Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine - now Russia is ready for war

[nangyale]

Obama, Kerry, the Ukrainian military, Yulia and Klichko

Over the past couple of hours it was it was interesting to observe the reactions to the Russian decision to be read to use military force in the Ukraine. Let's take them one by one
Obama and Kerry: frankly, I did not expect much, by I still was baffled by how out of touch the White House is with the real world. To deter Putin from using armed force, the White House decided to threaten him boycott the next G8 summit in Russia. Boo hoo!! I am sure that Putin is now terrified. Not. Listening to the Idiot in Chief and his Secretary of State I truly marveled that this still threw the full political weight and credibility of the USA behind a government which even Iatseniuk himself called a "kamikaze government'. Anybody with an IQ at or above room temperature understands that this so called "Ukrainian government" is bound to fail if only because it literally has no money to do *anything*. And yet, the boneheads in Washington are totally backing this quasi-dead regime.
The Ukrainian military: I am sure that you have heard that the Ukrainian military is now on maximal alert and is read to repel any Russian aggression. Guys, this is laughable. There IS NO UKRAINIAN MILITARY. There is a lot of old hardware lying around, there are a number of units with basically zero training and there are a few units of higher combat readiness. Do you know what that list is called in military terms? It's called *TARGETS*. I also suspect that if the western politicians and a few Ukie crackpots speak about the Ukrainian armed forces, the officers there, and even the soldiers, fully realize that they are just targets. Hence the wise decision of the flagship of the Ukrainian Navy, the Hetman Sahaidachny frigate, to quickly switch sides even before getting back home (it is in eastern the Mediterranean according to the latest reports). I suppose you all know that the notion of the Ukies developing their own nuclear weapons is laughable, so I will not bother dwelling on it now.
Yulia and Klichko: As I suspected from her appearance on the Maidan, Yulia clearly lost it and her latest statement about the crisis just proves to me that she is "gone fishing". In contrast, however, and to be great surprise, it was Klichko who came out with the sanest proposal: he wants to create a special commission in Kiev tasked with negotiating a peaceful resolution of the current crisis between Kiev and Moscow. Unlike Yulia's hysterical nonsense, Kichko's statement contained no grandstanding or lyrical appeals. It was all business-like and pragmatic. Well, who knows, maybe the man can get something done since I am quite sure that as long as the Ukies do not use force in the east or south the Russians will stay on high alert, but on their side of the border.
That's it for this short update. Later today I hope to have the time to post a somewhat more analytical look at the recent developments.
Cheers,
The Saker

 

[nangyale]

Latest update guys.
The head of Ukraine's Navy defects, to the authorities in crimea

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I can express my own point of view on those events . About diplomacy and intelligence there are mass of information on the net .
My point is - Gorbachev form16 years has collaborated with Western intelligence . They had some dirt on his family since the time of WW2. Coming to power , Gorbachev tried to put in all the leading positions traitors such as himself. And not only in the USSR but also in all the countries of the former Eastern Bloc . His team carried out direct sabotage of the economy - were closed mass military and space programs . Purposefully destroyed the military-industrial complex. In many Soviet republics came to power nationalists provoked interethnic conflicts. Trading system of the country became totally corrupt - all commodities disappeared from the shelves. Huge queues were even for bread.
In 1991, Gorbachev had full power to prevent the collapse of the country , but he did not use it.
In all respublics artificially fueled nationalist and Russophobe propaganda. People were told that it was Russia 's fault that they does not have products in stores .
It is now absolutely clear that Gorbachev and his followers had plan for the destruction of the Soviet Union from the inside and discredit communism.
That is my opinion.

USSR's problems were just like getting some cold, but it can be cured if the good medicine has been applied.

But unfortunatey those pro-West libtards came to power, instead of giving the proper medicine, they provided the poisons such as westernization and privatization to destroy USSR within.

Without a saboteur such as Gorbachev, USSR would have won the Cold War.

 

[$@rJen]

There's a report in BBC which says Ukraine troops locked themselves in their base once Russian Troops surrounded the base.....

 

[Star Wars]

Without a saboteur such as Gorbachev, USSR would have won the Cold War.

America's ability to print money out of thin air and Dollar being world reserve currency is what really won the war ... God knows how much money was spent on buying off these traitors....

 

[rockstar08]

thumbs up for Mr. Obama ..
usa is trying its best to provoked EU to interfere. anyways its wait and watch scene

 

[nangyale]

The Ukraine crisis: John Kerry and Nato must calm down and back off
The hysterical reaction to Russian military movements in Crimea won't help. Only Kiev can stop this crisis becoming a catastrophe

• Jonathan Steele
• The Guardian, Sunday 2 March 2014 19.29 GMT

Simferopol, Crimea, on 2 March. ‘Underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia’s fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato’s undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion.' Photograph: Ivan Sekretarev/AP

Both John Kerry's threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government's plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, "We are on the brink of disaster" as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.

Were he talking about the country's economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month's insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.

Kerry's rush to punish Russia and Nato's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called "post-Soviet space", led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.

Since independence, every poll in Ukraine has shown a majority against Nato membership, yet one after another the elites who ran the country until 2010 and who are now back in charge ignored the popular will. Seduced by Nato's largesse and the feeling of being part of a hi-tech global club, they took part in joint military exercises and even sent Ukrainian troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The deposed Viktor Yanukovych, for all his incompetence, corruption and abuse of power, was the first president to oppose Nato membership in his election campaign and then persuade parliament to make non-alignment the cornerstone of the country's security strategy, on the pattern of Finland, Ireland and Sweden. Nato refused to accept it. As recently as 1 February, before the latest crisis, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the empire-building secretary general, told a security conference in Munich: "Ukraine must have the freedom to choose its own path without external pressure." The implication was clear: if only it were not for those beastly Russians, Ukraine would be one of us. Had Rasmussen said: "Ukraine has chosen nonalignment and we respect that choice," he would have been wiser.

It is not too late to show some wisdom now. Vladimir Putin's troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. And Russia's troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there.

The Russian-speaking majority in the region is as angry with elite corruption, unemployment and economic inequality as people in western Ukraine. But it also feels beleaguered and provoked, with its cultural heritage under existential threat. Responsibility for eliminating those concerns lies not in Washington, Brussels or Moscow, but solely in Kiev.