US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

Demon of Light said:

Without question I do believe this to be the case. If Ukraine plunges into a civil war in the near-term I can see both sides intervening as "peacekeepers" in their respective spheres of influence and essentially locking in a Solomon solution. At that point it moves into the active phase of building two competing power camps and more direct efforts to obstruct each side's advances.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's in anyone's interests at this point for there to be a civil war in Ukraine. I think both sides will try to avoid this. BUT THAT IS ONLY IF THE US DOES NOT TRY TO PUSH NATO INTO UKRAINE. If that happens, then I think Russia may calculate that it's in their interests to create as much instability in Ukraine as possible, and then you could very well see a civil war there. However, I don't think that would be a wise move on the part of Russia. They should be satisfied that they have secured Crimea and tolerate the discomfort with having NATO next to them. But that is me. I could see a Russian nationalist like Putin thinking otherwise.

Demon of Light said:

America has had its fingers in the Ukrainian pie since the collapse. The name of the game in these countries for America has always been to identify the dissidents, who exist in every country, and then devote as many resources as possible to help them fundraise, organize, and campaign. I don't doubt for a moment that there are people being moved into these organizations as soon as possible who are either CIA operatives or CIA assets to manage perceptions and monitors loyalties. Outside of the covert agency power you have proxies in private NGOs and business using their networks and connections to aid in these causes. Such groups inevitably are looping in the Agency as is the case with the Shell corporation parallel state in Nigeria. His actions are another interesting question. There has been an odd frequency to see glimmers of peaceful shifts away from conflict in Ukraine suddenly ending as snipers end up shooting at both sides for no apparent reason. Perhaps Russia would engage in such false flag actions, though it seems the U.S. had more to gain. After all, what happened in Kiev on February 20th assured Yanukovich's downfall.

Click to expand...

That's pretty good. However, a couple of things. First of all, who are you refering to in, "His actions are another interesting question?" Second, Russia would not gain anything by engaging snipers to kill protesters and thus derail the peace deal. It only makes their task of rebuilding Russia much more difficult as it results in many more obstacles. Neither do I think the US did it, although that is more likely. It may have been the work of the neo-Nazis who simply wanted to get Yanukovych out. It's also highly likely that it was the work of some 3rd party who would have an interest in driving a wedge between the US and Russia. Someone say that was not pleased by the recent cooperation between Russia and the US with regards to Iran and Syria. That may actually be the case.

Demon of Light said:

You make the U.S. seem so noble. Except, an aggressive foreign policy towards Russia begin in the midst of the collapse. That makes it seem less like what you say and more like a power/resource grab, which is ultimately what it is more like. As the Soviet Union collapsed we set up a banking unit through a spook bank that was essentially just about letting Russian officials and future oligarchs empty state coffers overseas into a slush fund for later use. Many of those same mafia-linked oligarchs then moved in to take over Russian industry flush with cash and made various powerful Western financiers their silent partners. Russia's crackdown on oligarchs, portrayed in Western media as a politically-motivated consolidation of power, was more directly understood as their effort to expunge a cancer of foreign corruption introduced by the proxies of Western industry and replace it with good old-fashioned domestic corruption subservient to Mother Russia. Putin's victory over the robber barons of Russia was about restoring the authority of the Russian nation over its own borders. His aggressive efforts to stamp out the Islamist insurgencies in the North Caucasus, which were also a product of covert Western machinations, was the culmination of Putin's efforts at restoring national unity. Since then he has sought to re-assert Russian authority overseas because while he was focused on the internal consolidation of power, the U.S. had pressed its gains right up to Russia's doorstep.

Click to expand...

Good response. I agree. Do you have a reference to support your assertion that we set up a banking unit through a spook bank?

MildSteel said:

The US has a technical edge over Russia. However I doubt seriously this short war rhetoric. The US has been fighting these short wars against adversaries in which it has overwhelming air superiority. Although the US likely has the edge over Russia in that regard, the situation isn't so lopsided. Also recall that Russia is said to have the best air defense systems in the world. And it's a fact that the US worries about them because they have put up a big fuss about Russia selling them to Iran and Syria.

Click to expand...

The US has superior technology and training. The US has almost constant combat experience, and our economy is more able to handle expenditures. I assume we have all sorts of special operations and intelligence tricks that the public doesnt know about. So long the US limits itself to removing Russia from Ukraine, I think it would be one sided.

Demon of Light said:

That is rather silly. He was not plotting some action in Ukraine before there was even a reason to plot some action in Ukraine.

