The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want.
Sounds reasonable enough in theory, but the problem is that “the people of Ukraine” is a tricky concept. The west, north and centre of the country are primarily ethnic Ukrainian in population, but the further east and south you go the more the proportion of ethnic Russians rises. In the Crimea, the focal point of the dispute, ethnic Ukrainians make up only about 10% of the population. Countries with marked ethnic / religious / linguistic fracture lines within their borders have a long historical track record of instability, ranging in intensity from chronic (albeit peaceful) social tensions at the low end of the scale to vicious civil wars at the high end of the scale. Belgium would be an example of the first type of situation; Rwanda and the Sudan would be examples of the the second type of situation. These conflicts are bad enough when they’re purely internal, but they become more dangerous when a major outside power has interests in the region, and still more dangerous when two or more opposing major powers have such interests.
@CWO:
The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want.
Sounds reasonable enough in theory, but the problem is that “the people of Ukraine” is a tricky concept.� The west, north and centre of the country are primarily ethnic Ukrainian in population, but the further east and south you go the more the proportion of ethnic Russians rises.� In the Crimea, the focal point of the dispute, ethnic Ukrainians make up only about 10% of the population.� Countries with marked ethnic / religious / linguistic fracture lines within their borders have a long historical track record of instability, ranging in intensity from chronic (albeit peaceful) social tensions at the low end of the scale to vicious civil wars at the high end of the scale.� Belgium would be an example of the first type of situation; Rwanda and the Sudan would be examples of the the second type of situation.� These conflicts are bad enough when they’re purely internal, but they become more dangerous when a major outside power has interests in the region, and still more dangerous when two or more opposing major powers have such interests.�
Yes, I certainly understand. I knew it was not quite that simple, but what I meant was that if it can be kept a primarily Ukrainian affair (choose their own destiny), all the better. With the Russians being as disposed as they are and as large as they are, it is inevitable that they will influence the process. To some degree they should if the Crimea is to be absorbed, but again, it smacks of 1938.
@rjpeters70:
I’m sure they do want us gone… but they can stick it, given the amount of American property Castro seized by force.
You are not very tactful. Good thing you are not an ambassador.
@rjpeters70:
So, Ukraine is Russia’s business? What other countries are Russia’s business? Lithuania? Belarus? Kazakhstan? Poland?
You are right, Ukraine is USA�s business � like Scotland is Japanese business, Catalonia is Australian one, and Mexico is Russian.
Exactly.
@Nozdormu:
Let’s look at it this way. US invaded Iraq under false pretense. They never received any sanctions for it what so ever. Now Russia invades Crimea for which they actually have better reasons then the Americans had back then. Does the western civilization really have the right to call for sanctions now? Best solution. Ask the people of each part of Ukraine what they really want. Most likely western Ukraine will want to be part of the EU. The most eastern part will desire stronger ties with Russia and the middle area will be somewhere in between.
Exactly.
@CWO:
The most peaceable (not to mention cheapest) solution would be to find out what the people of Ukraine want.
Sounds reasonable enough in theory, but the problem is that “the people of Ukraine” is a tricky concept. The west, north and centre of the country are primarily ethnic Ukrainian in population, but the further east and south you go the more the proportion of ethnic Russians rises. In the Crimea, the focal point of the dispute, ethnic Ukrainians make up only about 10% of the population. Countries with marked ethnic / religious / linguistic fracture lines within their borders have a long historical track record of instability, ranging in intensity from chronic (albeit peaceful) social tensions at the low end of the scale to vicious civil wars at the high end of the scale. Belgium would be an example of the first type of situation; Rwanda and the Sudan would be examples of the the second type of situation. These conflicts are bad enough when they’re purely internal, but they become more dangerous when a major outside power has interests in the region, and still more dangerous when two or more opposing major powers have such interests.
Well said.
@rjpeters70:
But if Russia and EU sign a deal, Crimea will accept it.
