If the U.S. was in the same situation, would they do the same? The U.S. went into Iraq because of potential of terriorist dangers to the U.S. This is a neighboring area that was once part of Russia and many of the people are Russian. The U.S. should leave this alone.
Russian Parliament Approves Military Action in the Crimea
by ABibleStudent 43 Replies latest social current
-
-
sammielee24
This is an article that summarizes most of what is circulating about the Russia/Ukraine situation - Obama has pledged 5 billion dollars to support the new regime..sammieswife
--
Look Who the US Is Siding With in Ukraine, Egypt, and Syria | Antiwar.com
- Posted 36 hours ago
US quietly partners with neo-Nazis in Ukraine, fascists in Egypt, and al-Qaeda in Syria
Imagine if protesters – supported by Russia – established an encampment in front of the US Capitol, threw Molotov cocktails into government buildings, fired guns at the police, and demanded that the US government relinquish power.
Obviously, the response from the US government would not be peaceful and there would be a loud call for war on Russia.
What if there were demonstrators in front of the White House who announced their events on Facebook by saying that members of congress should be incapacitated by having their knees smashed? Or if those same protesters posted YouTube videos saying that buses going into Washington should be set ablaze by dousing the roads with gas and diesel in the hopes of burning all the passengers inside?
Certainly, every US government official would demand the protesters be immediately arrested and charged with terrorism.
And what would happen if Islamic fundamentalists who had pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda began to bomb police stations and schools across the US?
Clearly, the US government would punish the responsible parties, and probably the countries in which they received training.
These things aren’t happening in the US, but they are occurring in Ukraine, Egypt and Syria by people who are funded, supported, encouraged or tacitly approved by the United States government.
US “guy” now running Ukraine
On Thursday, the Ukrainian parliament accepted Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the country’s new prime minister. Yatsenyuk is the lawmaker from the Fatherland Party who has been Washington’s choice to lead the country, as revealed by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland when she told US Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pyatt, “Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.”
The now infamous ‘f*ck the EU’ leaked phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt revealed the role played by the United States in supporting Ukraine’s far-right opposition in its (ultimately successful) attempt to overthrow the left-leaning Yanukovych.
“The utter criminality of Washington’s drive to install a pliant regime in Kiev sharply emerges in Nuland and Pyatt’s discussion of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the neo-fascist Svoboda party (who recently met with John McCain in Kiev). Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the “big three” within the opposition leadership.
These remarks confirm that there is no confusion whatsoever within the Obama administration that it is working in partnership with fascist movements in Ukraine,” wrote Patrick O’Connor.
Another top Svoboda member, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, a deputy in parliament, often quotes Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, as well as other Third Reich luminaries like Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser. Among other things, Svoboda seeks to end all immigration and ensure that all civil service jobs are filled by ethnic Ukrainians. The Nation magazine reported that Svoboda also seeks to ban abortions, abolish gun control, “ban the Communist ideology,” and prohibit the adoption of Ukrainian children by foreigners.
“As for the “protesters” who came to Maidan Square in November, not all came simply to protest. Many set up tents and shacks, threw up barricades, seized government buildings, burned the headquarters of the ruling party, battled police and demanded the overthrow of the regime. How many Western countries would permit a planned putsch in their capital city?” asked Pat Buchanan.
“The most aggressive element of the opposition is a group calling itself Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist organization that critics liken to Nazis,” according to the Washington Post.
In teaming up with “armed neo-Nazis, soccer hooligans, a variety of militant separatists, looters, arsonists and cop-killers” the US eventually got what it wanted in Ukraine. And now it will likely play a leading role in reconstructing Ukraine’s economy, National Security Adviser Susan Rice revealed on “Meet the Press” last week. Ms. Rice mapped out how the Obama administrator will be working with the International Monetary Fund to provide ‘financial aid’ to Ukraine.
US once again siding with repressive, “fascist” government in Egypt
Things have gotten so bad in Egypt that the government is now investigating a Muppet-style character that regularly appears on Egyptian television.
“As stupid as it is, it’s very telling,” Ziad Akl, a political analyst said of the puppet case. “It says a lot about the patriotism frenzy we are in. There is definitely a sentiment of fascist nationalism that you either subscribe to, or face being labeled a traitor.”
“The swelling nationalism – fanned by the country’s state- and privately-owned media – has given the army-backed government the legitimacy to quell further dissent in the name of national security. Today, opposition to the government is being suppressed even more brutally than it was under strongman Hosni Mubarak, the longtime ruler who was forced out in the Arab Spring revolt in 2011,” wrote the Washington Post’s Erin Cunningham.
As Egypt spirals out of control, virtually no mention is given to the revelation that the US was squarely behind the military overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammed Morsi. According to an Al-Jazeera analysis of documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley, the US has paid for some of the most unsavory characters in the coup.