Click to expand...

And you know this how - because of your deep and introspective relationship with Putin? Me, I'm speculating on his actions and by putting together a chain of events and information through various news sources. Just claiming something is silly without providing a fact based and logical alternative is not very compelling.

Demon of Light said:

I do imagine he was hoping that making his involvement crucial in various issues important to the U.S. would give him some cover in the event of incidents such as this one. No doubt Russian planners have also spent years developing contingency plans depending on various outcomes in Ukraine. The war will be over by Christmas!!!

Click to expand...

One thing that I can say with some confidence is geopolitical and military land grabs are based on "hoping". As I previously stated, once the Syrian and Iranian negotiations were clearly being led by Russia, the opportunity presented itself and he planned taking back Crimea and Ukraine. This was a test to see how the EU and US would react. It seems he's so far been successful.

MildSteel said:

From the Russian point of view there was no need to remove Yanukovych because he was accepting their deal. Not only that, but it's more likely Putin would have preferred not to get into a struggle like this at a time when he wants a positive view of Russia and at a time when he is trying to rebuild Russia. No, Putin's response here with regards to the seizure of Crimea is the type of thing that's done when someone doesn't have any good choices left.

Click to expand...

But then annexation, if that was the end goal, would prove that Yanukovych wasn't needed past accepting the deal anyway. Perhaps he would stay on as a puppet doing the Kremlins bidding and be a useful tool, but that is a minor issue compared to the annexation itself.

MildSteel said:

This issue was forced by the US. Likely it was the result of being frustrated after being outmaneuvered by Putin when he offered Yanukovych a better deal that was accepted. So the US then calculated that it would pressure Yanukovych through protests, threat of financial sanctions, and by applying pressure to Akhmetov. The opportunity presented itself to remove him and the US took that opportunity knowing full well that it would be of grave concern to Putin to have been cut out by force in this way. Now this is where the BIG mistake was made.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see how the US pressured Yanukovych with protests. Are you saying the CIA fomented social protests?

MildSteel said:

What they likely calculated was that they could do this as long as they offered Putin some sort of deal that would allow Russia to have some influence in the government they were planning to form. Over and above that, Putin was likely offered some assurances with regards to Sevastopol and possibly some no NATO guarantees. They thought this would be enough to placate him. And that was the big mistake, because, as Putin indicated in his speech, they have lied and engaged in backbiting on the Russians in the past. So there was simply not enough trust on Putin's part in the US. And he had very good reason to calculate in that way. Then Putin, being a Russian nationalist, calculated that he was not going to take a risk having Russia suffocated by trusting the US. So he enacted plans, that had likely been formulated long ago to seize Crimea.

That's the most likely explanation, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I admit it sounds plausible, but that would mean the US misread Putin and his intentions in a big way. Would that be how you see it?

MildSteel said:

US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post



Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.

If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII

Click to expand...

There won't be any WWIII. Putin is currently pals w/one of the US govt.'s Supreme Rulers, Tillerson, meaning any war between Russia and the US is impossible.

jonny5 said:

The US has superior technology and training. The US has almost constant combat experience,

Click to expand...

WARNING: this forum has a LOL limit. Posting statements like this will cause the forum to exceed the LOL limit, possibly crashing it.

Beaudreaux said:

(emphasis added by me)

Unfortunately, you are correct on both points.

This is probably the first of many examples of Russia imposing its will on western Europe in an attempt to rebuild the Soviet Union. The difference though is that this time, NATO has already absorbed many of the previous Warsaw Pact nations.

Map of previous Warsaw Pact nations:

Current NATO map showing designations of each nation. Notice the proximity to Russia, with only Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia separating Russia from NATO:

Click to expand...

I corrected your map. . .

jonny5 said:

The US has superior technology and training. The US has almost constant combat experience, and our economy is more able to handle expenditures. I assume we have all sorts of special operations and intelligence tricks that the public doesnt know about. So long the US limits itself to removing Russia from Ukraine, I think it would be one sided.

Click to expand...

Of course we are considering limiting the conflict to dislodging Russia from Crimea. Because if we were taking about all out war with Russia, oh that would be a long drawn out affair. Recall what happened last time someone tried a land invasion of Russia. Even with superior technology, that was a big failure.

Again, the US relies on superior air power for these quick wars. And while is some respects the US fighters are said to be better e.g. better missiles, the Russian fighters are said to be more mobile. Over and above that, the Russians have the best air defense systems in the world. I don't think it would be as one sided as you think.