The deal would be that Ukraine enters EU, but not NATO. If the deal is broken by Ukraine entering NATO, Crimea should have the option to leave Ukraine.
Why wouldn’t Ukraine want to join EU but not NATO? That seems bass-ackwards to me. It would seem that Ukraine now needs NATO far more than the EU, due to Russia’s demonstrable breaking of it’s negative security guarantee to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up it’s nuclear weapons. Frankly, I’d offer that when it comes to Russian/Ukrainian commitments, all bets are off. Ukraine should feel free to apply for NATO and EU membership.
Why wouldn`t Mexico join a Russian-Chinese military alliance? I think it is a great idea. Washington would salute it with enormous joy right? :mrgreen:
@rjpeters70:
@Nozdormu:
Let’s look at it this way. US invaded Iraq under false pretense. They never received any sanctions for it what so ever. Now Russia invades Crimea for which they actually have better reasons then the Americans had back then. Does the western civilization really have the right to call for sanctions now? Best solution. Ask the people of each part of Ukraine what they really want. Most likely western Ukraine will want to be part of the EU. The most eastern part will desire stronger ties with Russia and the middle area will be somewhere in between. � �
What false pretenses was that? �The intelligence was wrong, but that’s not the same as making a reason up and then invading for an entirely different set of reasons. �Even the people who disagreed with the Iraq war in 2003 thought the intelligence was correct–they just disagreed on the military course of action.
Does Western Civilization really have the right to call for sanctions? �I think it’s telling that you don’t consider Russia a part of Western Civilization.
Russia is not West. Russia is East.
Invasion of Iraq was an imperial genocidal act of one frenzy world cop (USA administration of George Bush jr.) instructed by its neo-cons that seat in Pentagon.
The whole Arab Spring (CIA spring) put Libya, Syria and Egypt to stone age. Luckily, Egypts army found its way to take care of things.
USA should stay out of Ukraine. George Soros and it`s stupid NGO-s are instructing Springs and Revolutions all over the globe, without any love to countries they are dealing with.
Janukovič is not a pro-Moscow guy and anti.Ukrainian. He just saw that Russia is offering 15 billion dolars, and that EU is offering nothing but liberating the Ukrainian economy, which will be crippled once EU enters their market.
I imagine a situation in which a few thousand protesters gather in front of White House, call Obama for somehing, and then the street forces him to resign.
Would anybody in USA and the West accept it? Off course not.
And Obama administration is waging wars all over the globe, torchering people in Guantanamo, forcing catholic hospitals to make abortions ,etc.
So , for the accusation of dictatorship, well , almost every government in the world is dictatorship, either by doing some stuff, or by not doing, by not preventing criminal, poverty and injustice.
And USA is full of criminal. Especially among Black and Hispanic population. U have quarters in which police does not enter. Is it normal? It is not. And if somebody makes protests, his demands are not fulfilled, and he wants Guantanamo down, or leaving Iraq etc. Would Obama resign?
USA has an ally in one perverted country called Saudi Arabia which is the main founder of islamic terrorism all over the globe. And nobody in the States makes problem of it.
USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are responsible for an agression in Syria in which millions had to leave their homes. Libya was under dictator Gadaffi, the most prosperous state in Africa. Now it is a ruin. Iraq under dictator Sadam was a safe, and secure country. Now it is a ruin with millions killed, rape or exiled. Arab countries do not need democracies, especially not CIA democracies. They are far better with military junta like in Egypt. that is simply the reality of life.
@rjpeters70:
@rjpeters70:
But if Russia and EU sign a deal, Crimea will accept it.
The deal would be that Ukraine enters EU, but not NATO. If the deal is broken by Ukraine entering NATO, Crimea should have the option to leave Ukraine.
Why wouldn’t Ukraine want to join EU but not NATO? That seems bass-ackwards to me. It would seem that Ukraine now needs NATO far more than the EU, due to Russia’s demonstrable breaking of it’s negative security guarantee to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up it’s nuclear weapons. Frankly, I’d offer that when it comes to Russian/Ukrainian commitments, all bets are off. Ukraine should feel free to apply for NATO and EU membership.
