Russia vs EU vs NATO vs US (OT)

Bluey you had me almost, in some funny way, agreeing with you up to a point. But then you sidetrack yourself. You spew out your right-wing crap.

I have been following this issue for a while, though it is not top of my list. But there have been some sensible comments on this thread.

Unfortunately Bluering, yours are colored by ignorance and pig-headedness. Your hatred of anything that to you smacks of liberalism makes you a bit perverse, IMO. I do not think that liberalism is really the main issue about the Ukraine. I could be wrong.

Now please Bluey, stay off the altar. Yeah, I was a (darn good) altar boy myself, in fifth grade beating out the seventh and eight graders to weddings over funerals (good money, the groom would give you a twenty and so would the bride's father - until Father Cosgrave caught me drinking sacramental wine).

But unlike you Bluering, it seems to appear (at least to me), when I was up on the altar, I did not think I was some righteous god, all knowing like you seem to. I let the priests think that.

Don't take it bad fellow, I am still a bit wondering what the heck is going on, having read a number of different views on the Ukraine. Never been there though. Prague anybody? Been there (but not in 1968).

Though I have my thoughts. Vlani, Healy, Coz and Ken M. have some of the more insightful posts, it seems. For better or for worse (til death do us part).

See if I have this straight.

Our Guy in Ukraine is in power due to the overthrow of a democratically elected president, and we're on record as standing in opposition to the result of a voter-approved referendum in Crimea.

Not all bandits are commies. Communism is a very specific flavor of bad guys, long extinct in Russia and Ukraine. It is a big mistake to assume that Russians are inherently commies. People of Russia where used by commies as a merely resource in achieving their major goal, the world power it was. As a result Russia does nor exist any more in it's pre-Bolshevik borders, loosing about half of it's territory. People of Russia suffered the most form the communist. Do not forget that.
People who call themselves communists in Russia are more of a loners of the 'good ol' times' when grass was greener and life was sweeter. Their average age is 65 or 70.

Ukraine was governed by a gang. Democratically elected. The previous government before the gang come as a result of previous revolt, and was populist, incompetent and corrupt. Then they elected gangsters. Now fascists control the government, as a result of another popular revolt. That is about how it is in Ukraine. And that fascist government is placed in a position of helpless looser begging for help, by Mr.Putin. The better the chance that they loose the next election - in May that is, and will never be legit.

I have difficulty judging Putin's actions. He is clearly a suppressor of democracy in Russia, he has built the state founded on corruption. But I do not have much believe in people of Russia. They would free-elect a real monster in a blink.

**Putin's actions in Crimea may be not more justified then Sarajevo bombing and Crimea referendum may be not more legal then Kosovo and South Sudan referendums. But calling it illegal is a hypocrisy. This country was founded illegally, after all. It would be interesting to know which country has a constitutional formula allowing alienation of a territory?
**
People of Crimea had spoken, that is settled. Even Kiev does not doubt the Crimea people will, so obvious it is. EU refused to send observers to that referendum and now they complain that it was not properly observed, looking totally stupid. Illegal is the only argument and it is funny. Of cause it is up to EU and US and Putin to pick which illegal government to favor - Kiev or Crimea's. Putin picked Crimea's to his convenience, what a surprise.

The Tatars were expelled from Crimea by the Russians for the Tatar's support of the Nazi's.

The Russians had millions of their people killed by the Nazi's in WWII. I don't blame them for having a low tolerance for fascism. And bullsh#t destabilization on their border.

I'd like to watch some of you guys play chess against a ten-year-old.

Those two minutes would be entertaining.

Riot police have deployed teargas and batons in Ukraine to repress a protest march against a new law that boosts the status of the Russian language inside the former Soviet country.

Hundreds of Ukrainians took to the streets of Kiev to protest against the law, which opposition deputies warn could divide the country in two and thrust one half of it into the arms of neighbouring Russia

"With this law, the Russian language will become a de facto government language for eastern Ukraine," said Ksenya Lyapina, an opposition deputy. "It's very dangerous for Ukraine. It can lead to the division of the country."

Opposition deputies called the bill a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty.

Many fear that the upgraded status will discourage the millions of Russian speakers inside the country from learning Ukrainian, prolonging their dependence on Russia. Around 15 deputies and activists, including Lyapina, have launched a hunger strike.

"Russia has big imperial ambitions," Lyapina said. "[The Russian president Vladimir] Putin has said several times that he sees a so-called 'Russian world'. This is the de facto formation of another nation."

From Benito Mussolini’s invasions in 1940-41 of France, the Balkans, and Greece to Argentine Gen. Galtieri’s attack on the Falklands in 1982 and Saddam Hussein’s entry into Kuwait in the summer of 1990, there are plenty of examples of weak states attacking countries who have alliances or friends far stronger than the attacker. Why then do the Putins of the past and present try something so shortsighted—as the Obama administration has characterized the Ukraine gambit?

Answer? Strength is in the eye of the attacker.

What might prove to be demonstrably stupid in the future, or even seems foolish in the present, may not necessarily be so clear to the attacker. The perception, not the reality, of relative strength and weakness is what guides aggressive states.

Obama looks to logic, reason, and morality in his confusion over why Putin did something that cannot be squared away on any rational or ethical calculators.

Putin, however, has a logic of his own. American intervention or non-intervention in particular crises is not just the issue for Putin. Instead he sees fickleness and confusion in American foreign policy. He has manipulated and translated this into American impotence and thus reigns freely on his borders.

Deterrence is an art, not a science. And it is transitory, often psychological, and as easily lost as it is hard to regain. Weak states invade others with strong backers because they are not deterred and feel they can get away with it—and thereby become stronger by their sheer success. If they fail, it is usually because they or their intended targets had originally misjudged relative power. Some sort of hostilities then ensue to correct those inaccurate initial appraisals. Peace follows when everybody again knows who was truly weak and who was strong in the first place.

EU refused to send observers to that referendum and now they complain that it was not properly observed

In a country with 50% of population calling the given language their native is'n it a good idea to have it been used freely? US does not have any language restrictions form what I know - or is that I live in super-liberal pro-Russian commie state of California?

Weren't the EU as well as UN officials blocked from monitoring the vote?