Ockham said:

But then annexation, if that was the end goal, would prove that Yanukovych wasn't needed past accepting the deal anyway. Perhaps he would stay on as a puppet doing the Kremlins bidding and be a useful tool, but that is a minor issue compared to the annexation itself.

I'd be interested to see how the US pressured Yanukovych with protests. Are you saying the CIA fomented social protests?

I admit it sounds plausible, but that would mean the US misread Putin and his intentions in a big way. Would that be how you see it?

Click to expand...

Again, annexing Crimea in this way creates many problems for Putin. Russia's interests where better served with the status quo as it was. The primary goal for Putin at this point has to be rebuilding Russia. He really needs good relations with the West to do that. The annexation of Crimea is certainly going to slow that primary goal, which is why it's not likely that he would do it, unless he felt he really had to.

As far as pressuring Yanukovych with protests, here's the Assistant Secretary of State herself, passing out cookies to the protesters



Last and most importantly, yes, it was a very very big mistake.

solletica said:

There won't be any WWIII. Putin is currently pals w/one of the US govt.'s Supreme Rulers, Tillerson, meaning any war between Russia and the US is impossible.

Click to expand...

Now that's a good point!!!!

Simpleχity;1063057599 said:

I've been to Crimea many times and I never witnessed nor heard of any "oppression". What you did have was a constant agitation by pro-Russian political parties. Even so, the current pro-Russian Crimean Prime Minister (installed by Moscow) received only 4% of the vote in the last Crimean election. With the turmoil in Kyiv, Putin saw an opportunity and pounced. Truth be told, Ukraine is better off without Crimea. It is a sinkhole economically that is now Russia's problem. As the Crimeans are about to discover, life under Russian law is very different than living in an autonomous republic. About the only population segment that will benefit are pensioners (~500,000) who will see their pension checks double in size. Tourism - which supports the peninsula - is about to take the toilet plunge that befell Egypt. There are no flights and all booked Ukrainian and foreign tour groups have cancelled. The service sector (hotels, spas, car rental agencies, souvenir shops, tour guide agencies, etc) is about to take a very significant and painful hit.

Click to expand...

I'd call changing the language policy by the new "illegal" Government in Ukraine an oppressive move.. but whatever..

austrianecon said:

I'd call changing the language policy by the new "illegal" Government in Ukraine an oppressive move.. but whatever..

Click to expand...

No, not whatever. If you're going to complain about something, get it right.

According to its Constitution, Ukrainian is the official national language of the nation of Ukraine. However, Russian has long been the unofficial language in many administrative regions (oblasts) of southern and eastern Ukraine. Ergo, the Minority Languages Law of 2012 guaranteed that another language could be used in documents, courts, schools, and other government institutions in areas of Ukraine where the percentage of representatives of national minorities exceeds 10% of the total population of a defined administrative district.

After the fall of the Yanukovych government, a bill was introduced in the Rada (parliament) to repeal the Minority Languages Act and this proposal was passed by a vote of 232 MPs out of 450 (226 required for passage). However, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov vetoed the bill. The Minority Languages Act of 2012 remains intact and unchanged and a majority of MPs have since come to the conclusion that repealing the law would be more nationally divisive than multiple languages. Russian thus remains a protected language in 13 of Ukraine's 27 administrative regions. Hungarian, Romanian, and Moldovan remain protected languages in the Oblast of Zakarpattia.

In signing an Association Agreement with the European Union today, the government of Ukraine has agreed to abide by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

joko104 said:

Without nuclear weapons Russia could steam roll over Poland. Poland's military is only for small bordering counties.
Russia could roll across every non-nuclear power in East and West Europe easily if it wanted to. All are relying on the US for defense. A BIG mistake on their part.

Click to expand...

Don't buy it.

joko104 said:

A likely future conflict area is Kazakhstan. It is a massive collection of natural resources on Russia's Southern border worth trillions to Russia. Uzbekistan also likely of very high conquest interests of Russia.

Click to expand...

kazakhstan and usbekistan are firmly in in russias pocket. they don't want independence from russia they want to work with russia.

on the other hand Uzbekistan's future is in doubt if its leader kicks the bucket, he is the only thing holding his regime together.

Islam Karimov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

apdst said:

Obama's backing down every chance he gets.

Click to expand...

How is he backing down and what do you propose he do he is not already doing? Do you want us to go to war?

Simpleχity;1063058823 said:

No, not whatever. If you're going to complain about something, get it right.