“Make a road bump with a broken palm tree to stop the buses going into Cairo, and drench the road around it with gas and diesel. When the bus slows down for the bump, set it all ablaze so it will burn down with all the passengers inside. God bless.” Those were the words of Colonel Omar Afifi Soliman, a U.S.-funded anti-Muslim Brotherhood activist.
Soliman, who served in Egypt’s elite investigative police unit, received funding from the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). IRS documents reveal that the NED paid Soliman $50,000 in 2009, $60,000 in 2010, and $10,000 in 2011.
Through a program created by the US State Department dubbed a “democracy assistance” initiative, the NED has bankrolled numerous ‘activists’ in Egypt, including an anti-Islamist politician who advocated closing mosques and dragging preachers out by force. Al Jazeera points out that such “democracy assistance” may have violated Egyptian law, which prohibits foreign political funding. It may also have broken US government regulations that ban the use of taxpayers’ money to fund foreign politicians, or finance subversive activities that target democratically elected governments. Further, a Congressional mandate is clear in that the NED is only to engage in “peaceful” political change overseas.
The US is teaming with the historically repressive Egyptian military and its leader in waiting, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has achieved cult-like status in whipping up nationalistic fervor. The Obama administration is virtually alone in not labeling last year’s ouster of Morsi as a “coup,” and with its support of Egypt’s current military government, the US is once again on the side of the repressive, and what many are now calling fascist leadership of Egypt.
US on same side as al-Qaeda in Syria
It is widely known that the US and al-Qaeda are on the same side in Syria in attempting to oust Syria’s Bashar al-Assad from office.
On February 12, 2012 the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, called on Muslims from other countries to support rebels in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad. Two weeks later Hillary Clinton raised serious concerns about calls to arm the Syrian opposition when she said, “we know al Qaeda leader Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? And in July of 2012, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep.
Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said that as many as one-quarter of the 300 rebel groups in Syria may be fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda. In fact, one of the leading opposition groups, al-Nusra Front, has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.
But those warnings didn’t stop the Obama administration from arming the opposition in Syria. One week after Rep. Rogers’ statement, it was revealed that President Obama had authorized covert support for Syrian rebels. And later, one day after al-Qaeda of Iraq announced that it was fighting with rebels in Syria, Obama pledged an additional $10 million in aid to the opposition. The following week, the Obama administrationpledged another $123 million to the rebels.
The US attempts to ease people’s worries by claiming that American-provided weapons won’t get into the hands of the ‘bad’ opposition in Syria, but this is clearly unrealistic, particularly in light of the chaos that encompasses cities throughout the war-torn country. In fact, the USA Today reported that US arms were showing up in the hands of pro-Assad militias.
The ability of Assad’s allies to obtain US weapons is one of many reasons the United States should not supply Syrian rebels with weapons, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Syria is “already overflowing” with weapons being supplied to the Assad regime and to the rebels “that could one day be turned against the US,” Ros-Lehtinen said. It’s “extremely difficult” to distinguish between friend and foe in Syria, she said, and “no amount of safeguards can guarantee that weapons will not fall into the wrong hands.”
As former congressman Ron Paul warned, "There are a lot of factions out there, why don’t we ask about the Al-Qaeda? Why are we on the side of the al-Qaeda right now?So I think they want the weapons. The rebels want the weapons. There’s a bunch of people in there and Al-Qaeda is part of it and this is the test for us to drop a couple of bombs and then send in weapons."
The US government tries to spin the hypocritical position of working towards a similar goal as al-Qaeda in Syria while at the same time saying they are a threat to US national security in other parts of the world. Regardless of how it attempts to nuance its aid to the opposition, there’s no hiding the fact that the US is on the same side as al-Qaeda in Syria. Just like they are on the same side as neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and fascists in Egypt.
Chris Ernesto is co-founder of St. Pete for Peace, an antiwar organization in St. Petersburg, FL that has been active since 2003. Mr. Ernesto also created and manages OccupyArrests.com and USinAfrica.com.
-
DJS
Most of the comments have been relevant. Thanks to FullTime for some actual research (well done) and kalk with the personal perspective. Putin is torn between two lovers. He runs Russia in part like a crime mafioso boss and partly joneses for the old U.S.S.R. and its world stage. He is trying to have it both ways and is almost assuredly full of himself after the success of the Olympics. He probably thinks he can fly right now and this action is kinda sorta predictable. But it may spell some doom for him.
What Putin needs right now more than anything is cash flow and economic growth. He has too many irons in the fire and too many things he wants to do for his legacy (e.g. Olympics) that need $$$$$. A short term cat fight wil push up the price of oil, (already has), which is critical for him to accomplish goals. Our Intel community has even determined the cost per barrel required by Vlad to do all he wishes.
