The fact that there is a Russia vs the West antagonism is solely the result of US foreign policy. The US cultivated this antagonism it to prevent the military-industrial complex from having to reduce itself to a purely defensive role after the end of the Cold War. For evidence of this check out the activaties of Lockheed Vice President, …
The fact that there is a Russia vs the West antagonism is solely the result of US foreign policy. The US cultivated this antagonism it to prevent the military-industrial complex from having to reduce itself to a purely defensive role after the end of the Cold War. For evidence of this check out the activaties of Lockheed Vice President, Bruce Jackson. You won't have to go to alternative news sources to do this. His Wikipedia profile will suffice.
It's not surprising that US support for the blatantly illegal coup on their border in Ukraine in 2014 angered the Russians nor is it surprising that people in eastern Ukraine who voted for the legitimately elected president who was deposed have not accepted the results of the coup. The situation in eastern Ukraine can best be described as an unfinished coup and the Kiev government cannot claim to be the legitimate government there.
Russia's annexation of Crimea can properly be referred to as defensive in nature. Russia's insistence that Ukraine not join a hostile, anti-Russian alliance is easily understood as defensive.
Russia's aims in the Donbas are threefold: aid the ethnic Russians there who face discrimination (at least) from western Ukrainians, preventing Ukraine from joining an anti-Russian alliance and pressuring the international community to recognize their annexation of Crimea. All are reasonable in light of NATOs deliberate provocations
You're making it sound like Ukraine is part of Russia. It is not.
While Russia, you, me, or anyone else might not agree with developments within Ukraine, they are still within a sovereign country. I can understand Russia not wanting a country next door to join an alliance that defends against Russia, BUT it's still a separate country that has the right to make its own decisions.
I can also understand why people in eastern Ukraine who speak Russian may wish to separate from Ukrainian-speaking, culturally Ukrainian areas, and I personally don't wish to stop them. It's complicated.
My ancestry is Slovak, and my family came from just a few miles west of Ukraine-- having lived under Russian domination. I feel all this pretty personally. The Russians have been taking over and obliterating countries, like what they did to Poland, for centuries. It can't simply be tolerated. If I lived in one of those places, I would want to resist.
As we could particularly see in the former Yugoslavia in the '90s and in the situation with the Kurds and Turkey today, neither artificially packing different ethnic peoples together in one country created by "great" powers, nor artificially separating them in different countries, comes to any good.
Yes, the boundaries between ethnic groups in that part of the world are fractal in nature and can't be drawn to fit boundaries of countries.
I'm not arguing against Ukraine's right to associate with whoever it chooses. I'm saying NATO shouldn't exist. It is inherently anti-Russian and inherently militaristic. Certainly, Germany has obliterated its share of countries (and Poland, too, for that matter, if you go back far enough) but there is no anti-German alliance. Russia could have been welcomed into the community of nations after the end of the Cold War but NATO wouldn't allow it.
The Cold War was ended almost without a shot being fired: the Berlin Wall fell in a big party, the Warsaw Pact dissolved peacefully. There was a lot of enlightment going around in those days and the US squandered it all
The fact that there is a Russia vs the West antagonism is solely the result of US foreign policy. The US cultivated this antagonism it to prevent the military-industrial complex from having to reduce itself to a purely defensive role after the end of the Cold War. For evidence of this check out the activaties of Lockheed Vice President, Bruce Jackson. You won't have to go to alternative news sources to do this. His Wikipedia profile will suffice.
It's not surprising that US support for the blatantly illegal coup on their border in Ukraine in 2014 angered the Russians nor is it surprising that people in eastern Ukraine who voted for the legitimately elected president who was deposed have not accepted the results of the coup. The situation in eastern Ukraine can best be described as an unfinished coup and the Kiev government cannot claim to be the legitimate government there.
Russia's annexation of Crimea can properly be referred to as defensive in nature. Russia's insistence that Ukraine not join a hostile, anti-Russian alliance is easily understood as defensive.
Russia's aims in the Donbas are threefold: aid the ethnic Russians there who face discrimination (at least) from western Ukrainians, preventing Ukraine from joining an anti-Russian alliance and pressuring the international community to recognize their annexation of Crimea. All are reasonable in light of NATOs deliberate provocations
You're making it sound like Ukraine is part of Russia. It is not.
While Russia, you, me, or anyone else might not agree with developments within Ukraine, they are still within a sovereign country. I can understand Russia not wanting a country next door to join an alliance that defends against Russia, BUT it's still a separate country that has the right to make its own decisions.
I can also understand why people in eastern Ukraine who speak Russian may wish to separate from Ukrainian-speaking, culturally Ukrainian areas, and I personally don't wish to stop them. It's complicated.
My ancestry is Slovak, and my family came from just a few miles west of Ukraine-- having lived under Russian domination. I feel all this pretty personally. The Russians have been taking over and obliterating countries, like what they did to Poland, for centuries. It can't simply be tolerated. If I lived in one of those places, I would want to resist.
As we could particularly see in the former Yugoslavia in the '90s and in the situation with the Kurds and Turkey today, neither artificially packing different ethnic peoples together in one country created by "great" powers, nor artificially separating them in different countries, comes to any good.
'Bye now. Intending peace for all of us.
Yes, the boundaries between ethnic groups in that part of the world are fractal in nature and can't be drawn to fit boundaries of countries.
I'm not arguing against Ukraine's right to associate with whoever it chooses. I'm saying NATO shouldn't exist. It is inherently anti-Russian and inherently militaristic. Certainly, Germany has obliterated its share of countries (and Poland, too, for that matter, if you go back far enough) but there is no anti-German alliance. Russia could have been welcomed into the community of nations after the end of the Cold War but NATO wouldn't allow it.
The Cold War was ended almost without a shot being fired: the Berlin Wall fell in a big party, the Warsaw Pact dissolved peacefully. There was a lot of enlightment going around in those days and the US squandered it all