According to its Constitution, Ukrainian is the official national language of the nation of Ukraine. However, Russian has long been the unofficial language in many administrative regions (oblasts) of southern and eastern Ukraine. Ergo, the Minority Languages Law of 2012 guaranteed that another language could be used in documents, courts, schools, and other government institutions in areas of Ukraine where the percentage of representatives of national minorities exceeds 10% of the total population of a defined administrative district.

After the fall of the Yanukovych government, a bill was introduced in the Rada (parliament) to repeal the Minority Languages Act and this proposal was passed by a vote of 232 MPs out of 450 (226 required for passage). However, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov vetoed the bill. The Minority Languages Act of 2012 remains intact and unchanged and a majority of MPs have since come to the conclusion that repealing the law would be more nationally divisive than multiple languages. Russian thus remains a protected language in 13 of Ukraine's 27 administrative regions. Hungarian, Romanian, and Moldovan remain protected languages in the Oblast of Zakarpattia.

In signing an Association Agreement with the European Union today, the government of Ukraine has agreed to abide by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Click to expand...

Blah blah.. I know all of this.. you are reading way too much in to my posts. One liners and smart ass comments are just that.

What you aren't connecting in your position is.. this was voted on by the Rada on February 23rd.. the following day of the illegal impeachment of Yanukovych, yes it was illegal. They were short 10 votes and forgot to allow a Supreme Court review, you know what's required in the Ukrainian Constitution for impeachment. But I am sure you knew this. So their first official business after the Coup was to vote to ban other traditional languages.. and it passed. Russia entered Crimea on the 24th of February. Still, For 4 days Turchynov let that law sit before vetoing it after international outrage and pressure by EU members and others to show them the foolish move they made.

MildSteel said:

The blunder was thinking they could derail Russia's better offer to Yanukovych by removing him from office, not realizing the consequence would be Russia's seizing Crimea. The blame for this VERY BIG blunder lies the the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

No doubt about it.

Click to expand...

Or once again our intelligence apparatus that was as clueless as just before 911 or regarding so called WMD's in Iraq. There's your blunder and it keeps happening no matter how well funded it is.

austrianecon said:

For 4 days Turchynov let that law sit before vetoing it after international outrage and pressure by EU members and others to show them the foolish move they made.

Click to expand...

It was never a law. At best it was a failed proposal. You are equating a parliamentary draft measure with codified law. Any proposed draft law must first be voted upon in the Verkhovna Rada. If the draft measure has the required votes, it is then sent to the president for approval. The president has two options:

1) Sign the draft measure into law within 15 days.
2) Veto the draft measure within 15 days.

Turchynov opted to veto, thus the draft measure was never approved by him as codified law.

Parliament can overrule a presidential draft measure veto with a 2/3 majority vote. In this case, the president *must* sign the law into effect. This overrule procedure was never entertained.

Thus, neither available recourse for codifying the draft measure into law (presidential approval/legislature overrule) was employed.

joko104 said:

Without nuclear weapons Russia could steam roll over Poland. Poland's military is only for small bordering counties.
Russia could roll across every non-nuclear power in East and West Europe easily if it wanted to. All are relying on the US for defense. A BIG mistake on their part.

Click to expand...

It's been a while since I read a post so utterly devoid of veracity.

Quite impressive, actually.

EnigmaO01 said:

How is he backing down and what do you propose he do he is not already doing? Do you want us to go to war?

Click to expand...

There it is again. The only two options are to do nothing, or all out war.

EnigmaO01 said:

Or once again our intelligence apparatus that was as clueless as just before 911 or regarding so called WMD's in Iraq. There's your blunder and it keeps happening no matter how well funded it is.

Click to expand...

The only intelligence apparatus needed for this was a brain. Some consideration of the strategic importance of Sevastopol, the strong historical ties Russia has with Ukraine, the geographical proximity of Ukraine, the demographics of the Crimean population, the location of sround 20,000 Russian troops in Crimea, and the mindset of a Russian nationalist, would lead one to come to the conclusion that a Russian take over of Crimea was likely after the deal that was offered to Yanukovych by Putin was destroyed by Yanokovcyh's overthrow.

This was a failure of intelligence of Barack Obama.

MildSteel said:

I don't think it's in anyone's interests at this point for there to be a civil war in Ukraine. I think both sides will try to avoid this. BUT THAT IS ONLY IF THE US DOES NOT TRY TO PUSH NATO INTO UKRAINE. If that happens, then I think Russia may calculate that it's in their interests to create as much instability in Ukraine as possible, and then you could very well see a civil war there. However, I don't think that would be a wise move on the part of Russia. They should be satisfied that they have secured Crimea and tolerate the discomfort with having NATO next to them. But that is me. I could see a Russian nationalist like Putin thinking otherwise.

