Must Watch: Ukranian Deputy: US to stage a civil war in Ukraine! This was 11/202013.

Simpleχity;1064262635 said:

Putin's dream - the Eurasian Economic Union - (actually the brainchild of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev in 1994) was doomed the moment Putin invaded and illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimea on the fabricated grounds of "protecting Russian speakers".

Click to expand...

PUTIN'S MULTIPOLAR WORLD VIEW

Even before Vladimir Putin ascended to his country's highest office, as the head of the National Security Council, director of the FSB, and then acting prime minister, he presided over the formulation of four important government documents that articulate Russia's foreign and defense policy. These documents, taken together, explain the new "Putin Doctrine" for Russian national security in the 21st century and demonstrate Moscow's step back to more traditional Russian and Soviet threat assessments. The documents include:

A Defense Doctrine, published in draft form in October 1999 and reissued by presidential decree on April 21, 2000;

A National Security Concept unveiled in January 2000;

The Foreign Policy Concept adopted on July 30, 2000; and

The Information Security Concept adopted in August 2000.33

Following the themes first espoused by former Prime Minister Primakov, these documents decry the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. They lay claim to a sphere of influence that encompasses most of the Eastern Hemisphere. The National Security Concept, for example, names Europe, the Trans-Caucasus, Central Asia, the Asia-Pacific region, and the Middle East as spheres of influence for Russia. It also names the expanding NATO alliance as a danger to the Russian homeland and condemns the use of force by NATO under U.S. leadership as both a violation of international law and a dangerous security trend.

More important, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Kremlin calls the United States a major threat to the Russian state. This represents a radical departure from Yeltsin's foreign policy documents, which proclaimed that Russia has no external enemies and that the main danger to the Russian state stems from such domestic concerns as crime, corruption, and political extremism.

The National Security Doctrine broadly defines threats to the Russian state, including the establishment of foreign military bases in proximity to Russian borders. Not only does it warn against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, but it envisages the first use of nuclear weapons by Russia if it is attacked by non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical warheads or biological weapons, or by an overwhelming conventional force.

Click to expand...

An independent and democratic Ukraine is important to U.S. policy in Eastern Europe. A robust Ukraine can help to deny Russia, which is becoming more nationalist and authoritarian, direct access to the borders of East Central Europe, including NATO members Hungary and Poland, as well as Southeastern Europe and the Balkans. Ukraine also controls the strategic northern coast of the Black Sea, which is adjacent to NATO ally Turkey.

An independent and democratic Ukraine is also crucial to Russia's future. Reintegrating Ukraine, with its 50 million citizens, into a Russian superstate would contribute to the emergence of a quasi-imperial and undemocratic Great Russia. Russian empire-builders in the military and national security community have openly proclaimed the need to establish hegemony in Ukraine in the context of the zero-sum nature of Russian-American confrontation. Russia would like to deny the U.S. and Western Europe political influence in the former Soviet Union.

For over 200 years, Ukraine and the Crimea have been the base from which Russia has threatened the Turkish Straits. From Ukraine, Russia launched the four partitions of Poland in the 18th and 20th centuries. Ukraine's integration into a Russian superstate would quash all hopes for a Western-oriented, democratic Eastern Slavic state and create new dividing lines in Europe. It would then be only a matter of time until an enlarged Russia reverted to its historically assertive pattern of behavior in the region.

The situation in Ukraine also makes it essential to bolster the sovereignty of the New Independent States (NIS), which have come under pressure from Moscow as a result of their internal political and economic weakness, in addition to their dependence on Russia for energy. Other importers of Russian energy in the region, such as Georgia, are in a similar position.

Click to expand...

A stable Ukraine enhances stability and security in the Black Sea region and Central and Eastern Europe, thwarting Russian desires to carve out a “sphere of influence” in those areas

Click to expand...

Yanukovych’s election brings the country to a crossroad. Ukraine now has three choices: a Euro-Atlantic orientation, neutrality, or a pro-Russian stance. Only the first option truly satisfies Ukrainian, U.S., and European interests, but significant obstacles abound.

Germany, France, and Italy do not want to sacrifice their close economic relations with Russia for Ukrainian security and the nation’s full European integration. Western European countries’ de facto veto of Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership and lukewarm response to Russia’s heavy handedness in the 2008 Georgian War also reflect a lack of European resolve.

Furthermore, Yanukovych has repeatedly declared that Ukraine should stay politically neutral and may be unlikely to bring Ukraine into NATO. With 51 percent of Ukrainians viewing NATO unfavorably, the country’s path to NATO membership is unclear.

The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at a naval base in Sevastopol (in the Crimea, which has been Ukrainian territory since 1954) until 2017 also impedes Ukraine’s accession to NATO. There is no precedent for a NATO member hosting a non-NATO member military base.

Finally, Russia encourages separatism in the Ukrainian-controlled Crimea. Nationalist politicians such as Yuri Luzhkov, the mayor of Moscow, and Konstantin Zatulin, an imperialist member of the Duma, have called for Russian annexation of the Crimea. Similar to the measures the Russian Federation undertook in Abkhazia in the run-up to the Georgia War, Moscow distributes Russian passports to Russian-speakers, is behind many land acquisitions in the Crimea, and is meddling in Sevastopol politics to try to get a pro-Russian mayor elected.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

I know I may be beating this in the ground, but I want this point to be made clear:

THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE IS A TOOL BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES SEEKS TO KEEP UKRAINE OUT THE RUSSIAN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND TO MAINTAIN A SUSTAINABLE WESTERN ORIENTATION THERE. IN OTHER WORDS, DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS TO THE END OF KEEPING UKRAINE AWAY FROM RUSSIA AND WITH THE WEST. IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Again, recall



This is how US foreign policy in Ukraine should be properly understood. Then everything becomes clear.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

I am sorry I am having to break this up into two parts, but I think it is important that we educate ourselves here so we can talk about the matter in an intelligent, real sense.

