the number of people from each of these states that would support a EU membership.

And to say that ALL of the remaining countries want to have a good relationship with both, Russia and the West, obscures the fact that many of the former Soviet states are suspicious of Russia and make efforts towards more democracy, which Russia constantly tries to undermine.

And I dont support Putin and i dont see the US as an enemy. My point is i understand Putin/Russia's POV and the only way peace can be guaranteed is if the security concerns of both blocs is considered and not through "take it or leave it" diplomacy.

It may come as a surprise to you but I agree with you 100% here.
Unfortunately, the situation is too complex and too complicated to be solved easily and quickly.

carefreewannabe:


You said that Putin allowed US bases in Kyrgyzstan.
The truth is that he didn't pay Krygyzstan to stop it as it didn't pose a threat severe enough on his national security at this time and was therefore not a profitable investment.

The US base cost Americans a lot of money. It was supposed to be closed in 2009 but the US raised the annual rent from $17.4m to $60m and the base was allowed to stay.

Since the conflict in Ukraine heated up, Putin decided to invest in Kyrgyzstan writing off half a billion dollars of the impoverished country’s debt, invested in the country's military and in energy projects.

Therefore, it is wrong to use Kyrgyzstan as an example to prove that Putin has been the most moderate leader when in fact his decisions have not been the result of his moderate foreign policies and attitude but the result of strategy in given circumstances.

Kyrgyzstan is offered better deals by either the US or Russia depending on how important the country is strategically under the given circumstances and it acts according to the offers being made.

Now that Kyrgyzstan has become strategically more important for Russia, and less important to the US, Russia is ready to pay the country more than the USA.



I am happy you say it because I have the impression that you are defending Putin, the good cop, and attacking Obama, the bad cop, as if geopolitics were black and white.




I have already explained it. Kyrgyzstan decisions depend on who has to offer the country more. The USA were ready to invest in the country as long as it was strategically important to them. Since the situation in Afghanistan changed and since the country went through a severe economic crisis, they were not ready to invest in Kyrgyzstan as much as they used to after 9/11. Putin did not feel threatened enough after 9/11 as to invest in Kyrgyzstan and to pay the country more than the USA since he knew that he would have to pay a lot when Bush was ready to do anything to fight terrorism. Putin knew that the USA were primarily focused on terrorism and Afghanistan so the danger perceived was not threatening enough and the investment in Kyrgyzstan not profitable enough. Cold calculations.

I doubt he was interested in helping America.



During Medvedev's presidency, Putin is said to have been a driving force behind the scenes, this is why they were referred to as the ruling tandem. That aside, it was Medvedev who signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the US.

In August 2008, when Georgia attempted to retake control of the Moscow-backed separatist region of South Ossetia, it was Putin -- not Medvedev -- who gave the first public reaction, even though Putin was attending the Beijing Summer Olympics at the time. Later, as Russia started to deploy massive force against Georgia, Putin paid a dramatic visit to North Ossetia to meet soldiers and refugees, reinforcing his image as a man of action.

But it was Medvedev, as the commander-in-chief of the Russian military, who gave the formal order for the so-called “operation to force peace” on Georgia, and who signed the ceasefire accord brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that ended the five-day conflict. [For background see EurasiaNet’s archive].

Sergei Mikheyev, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow, argues that this elaborate two-man performance showed that Putin and Medvedev shape foreign policy jointly.

“Some roles were filled by Medvedev, others by Putin. To say that Putin or Medvedev decided anything by themselves would be naïve,” Mikheyev said.


http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61010

The paragraph above perfectly illustrates why Putin is said to have never left the presidential position entirely and why Russia is very far from being a democracy. He was actively and heavily influencing as well as shaping Russia's foreign policies even though foreign policies are the domain of the president, not the prime minister, in Russia.



I have just explained that Putin was acting behind the scenes all the time.



We are comparing apples to oranges here and elaborating or refusing to on highly unlikely scenarios, such as a pro-Chinese government in Canada and the Chinese threatening the USA. We both know why the USA felt threatened by the Soviets and vice versa during the Cold War.

To be honest, I am not even sure why we are discussing the Cuba crisis in this context. Remind me, please.




I have said that people from Western countries do not emigrate to Russia as much as Russians emigrate to Western countries.

Your choice will be determined by factors such as language and cultures, the Russian people who leave Russia do so for reasons such as economic opportunity and human rights.

Let us not deceive ourselves, a friend of mine told me to always ask myself whether I would feel comfortable living in a certain country, if my answer was a big no, then most probably the people there don't feel comfortable living there either. I think, he has a point there.



This is not entirely true. There are more former Soviet states that would want to become full members of the EU but the EU is not yet ready to accept them. Moreover, you should also look at the number of people from each of these states that would support a EU membership.