Why wouldn`t Mexico join a Russian-Chinese military alliance? I think it is a great idea. Washington would salute it with enormous joy right? :mrgreen:
If we had a decades old agreement with Mexico explicitly saying that we would not violate their sovereignty, an agreement that was backed up by Russia, China, and the UK, and as part of that agreement, Mexico gave us all their nuclear weapons… and we then occupied, I don’t know, Baja California, why WOULDN’T Mexico sign a mutual defense treaty with the Russians or the Chinese?
If Russia and China could arrange a coup in Mexico City with a few thousands of payed mercenaries, and that that coup brings a new government which would leave NAFTA and enter SCO and Russian-Chinese military alliance, U think USA would just watch it?
They are raping Ukraine for not entering EU-NATO, what would they do to Mexico if they would even think about joining the Eurasian alliance?
Why is USA so bothered with Castro and Chavez, and the Left in Latin America?
They think it is their yard. And Ukraine is to Russia much more than Mexico to States is.
Peters, you are a bad-ass, I love it. Taking on the whole world at once, and making a diff! It’s great that people still care on that level these days. But it’s Ukranians that made this mess. They should clean it up. Unless you believe in NANNY states!
Think about the billions USA would have to pour into the Ukraine to “stabilize” it’s corrupt regime… USA is better off pouring that in detroit. Equally corrupt and hopeless.
Government starts with self government. If people are irresponsible with themselves, their families, or the trust of their countrymen, the only way for people to learn is to reap what they sow.
In closing - I have messages for each side.
For those who want a call to action in Ukraine, I would use the Danzig Corridor / Hitler example used as an excuse for the invasion of Poland. This Ukraine excursion is almost the same thing.
For those who don’t want action in Ukraine, stick to your guns. It’s high time the world starts to let people determine their own future.
@peters
if U have some arguments put it.
If not stay away from insults and some 13-year old boy naming.
It is not a shame that U do not know that Libya and Syria are a ruin. Iraq too. It is never late to see what happened and happens down there.
And starting USA, which has problems of its own. But U can put ur head in the sand if it is ur choice. U have any right. Just ignore the facts and the truth. :wink:
@rjpeters70:
Where did the United States publicly announce that NATO would not expand east of Germany?
“What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker’s words, “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,” provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany.”
Spiegel online inernational.
I leave it to you make a search regarding nazi in Kiev.
@rjpeters70:
Where did the United States publicly announce that NATO would not expand east of Germany?
“What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker’s words, “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,” provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany.”
Spiegel online inernational.I leave it to you make a search regarding nazi in Kiev.
Yes @Me
USA unilaterally withdrew it`s promise not to spread NATO to Baltic (ex Soviet states).
Then it unilaterally withdrew from the program of reducing nuclear weapons. It was in 2002.
Then it decided to put the famous shield in Poland and Czech Republic. This was a plan which had nothing to do with Iran or North Korea but a part of the wider plan, a strategy called Full Spectrum Dominance which sees Russia as the only power capable of military rivaling the USA. That`s the way State Department (especially when being held by the republicans) is constantly pushing and pushing with encircling Russia with USA military bases and outposts. This famous shield is an anti-balistic missile weapon that can shoot down various rockets and has a rocket system which can also carry some deadly things as well. It is a defensive weapon but with offensive capabilities as well. The Russians were furious when all this went on, and I do not see why do France and Germany dance as USA is playing.
We in Europe are in a constant risk of raising tensions with Russia just because one power from the other side of the world is playing it`s game here. We in Europe suck. EU sucks. We do not have a foreign policy of our own. In diplomatic questions we are more or less a satellite of Washington even in situations where we go against our own interests. That is sad :cry:
@rjpeters70:
@peters
if U have some arguments put it.