So let's look further. Again, this is the same person's thoughts



Because it has been said twice, we can see the emphasis that this person feels on keeping Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and sustaining a pro-Western influence.

How does he purpose that this be done, in the real sense?



So, the 5 billion dollars went to these places, that this person mentioned in 2001. Please remember, THE MONEY WENT TO KEEP UKRAINE OUT OF RUSSIA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND TO SUSTAIN A PRO-WESTERN ORIENTATION THERE.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

It was the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Victoria Nuland, former foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vadar of the W Bush administration. Cheney, the power behind the throne, with the rhetoric of the "mushroom cloud", led the US on the biggest wild goose chases in modern history, where modern history means since the rise of the origin of modern western intellectual endeavor, Greece. Yep, Victoria Nuland was his foreign policy advisor. Likely not really an advisor in the deep sense of the term, probably more like a sorceror's apprentice. Also of note. She is the wife of prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan. Actually in some ways, depending on how one wishes to view it, they make a very nice couple. I'm serious.

There is a problem though. They are lost in an illusion.

But any rate, that's who she is.


OK. Let's educate ourselves a bit here. We need to get out of the world of CNN and Fox News and try to look at the world in a deeper sense, one that is not so much concerned about rah rah, we are the best. But rather a world that seeks to minimize, though not totally rid itself of such emotional influence, and think about the matter more in terms of pure power concepts. One in which the foreign policy of the real world functions.

I really hate to inform you, but because of it's intrinsic nature, it is a very cold world. Its players do not care even about the collateral damage of innocent human beings when they perceive that their interests are at stake. I further hate to inform you that for the US, democracy is not the primary objective. It is really superficial. It is merely a tool to achieve control. Democracy is promoted because money can exert great, though not absolute, influence on democracies. And it is through that influence that the United States seeks to control Ukraine. Again, not in the absolute sense, but in the sense of achieving what it feels are it's objectives.

Here's something from a person who has advised the US government on foreign policy and is considered an expert on matters of Ukraine. Please note, this was years ago in 2001, long before any of the present events took place.



So back as far as at least 2001, there was this type of thinking in the US foreign policy establishment that Ukraine falling back into the Russian sphere of influence would be a threat to US interests in Europe. As a result of this, the US had worked actively in Ukraine to make sure that does not happen. That 5 billion dollars is one way in which the United States meant to keep that from happening. That is the reality.

Now here is where it gets really interesting because here we can get a view, at least from the perspective of an influential person in the US foreign policy establishment, of what US goals are in a more real sense in terms of actual implementation.



This is very important. These things should be read carefully. So here we can see that the US means to have a Ukraine that has a sustainable pro-Western orientation. Why is this important? Because, although Ukraine is directly on Russia border, the US is pursuing a foreign policy that is in direct conflict with the goals of Russian foreign policy in Ukraine. This indeed is the sore point for the Russians. They feel that although they are a nuclear armed state, the US disregards this, and right on its border vigorously pursues a foreign policy that is directly contrary to their policy.

Click to expand...

11Bravo said:

You know, you seem very logical, and I'd feel very inclined to hear you speak.

But when you type with an attitude, such as you just did, I feel no need to hear you out. Check your tone.

Click to expand...

11Bravo said:

You know, you seem very logical, and I'd feel very inclined to hear you speak.

But when you type with an attitude, such as you just did, I feel no need to hear you out. Check your tone.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

You just typed with an attitude. And quite frankly I don't appreciate people dictating to me how I should speak. Good luck to you.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, Yanukovych has repeatedly declared that Ukraine should stay politically neutral and may be unlikely to bring Ukraine into NATO. With 51 percent of Ukrainians viewing NATO unfavorably, the country’s path to NATO membership is unclear.

The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at a naval base in Sevastopol (in the Crimea, which has been Ukrainian territory since 1954) until 2017 also impedes Ukraine’s accession to NATO. There is no precedent for a NATO member hosting a non-NATO member military base.

Click to expand...

Simpleχity;1064269501 said:

It would be helpful if you left a link under quotes so the author/date/context etc. could be better understood and the text verified.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

OK. I really expected a bunch of negative reaction, so I didn't bother to do it. But since you are sincere, I will certainly do it in the future. I have been studying Ariel Cohen's work recently. I think it provides a good framework for understanding the motivations for U.S. foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

MildSteel said:

Also, if you really find the bold and color stuff too hard, I will stop that as well. Please accept my sincere apologies.

Click to expand...

Simpleχity;1064269637 said:

But you don't use all of his ruminations. Much of what he says nowadays runs counter to his early musings.

Click to expand...

Simpleχity;1064269637 said:

Thank you. It just looks... sophomoric and really is difficult to follow. Others have commented on this as well. At any rate, the revert to normalcy is appreciated.

Click to expand...