And to say that ALL of the remaining countries want to have a good relationship with both, Russia and the West, obscures the fact that many of the former Soviet states are suspicious of Russia and make efforts towards more democracy, which Russia constantly tries to undermine.

Kyrgyzstan has always been strategically important to the Russians and the Russians have always controlled the country. It is a client state of Russia. when the US needed a base in Central Asia, the only got one in Kyrgyzstan because Russia allowed it. Every other thing is said about the cost is not very relevant to this discourse. The important factor i was pointing out is the fact that for the first time post cold war, America had access to Central Asia which was heavily controlled by the Russia's military. No amount of money offered by the Americans would have saved any Kyrgyzstan government without a go ahead from the Kremlin. And the Americans realized that they couldn't keep the base even if they offered more than the Russians. Kyrgyzstan economy, military, politicians, and citizens heavily depends on Russia just like Kazakhstan and the rest of those "stans"

So Mededev is no longer independent now and Putin is the power behind the throne? so why did you ask me to compare their foreign policy when you know that you will find a dishonest way to disagree with it?
When you talk about arms reduction, it has nothing to do with Mededev being moderate. It was about timeline. Mededev was the president in office when the old START treaty was expiring and if it was Putin, there would have been a new treaty as well but then again, you claimed Putin was the power behind the throne so we should give the achievement to Putin shouldn't we?

Forget the unlikely scenario about China and Canada. You said Ukraine should be able to choose its own foreign policy because it is a sovereign country. Now you said America felt threatened by the Cuba/Soviet alliance. Well that is how the Russians are felling about the potential Ukraine/NATO/US alliance too. Like America, they warned about the consequences but nobody listened.

When you talk about immigration, why would a westerner want to live in a place where the language and culture is different with less economic opportunity?(I cant remember saying Russia is eldorado) But if it is that bad why is it the second country that people migrate to after the US (You said people do not migrate there which is not true) And then again, How does this concern geopolitics which is what we are talking about?

Missy89:


Kyrgyzstan has always been strategically important to the Russians and the Russians have always controlled the country. It is a client state of Russia. when the US needed a base in Central Asia, the only got one in Kyrgyzstan because Russia allowed it. Every other thing is said about the cost is not very relevant to this discourse. The important factor i was pointing out is the fact that for the first time post cold war, America had access to Central Asia which was heavily controlled by the Russia's military. No amount of money offered by the Americans would have saved any Kyrgyzstan government without a go ahead from the Kremlin. And the Americans realized that they couldn't keep the base even if they offered more than the Russians. Kyrgyzstan economy, military, politicians, and citizens heavily depends on Russia just like Kazakhstan and the rest of those "stans"

You forget that Kyrgyzstan is a sovereign state and its interdependence with Russia does not change the fact that their relations were strained in the past and that it, in its own interest, is able, if not entirely free to make deals with other global players, of great economic and military power.

Money was the tool or shall I say the weapon with which the two countries at some point tried to gain more influence over Kyrgyzstan.

So Mededev is no longer independent now and Putin is the power behind the throne? so why did you ask me to compare their foreign policy when you know that you will find a dishonest way to disagree with it?

It is not a dishonest way. It is well-known. And I asked you because I was interested in your point of view. You have a broad knowledge on geopolitics but you have neglected national politics, polities and policies in your analysis.

When you talk about arms reduction, it has nothing to do with Mededev being moderate. It was about timeline. Mededev was the president in office when the old START treaty was expiring and if it was Putin, there would have been a new treaty as well but then again, you claimed Putin was the power behind the throne so we should give the achievement to Putin shouldn't we?

Yes, we should but I have never claimed that Putin was the most moderate leader. He has always been a figure who was eager to epitomize strength and power, the man of action. Medvedev has been perceived as the more moderate one by the West, rightly or wrongly. It can be argued whether he really was.

And yes, maybe we should also give credit to Putin in this case, just that he never intended to look "tame" or to be perceived as the West's friend. In fact, his popularity is based on his authoritative leading style internally and externally.

Forget the unlikely scenario about China and Canada. You said Ukraine should be able to choose its own foreign policy because it is a sovereign country. Now you said America felt threatened by the Cuba/Soviet alliance. Well that is how the Russians are felling about the potential Ukraine/NATO/US alliance too. Like America, they warned about the consequences but nobody listened.

There is no need to tell me this. I already know. And I have already said that I am neither an advocate, nor a supporter of all US foreign policies.

When you talk about immigration, why would a westerner want to live in a place where the language and culture is different with less economic opportunity?