A long term bloody war with Ukraine does not fit into his plans, but it provides him an ability (and a fairly safe one really) to expand his testosterone shirtless chest self and re-live the glory days, gaining the accolades of the old timers who yearn for same and the adulation of the younger generation who see him as Mr. T). FullTime put it well; Ukraine is one of those made up countries with split cultures and allegiances, so many in the Ukraine will welcome Putin and many with hate him. He is banking on not enough wanting to actually fight. He has no desire for a blood bath, and the Soviet fighters - who got their asses kicked by a rag tag bunch of Afghanis who then got their own asses kcked by the U.S. within a few weeks (I'm not counting trying to win the peace but the U.S. wiped the map with the Taliban in a few weeks prediictably) - have not shown the ability or the stomach for a long term bloodbath, especially against their own kind.
Putin is gambling big time. Blame it on the al al alcohol of euphoria. He is an astute politico and an opportunist. I do not believe he will allow this to become a protracted blood bath. It is the last thing he wants. He thinks he can get everything he wants without one and he may be right. Or he may be crazy.
-
ABibleStudent
A perspective of a Russian speaking Ukrainian about Putin's actions Opinion: A divided Ukraine? Think again.
What I thought was interesting is how Russia has supposedly brought Russians into Crimea to protest in support of the Russian military and has used news broadcast to influence Russian speakers opinions. I wonder how much it costs to import pro-Russian protestors. If elections were held in Crimea, I wonder how free they would be and what Russia would do to win.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
Gregor
Remember the old song, Crimea River?
-
DJS
ABS,
Nice post from the Ukranian. Thanks.
-
DJS
Sam,
Ernesto's rant misses a lot of points. Obama, or really any sitting U.S. president, has few good options in Syria. The opposition wants the U.S. to intervene or supply them with the tools to overthrow Assad, but the U.S. knows that those weapons/tools may very well end up with those who oppose us and used against us. And the support may fail. So arming/supporting them in full is not a good option.
Doing nothing is also not a good option for a lot of reasons (political capital, perception, etc.). So what do you do besides everything and nothing? You take a course that supports the best of the worst opposition and support them only at a level that will maintain a standoff. A standoff, although it will protract this thing and lead to suffering, is the best option for the U.S., like it or not. It allows for time to determine better who to support, that Assad may leave on his own (or his innder circle turns against him) and it provides a cold war type stalemate to the support the Russians are giving Assad. We will likely ratchet up our support in response to Vlad's support of the Syrian regime. And vice versa.
Ernesto doesn't understand global political military strategy. It doesn't matter if we think it hypocritical. It is what is is.
-
DJS
Obama's moves today: a carrier in the Black Sea (already was scheduled, (yawn), fighters to NATO (yawn), visa restrictions (double yawn). Meanwhile, the EU and US are looking at more effective economic sanctions, but the really effective ones (cut the ties to Vlad's natural gas pipeline) are years away. What Obama should be doing with some plausible deniability is what I stated earlier: having conversations with potential insurgent groups for the purpose of arming them. Or suggest that such conversations are going to be held. Meet force with force and present the potential for the very last thing Vlad wants.
Doesn't matter if he actually does it; that would likely be the most effective thing he can do right now. Vlad knows the pipeline situation is his for the time being, and economic sanctions, though potentially effective, take a long time to bring about results. He thinks he can get what he wants quickly before any negative results are seen. The Crimea legislature has voted to perhaps change home teams. Interesting chess match.
-
fulltimestudent
DJS-
What Obama should be doing with some plausible deniability is what I stated earlier: having conversations with potential insurgent groups for the purpose of arming them. Or suggest that such conversations are going to be held. Meet force with force and present the potential for the very last thing Vlad wants.
But isn't this how the conflict started in the first place?
"... having conversations with potential insurgent groups for the purpose of arming them."
The USA was a major player in the so-called 'color revolutions' and in the 'Arab Spring.' And certainly in Tibet (and likely Xinjiang) where the DL became a paid agent of the CIA. Also Afghanistan, where the world now lives with the dangerous animal the USA let loose on the world.
These interferences seldom do anything for the people who live there. In point of fact the interference usually cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
-
DJS
FullTime,
Of course. My point is this. Let's assume Vlad's intentions are the worst possible scenario for the W and the Ukraine, that he wants to militarily take over the country, and possibly others, and will do so wil as much force as necessary. It would be a major, major mistake to not have a contingecy plan that includes this scenario. If, again we are assuming, the tepid responses Obama announced today is all he has, Vlad is laughing and telling his front line to lock and load.
Something much more would be necessary other than tepid responses (see WWI and WWII for historical references) to stop a megalomaniac full of himself and bent on such domination. Even if Obama has no intention of arming anyone, that may be the best strategy. I'm playing war game strategy. Not everything you put out there is something you want or intend to do, but you better be ready to do it if necessary.
If Vlad overran the Ukraine and didn't stop after than, setting his sights on E Europe, and all the West and Europe did was set some visa travel restrictions, you and I would be reading about it in the history books decades from now. And you and I would be having a much different conversation a year from now about coulda shoulda woulda. War games.