Click to expand...

Both parties trying to pull Ukraine towards their side will likely lead to a civil war without either of them trying to make it happen.

That's pretty good. However, a couple of things. First of all, who are you refering to in, "His actions are another interesting question?" Second, Russia would not gain anything by engaging snipers to kill protesters and thus derail the peace deal. It only makes their task of rebuilding Russia much more difficult as it results in many more obstacles. Neither do I think the US did it, although that is more likely. It may have been the work of the neo-Nazis who simply wanted to get Yanukovych out. It's also highly likely that it was the work of some 3rd party who would have an interest in driving a wedge between the US and Russia. Someone say that was not pleased by the recent cooperation between Russia and the US with regards to Iran and Syria. That may actually be the case.

Click to expand...

"His actions" was a reference to Yanukovich as the post I was responding to said Yanukovich's actions were partly the cause of his downfall. Were far right elements responsible for the snipers I would not it consider any less plausible that the U.S. was ultimately to blame as America has never shied away from using such groups in the past.

Good response. I agree. Do you have a reference to support your assertion that we set up a banking unit through a spook bank?

Click to expand...

That would be Riggs-Valmet, though Valmet already technically existed. Riggs Bank bought half of its shares and began staffing the company with various people, including some involved in Iran-Contra, and soon billions of dollars were being funneled out of state coffers and into offshore bank accounts by Soviet officials involved with the unit. Several major oligarchs, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Yukos, owe their success to Riggs-Valmet.

Ockham said:

And you know this how - because of your deep and introspective relationship with Putin?

Click to expand...

Well, I just presume that Putin does not have the power to predict the future. That would have to be the case if what you are saying was true. Seems the logical view would be that Putin did what he needed to protect his country's interests and may have hoped that this would get him a little leeway on future matters where the U.S. would normally object. Any notion that he was plotting all of this before there was even any hint that he would have the opportunity is quite ridiculous.

All these 'threats' are just posturing and silly, IMO.

Btw, notice how America punished some Russians directly...but NOT Putin.

In other words...'we want to seem like we are doing something, but we don't want to actually do anything'.

Simpleχity;1063059647 said:

It was never a law. At best it was a failed proposal. You are equating a parliamentary draft measure with codified law. Any proposed draft law must first be voted upon in the Verkhovna Rada.

Click to expand...

It was voted on and passed the Rada. That's not up for debate. It happened. Where you and I disagree is the fact the action even took place.

Simpleχity;1063059647 said:

If the draft measure has the required votes, it is then sent to the president for approval. The president has two options:

1) Sign the draft measure into law within 15 days.
2) Veto the draft measure within 15 days.

Turchynov opted to veto, thus the draft measure was never approved by him as codified law.

Click to expand...

And I never said it was codified law, but rather a repeal law which passed and was in the process of becoming law for 4 days at the peak of tensions between both sides. Turchynov sat on it for 4 days which gave the image of Russian facing an uncertain future in Ukraine. Perception is this situation is reality to many. That's the reality of what happen. That's what the Russians used as justification to go into Crimea. That's all I am saying. But who knows what happens in Ukraine after this.

austrianecon said:

And I never said it was codified law, but rather a repeal law...

Click to expand...

You said and I quote...

austrianecon said:

Still, For 4 days Turchynov let that law...

Click to expand...

It wasn't a law. It was a *draft measure* and can only become law upon the signature of the president of Ukraine. It doesn't even matter which president you prefer, Yanukovych would have vetoed it and Turchynov did veto it.

austrianecon said:

Turchynov sat on it for 4 days which gave the image of Russian facing an uncertain future in Ukraine.

Click to expand...

The president has 15 days to either sign a draft measure into law or veto it. Russia knows the legislative procedure perfectly well and realized action (invasion) was necessary immediately...before the draft measure could be vetoed by Turchynov.

The Kremlin line that ethnic Russians in Crimea were oppressed and under threat sounds like it possibly might be plausible to some Westerners, but I've been to Crimea many times over the years (as recently as last November) and neither saw, nor read about, nor heard about any such oppression. The crime rate was low but the perception was that Crimea functioned as Ukraine's Sicily because of organized crime (the Russian Mafia) who would launder money there and then purchase resorts etc. True enough, the ethnic Russian majority desired a return to Russia proper, but the Kremlin justification for invasion (oppression) is an utter fabrication.