(I cant remember saying Russia is eldorado) But if it is that bad why is it the second country that people migrate to after the US (You said people do not migrate there which is not true) And then again, How does this concern geopolitics which is what we are talking about?

The people who migrate to Russia are for the most part citizens of former Soviet states, countries which are economically even worse off than Russia.

My point is that many Russians want to live and do live in the West but not many Westerners want to live and do live in Russia.


Once again, when you discuss geopolitics you cannot neglect migration issues, national politics, history and economic theory as well as ideology ...

carefreewannabe:


You forget that Kyrgyzstan is a sovereign state and its interdependence with Russia does not change the fact that their relations were strained in the past and that it, in its own interest, is able, if not entirely free to make deals with other global players, of great economic and military power.

Money was the tool or shall I say the weapon with which the two countries at some point tried to gain more influence over Kyrgyzstan.

It is not a dishonest way. It is well-known. And I asked you because I was interested in your point of view. You have a broad knowledge on geopolitics but you have neglected national politics, polities and policies in your analysis.

Yes, we should but I have never claimed that Putin was the most moderate leader. He has always been a figure who was eager to epitomize strength and power, the man of action. Medvedev has been perceived as the more moderate one by the West, rightly or wrongly. It can be argued whether he really was.

And yes, maybe we should also give credit to Putin in this case, just that he never intended to look "tame" or to be perceived as the West's friend. In fact, his popularity is based on his authoritative leading style internally and externally.



There is no need to tell me this. I already know. And I have already said that I am neither an advocate, nor a supporter of all US foreign policies.

The people who migrate to Russia are for the most part citizens of former Soviet states, countries which are economically even worse off than Russia.

My point is that many Russians want to live and do live in the West but not many Westerners want to live and do live in Russia.


Once again, when you discuss geopolitics you cannot neglect migration issues, national politics, history and economic theory as well as ideology ...

No it is not free to make Security/Military deals with any country she wants just because it is sovereign. You agreed with me that Cuba could not. apply the same logic to Kyrgyzstan then you wont be contradicting yourself. Sounds unfair but that is the reality. The Americans went thru Russia to get a base there. It is documented (I dont want to paste another link)

You asked me about the FOREIGN POLICY of the presidents you listed. National politics was not what we are discussing and if you think Putin was the one calling the shots, (rightly so) Then there no point asking the question. If you say Mededev was moderate according to your own logic that means Putin wanted him to be moderate since he is the puppeteer no?

The citizenship of the the people migrating to Russia is not important here. The important thing is that it has a high migrant population after the US. which makes your statement false and Yes of course, everyone wants to live in a better place.

National politics have little significance on this topic all together. It is about the East-West Security geopolitics. What does EU/US/Russia Immigration have to do with the war in the Donbass? And If you want to talk about history, then you should know why Russia is authoritarian and want Ukraine in its sphere.

By the way if you want to read an independent Russian newspaper check The Moscow times. Not every Newspaper or media is controlled by the govt. I forgot to mention that but i agree they are too rare and highly non existent

Missy89:


No it is not free to make Security/Military deals with any country she wants just because it is sovereign. You agreed with me that Cuba could not. apply the same logic to Kyrgyzstan then you wont be contradicting yourself. Sounds unfair but that is the reality. The Americans went thru Russia to get a base there. It is documented (I dont want to paste another link)

Please feel free to post links. I will try to find the time to check on them. I believe that I can learn a thing or two from you although I have doubts whether you can use Kyrgyzstan and the US base there as evidence that Putin has been the most moderate leader. Several facts contradict your statement.

First of all, it is not true that Kyrgyzstan is entirely and easily controlled by the Moscow.

For several years, Kyrgyzstan has been stuck in a tug-of-war between the two Cold War enemies, frequently making the landlocked state the center of geopolitical strategizing. The Americans have been pushing to maintain their cherished military base in the north of Kyrgyzstan, without which U.S. supply lines to the nearby war in Afghanistan would be significantly hampered. Russia, meanwhile, has lobbied to kick the American military out of what it still sees as its sphere of influence in the territories of the former Soviet Union.

The struggle came to a head in February of last year (2009), when the Kyrgyz handed the U.S. military base an eviction notice just weeks after Russia provided the impoverished country with a $2 billion loan and $150 million in aid. Russia denied any link between the two events, but U.S. officials saw it differently. Washington soon reached a deal with Kyrgyz leaders to keep the base open — in exchange for a tripling of the yearly rental to $60 million, among other conditions.

In a March 5 interview with TIME (2010), an Obama Administration senior official said it had been a close call for the U.S. "That we have the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan is a great achievement," he said. "Russia didn't want to allow us to have that. They put down $2 billion to get us out. But Obama had very frank discussions with [Russian President Dmitri] Medvedev. He said, If you believe we have a common enemy in Afghanistan, then this is going to help us fight that common enemy. Had we lost that, it would have been a major blow. It is a major hub for getting our soldiers in and out of there."