If not stay away from insults and some 13-year old boy naming.
It is not a shame that U do not know that Libya and Syria are a ruin. Iraq too. It is never late to see what happened and happens down there.
And starting USA, which has problems of its own. But U can put ur head in the sand if it is ur choice. U have any right. Just ignore the facts and the truth. :wink:
Why can’t I offer both insults and arguments? I’m pretty sure I’ve been doing both.
You are the one who keeps acting as an apologist, and every time I bring up the fact that Russia is blatantly abrogating it’s negative security guarantee, you simply ignore it and talk about the United States (which has been pretty restrained this entire time with Ukraine).
I offer arguments without insulting.
Yeah, Russian reaction is not great, but the point is that USA is the last country that can give moral lectures about that. Did they respected Iraqi territorial integrity? Does USA respect Pakistan and it`s borders?
@peters
Yes, USA under George Bush jr. withdrew from this treaty. USA destroyed a bunch of old nukes and started to build a handfull of new ones, much greater in destruction capabilities, much precise and much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABM_Treaty
Then off course after USA withdrew from ABM Treaty, Russia withdrew from START II.
USA withdrew this shield idea with Obama. Bush was eager to pull it out to the end. Obama decided to pull back.
Yes, that famous shield (if it had been implemented) would not be there for intercepting Iranian or North Korenian ballistic missiles but Russian ones. Also it could potentially carry nuclear war heads which can preemptively strike Russia before it can retaliate. Those rockets launched from there could at the same time take down Russian BM or carry nuclear war heads of their own. USA is developing a technology of nuclear bombs of new generation that can destroy anything in a very small radius. So U do not have to destroy entire town, U destroy an industrial complex or a part of some military base. That is way, together with the development of anti-BM technology, that the use of nuclear weapon in the future is possible, and will not finish with Armagedon.
If one side has some bombs that can strike a limited radius with full efect, and it has the capability to defend itself from the other power`s IBM-s, then it is possible. USA is constantly working on this capability.
That is full spectrum dominance, air, land, water, space, intelligence, cyber domination of the USA military with no rival on the horizont. This doctrine is very known, a lot of material is public, so U can read.
I apologise my english is not great, so I sometimes do not reply if I can not fully understand everything.
@rjpeters70:
Sorry, I was being flip.� I don’t think I’ve been actually insulting.� If so, where?� I do think that you have been posting some pretty nutty, conspiratorial, borderline racist statements that simply get facts wrong (like getting the ABM Treaty and Moscow Treaty mixed up).
Does the USA have moral authority on these matters?� I don’t know… I do know that Russia is violating international agreements, while the United States led a 50+ country coalition in 2003.� And the United States cooperates with Pakistan pretty closely.
What is flip?
Np, I appreciate other`s people thinking, I just offer my own.
Well U were a little pride, or how U say, but ok it was in the passion of the debate, if U re aware of it, np. I apologise too if I was pride.
USA killed so much civilians in Pakistan with stupid drones that it is terrible.
USA breaks the territorial soveregnity of Yemen, Pakistan and some other countries without any moral doubts. Not to mention various interventions in Latin America and the rest of the world during the 20th century.
What is wrong if the black population of USA is at 12 %, and they are at much higher % when it comes to rapes, murders, criminal?
The same thing for Hispanos but with lesser intensity?
What is racist in the simple statistics which tells us that there are big differences in crime rates of various groups in USA?
What is conpirational in the fact that revolution in Libya was not spontanious, and that entire Arab Spring + Orange Revolution in Ukraine, then Georgia, Kyrgistan, Syria etc. were orcestrated by CIA to destabilize Eurasia and kick Russia and China out of the game?
What is conpirational in the fact that Libya and Iraq are pulled back to stone age with ˝liberal democracy˝ imported on USA figthers? Those two countries are in ruins, and will not recover for 500 years. Gangs killing, raping and destroying everything they found on their path. Islamic radicalism pressing on, hell on earth it is.