Since then, Russian-Kyrgyz relations have deteriorated, a process that culminated in Wednesday's declaration by Kyrgyz Prime Minister Daniyar Usenov that one of the heads of the opposition had met with Putin before going forward with the revolt. Usenov told a press conference on Tuesday in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek that opposition leader Temir Sariyev claimed during an interrogation that he had received assurances from Putin of Russia's support for the opposition.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978590,00.html

The quoted passages from the article proves two points.

First, the US and Russia were competing for influence in Kyrgyzstan and spent a lot of money to have a privileged position in the country.

Secondly, Russia had its own interest at heart when it supported the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) by allowing supplies through its territory. It was Putin's strategic interest in that region that influenced his decisions and not his moderate approach.

From the perspective of Russia, Afghanistan occupies an important geo-strategic, geopolitical and geo-economic position. The geo-strategic location of Afghanistan is such that it connects important regions like Central Asia and the Middle East with South and East Asia.

Owing to Russia’s natural sphere of influence in Central Asian countries, it wants Afghanistan to play the role of a bulwark which will protect its vulnerable southern border from illegal narcotics and Islamic extremism, which threaten the stability of Russia and its strategic allies in Central Asia. As can be seen, Afghanistan is of key significance to Russia’s wider Central Asian policy and its claim to a great power status.

The geo-economic interest is testified by Afghanistan as a source of vital hydro-carbon reserves, iron-ore reserves, copper, gold, lithium and so on. Russia will have to keep a check on formidable economic rivals in Afghanistan like China, which recently outbidded Russian companies on the Ainak copper reserves, one of the biggest in the world. Afghanistan can also help Russia in diversifying its energy exports by providing access to South Asia and China through its territory. The recent interest displayed Russia in the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India) gas pipeline can be seen in this context.

http://www.ipcs.org/article/afghanistan/russias-afghan-strategy-what-are-its-interests-3534.html

You asked me about the FOREIGN POLICY of the presidents you listed. National politics was not what we are discussing and if you think Putin was the one calling the shots, (rightly so) Then there no point asking the question. If you say Mededev was moderate according to your own logic that means Putin wanted him to be moderate since he is the puppeteer no?

I am surprised you believe that you can analyze and understand geopolitics without discussing national politics. They are interrelated and one cannot be understood without the other.

To me it seems that Medvedev was more moderate, at least in appearance. It is too simple to say that Medvedev was Putin's puppeteer but it would also be naive to claim that Putin did not shape and interfere in foreign policies during Medvedev's presidency, even though foreign policies are not the domain of a prime minister in Russia. Therefore the involvement and results of Russia's foreign policies during Medvedev's presidency remain blurred with regard to the decisions taken behind the scenes.

The assessment of the foreign policies of these two presidents cannot be as simple as you make it appear and it obscure if you refuse to consider the internal (im)balance of power.

The citizenship of the the people migrating to Russia is not important here. The important thing is that it has a high migrant population after the US. which makes your statement false and Yes of course, everyone wants to live in a better place.

The citizenship of the people migrating to Russia is relevant here since we are discussing the relations between the West and Russia.

National politics have little significance on this topic all together. It is about the East-West Security geopolitics. What does EU/US/Russia Immigration have to do with the war in the Donbass? And If you want to talk about history, then you should know why Russia is authoritarian and want Ukraine in its sphere.

National politics and ideologies are never irrelevant in the analysis of geopolitics. How can you understand what the Cold War was about when you don't understand what political theory and ideology was the driving force behind the West's and Soviet Union's national interests, which manifested themselves in the formation of international relations? You can never understand geopolitics without understanding a country's internal affairs, system, structure, culture and mentality.

The analysis of any subject or issue can only be thorough and do justice to the complexities of life if we take on an interdisciplinary approach. (This is why in modern-day, well-developed school systems efforts are made to change the rigid structure of teaching subjects as they are entirely unrelated to each other towards an approach, in which the knowledge from different disciplines is linked and intertwined, that's by the way.)

By the way if you want to read an independent Russian newspaper check The Moscow times. Not every Newspaper or media is controlled by the govt. I forgot to mention that but i agree they are too rare and highly non existent

Thanks for the tip.

I have had a quick look.

I cannot say how independent the newspaper is but I found this interesting, I found it under the caption "about us".

Q: Does the Kremlin interfere with your work?
A: No.

I am mistrustful. I will do some more research but it will take some time. I will follow the articles and judge the newspaper by the balance or imbalance between pro-Kremlin and Kremlin critical articles.