And yeah if USA wanted to destroy islamic terrorism (which it actually supports indirectly) USA should take Riyad, the core of islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia is the main fundraiser, the core of the ideology of radical islam.
This country has death penalties for christians, women wear ninya costumes, and u can be killedl for something they think it is an insult of prophet Muhammad. But no USA did not make a revolution in SA. SA is their ally. They need it`s oil and their bases there.
USA is demonizing Iran, and Iran is a heaven on earth comparing to SA.
USA demonizes Assad, and he is great comparing to the dictators USA was supporting in the last century.
USA demonizes anybody who does not dance as they play.
Why doesn`t USA criticize SA for human rights? No, they do not care for women in SA. They only care for human rights in China, Russia and Iran. How sweet.
We in Europe are in a constant risk of raising tensions with Russia just because one power from the other side of the world is playing it`s game here. We in Europe suck. EU sucks. We do not have a foreign policy of our own. In diplomatic questions we are more or less a satellite of Washington even in situations where we go against our own interests. That is sad
Someting I’m wondering: is there any element of nostalgia here for the good old days in which Europe controlled most of the world and the U.S. was in the international minor leagues? Back in the 19th century (let’s say prior to the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the U.S. picking up some significant overseas possessions from Spain), the U.S. wasn’t the kind of international player it became as a result of WWI and (especially) WWII. For most of the 19th century the major powers were all European countries, with their respective colonial empires (of various sizes) and with their own foreign policies. Despite all that, things still sucked in those days too. They sucked differently from today but they sucked nevertheless, since the European powers could do a perfectly satisfactory job on their own of creating problems for each other, without any need for the U.S. to prime the pump. The beginning of the 19th century was dominated by the Napoleonic Wars, in which (if I’m not mistaken) all the major powers were involved at one time or another. Napoleon’s defeat in 1915 ushered in a lengthy period of comparative peace (when measured against the Napoleonic Wars), but throughout this “long peace” just about every major power fought at least one other major power at some point (sometimes in combination with other powers) – three examples being the Austro-Italian War, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War. So I imagine that the European powers were saying pretty much the same things about each other in the 19th century as are being said about the U.S. today.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Then off course after USA withdrew from ABM Treaty, Russia withdrew from START II.
Wrong:� Russia never ratified START II, which is why the Treaty of Moscow, which cut both US and Russian arsenals, was necessary in the first place.
It was signed in 1993. Yeltsin signed it. What happened later?
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Yes, USA under George Bush jr. withdrew from this treaty. USA destroyed a bunch of old nukes and started to build a handfull of new ones, much greater in destruction capabilities, much precise and much better.
Wrong.� We have not built a new nuclear weapon since 1991.
Ok imperfection of the old ones. It is more or less the same.
@rjpeters70:
USA withdrew this shield idea with Obama. Bush was eager to pull it out to the end. Obama decided to pull back.
Wrong, we never withdrew the missile shield.� We moved the European based system from a ground-based interceptor to an at sea interceptor.� West Coast ground based interceptors are still there, augmented by sea-based BMD-capable Aegis cruisers, since they give us more operational flexibility.�
Seriously, try to get your facts straight.� This is all in the open source.
Man there was hot line between Moscow and some other states because of this. USA was pushing it constantly. It was a defeat of USA foreign policy, since even Obama was when elected at the stand that the facilities in Poland and Czech Republic will be built. Not to mention the boy Bush.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Yes, that famous shield (if it had been implemented) would not be there for intercepting Iranian or North Korenian ballistic missiles but Russian ones.
Incorrect, since both ground and sea-based interceptors don’t have the envelope, thrust, range, and most importantly, speed, to take down ICBMs.� They’re only good for IRBMs and SRBMs.� Hence, they’d be useless against Russian or Chinese ICBM or SLBMs, because those systems are too advanced.
Of course the shield in Poland would not be designed for taking down SRBMs. But it could take down the other ones. The shield was not there for Iran. Or U believe in this story?
Also, this ground facility would be great to target Russia in a limited preemptive nuclear strike. Otherwise I do not see it purpose and so much dollars spent on it.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
So U do not have to destroy entire town, U destroy an industrial complex or a part of some military base.That’s been a capability since the 1950s, with the development of squad and platoon sized tactical nuclear weapons.� That’s not a new development… Russia, US, UK, France all have that.�
Ok, I will not counter U here, since I see U re an expert. I was listening to some analyses by Frank William Engdahl. I remember that he mentioned that USA has perfected the nuclear arsenal to strike a very small area, not damaging the surroundings. I do not know why would he mention it if others can pull it out to. Maybe U in the States have moved the most here.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
USA is developing a technology of nuclear bombs of new generation that can destroy anything in a very small radius.
If only that were true.� Congress killed the RNEP when George W. Bush was president, which is why we’re left doing LEPs on B-61s and 88’s.
I ll try to find an interview with Frank William Engdahl in which I read it. Maybe I get something wrong, but I think I did not as for this issue. We agree that USA is a nuclear superpower and that it has amazing nuclear capacities.
Cheers :)
@rjpeters70:
What is conpirational in the fact that revolution in Libya was not spontanious, and that entire Arab Spring + Orange Revolution in Ukraine, then Georgia, Kyrgistan, Syria etc. were orcestrated by CIA to destabilize Eurasia and kick Russia and China out of the game?
That’s incredibly conspiratorial. Do you have any evidence of this, at all?
The chances for spontanious revolution in Libya is like 0.0001 %.
Khalifa Hifter ( I do not know the spelling ) one of the leading guys there was on the CIA payroll. The thing was the same in every country. A giant crowd is going out on the streets protesting non-violently for days, paralising the country. And then what in some little mess somebody is injured or even killed and the crowd is calling for the revolution.
George Soros and his NGO-s have manuscripts, trainers and training on how to do a revolution. It all started in Serbia in 2000. whit the ˝cleanched fist logo˝ and the revolution there against the bloody dictator Milo�ević.
In Egypt U have the same logo, the same way it is done. After the country is swarmed with the protesters than the new government is turning their back to Russia and China. Sakashvili wanted to bring Georgia to EU and NATO. Milo�ević was overthrown beacuse he refused to do so.
Arab countries now almost do not have any trade with China and Russia. They are now once again the colonies of the West. France was owing Libya billions of dollars. It seems not it is all just ok since they helped them ˝liberate˝.
This revolution in Ukraine is not spontanious crowd gathering. USA can not take Ukraine to NATO by force of arms, so it tries in another way.
@rjpeters70:
@rjpeters70:
What is conpirational in the fact that Libya and Iraq are pulled back to stone age with ˝liberal democracy˝ imported on USA figthers? Those two countries are in ruins, and will not recover for 500 years.
500 years? Not 600? Not 400? How can you be so sure?
Come on, you’re making ���� up now, and you know it…
Well, Libya, Iraq and Syria were ok before this revolutions. Now, they are in stone age again. Who knows if they ll ever recover. The situation is terrible. Especially in Libya.
@rjpeters70:
That is full spectrum dominance, air, land, water, space, intelligence, cyber domination of the USA military with no rival on the horizont. This doctrine is very known, a lot of material is public, so U can read.
Full spectrum dominance is an operational concept, not a strategy, and is not focused on Russia.
I know a thing or two about it…
Full spectrum dominance is about (global ) military dominance. Russia is the only power that stands on the path of FSD.
@rjpeters70:
@rjpeters70:
S
This country has death penalties for christians, women wear ninya costumes, and u can be killedl for something they think it is an insult of prophet Muhammad. But no USA did not make a revolution in SA. SA is their ally. They need it`s oil and their bases there.We export more oil than Saudi Arabia does, and have no bases there. At all. Keep up.
So, you’d support an American war on Saudi Arabia then?
U export more oil then Iraq, but U wanted to took theirs too. I understand :)
Ok U were there, are no more, but are now present in other Gulf states. U re in the Gulf. Ready to take on Iran after Syria falls.
I would not support any war. Only the intervention against those regimes that brutally destroy their civilians. I would not call it a war. Why did USA not intervented in Ruanda? And it has in the Gulf against Sadam 20+ years ago? Because it had not had any interests there. Simple as that.
@CWO:
We in Europe are in a constant risk of raising tensions with Russia just because one power from the other side of the world is playing it`s game here. We in Europe suck. EU sucks. We do not have a foreign policy of our own. In diplomatic questions we are more or less a satellite of Washington even in situations where we go against our own interests. That is sad
Someting I’m wondering: is there any element of nostalgia here for the good old days in which Europe controlled most of the world and the U.S. was in the international minor leagues? Back in the 19th century (let’s say prior to the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the U.S. picking up some significant overseas possessions from Spain), the U.S. wasn’t the kind of international player it became as a result of WWI and (especially) WWII. For most of the 19th century the major powers were all European countries, with their respective colonial empires (of various sizes) and with their own foreign policies. Despite all that, things still sucked in those days too. They sucked differently from today but they sucked nevertheless, since the European powers could do a perfectly satisfactory job on their own of creating problems for each other, without any need for the U.S. to prime the pump. The beginning of the 19th century was dominated by the Napoleonic Wars, in which (if I’m not mistaken) all the major powers were involved at one time or another. Napoleon’s defeat in 1915 ushered in a lengthy period of comparative peace (when measured against the Napoleonic Wars), but throughout this “long peace” just about every major power fought at least one other major power at some point (sometimes in combination with other powers) – three examples being the Austro-Italian War, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War. So I imagine that the European powers were saying pretty much the same things about each other in the 19th century as are being said about the U.S. today.
1815
Ok, well Europe was never united, yes. There were some big powers which were behaving to small states like the world powers behave today.
But we saw so many wars and stuff and now we have a unified Europe. EU. And we just want to be one of the players in a multi-polar world. Not on the throne, but one of the few world super-powers.
And all tough we have 500+ million people, such a big territory, a good position and everything we are not able to form our own military alliance, foreign policy and reputation. We are just following what Washington says. We are risking tensions with Russia because Washington is pushing us to do so. Russia said it will place Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad if the shield project in Poland takes place. So we are risking getting some rockets in the ass all because of the imperialist desires of our great friends, the USA. It is time we get rid of this adiction to Washington in terms of foreign policy, but I am not so optimistic about it.
What is flip?
I believe he meant “flippant”. As in: cheeky, sarcastic, irreverent, retaliatory…
Why doesn`t USA criticize SA for human rights? No, they do not care for women in SA. They only care for human rights in China, Russia and Iran. How sweet.
You are correct. Many people here, certain groups in particular, thrive on exposing social injustices and pointing out those flaws here and abroad. It is primarily a political tool. Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia don’t fit the current agenda.
Re neo-nazi in Kiev
@rjpeters70:
Not a Nazi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Arbuzov
Not a Nazi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk
Are there some Nazis in the streets? Maybe a handful. But that doesn’t make the movement a Nazi one.
You missed a point. Yatsenyuk (Prime Minister) and 50% of his Government, including Minister of Defense, are either from Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) or Svoboda party. Both parties are in coalition since 2012. Svoboda is a Ukrainian nationalist political party. All of this is in Wikipedia you refer. Klichko who is planning to take the president chair is from UDAR (Punch) that in the coalition too btw.
Also, you forgot to mention Right Sector - a radical nationalist group. According to the same site , it is one of the main actors in the January 2014 riots in their later and more violent stages. The group leader Yarosh said that Right Sector and Svoboda “have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions”. He was offered, but did not accept a minister case.
I can write more incl what and where they did already, but you see the picture.
