NATO And the US Need Back Off On The Ukraine!

[icyfroth]

"Kerry's (John Kerry) 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."

From Here

And we wonder why there are so many displaced persons looking for refuge!

[**meep**]

This sounds familiar:

"Under the influence of Western countries, there are open acts of terror and violence,"

"So in this regard I would call on the president of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and to defend the people of Ukraine."

http://www.dw.de/russia-yanukovych-asked-putin-military-to-restore-law-and-order/a-17470643

[lakeland27]

yep, not much changes only the names.

[catsnknots]

Icy Wrote: 

Why shouldn't Russia defend it's territories against an invasion? Especially strategic ports like the above?  It wouldn't be the first time the west has tried to grab it:

Who is invading Russia? Crimea is not part of Russia is it? Crimera is an independant state or the Ukraine is it not? 

If any country wants to allow NATO to help maintain thier borders then should they not be alowed? 

And by the looks of it NATO should have been all along that border then maybe Russia would not have jumped in to take over another country's land because the lawfully outed President cried to Putin. 

[fourandsixpants]

*wow.

As I see it there are definitely 2 'camps' , other than the Ukranians that live there, after this sovereign state.

[icyfroth]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Icy Wrote: 

Why shouldn't Russia defend it's territories against an invasion? Especially strategic ports like the above?  It wouldn't be the first time the west has tried to grab it:

Who is invading Russia? Crimea is not part of Russia is it? Crimera is an independant state or the Ukraine is it not? 

Crimea is russian speaking, pro-Russian, and Russia holds strategic ports there which they will want to secure, hence the influx of troops.

If any country wants to allow NATO to help maintain thier borders then should they not be alowed? 

Russia will see it as an offensive and act accordingly. Maybe that's the aim all along.

And by the looks of it NATO should have been all along that border then maybe Russia would not have jumped in to take over another country's land because the lawfully outed President cried to Putin. 

I would hardly call it "lawfully outed" when it was a group of rebel forces that made the internationally recognised president step down to avoid all out civil war.

With regard to Russia jumping in another's country, it's not that simple:

"The Soviet leader who took over from Stalin after his death, Nikita Khrushchev,  transferred Crimea as a "gift" to Ukraine in a surprise move in 1954."

"In 2010, after years of tortuous negotiations, Ukraine agreed to extend Moscow's  lease on Sevastopol port until 2042 in exchange for a 30 per cent reduction in  the price of Russian gas on which Ukraine depends for much of its energy needs."

Read more: Here

So yes, Russia is perfectly within it's rights to secure it's interests in the region.

---

[lakeland27]

the asetts were never at risk really,  the ukrainians only wanted rid of their president.  they aren't foolish enough to go after russian assetts, that would be foolhardy.

[**meep**]

A picture is worth a thousand words......

[**meep**]

....I found this link: http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2014/03/the-truth-about-the-current-ukrainian-situation-24...

and the foll ....is this true?:

Not going to read the scroller and judging by the source, wouldn't read anything from the site.  One headline that did grab my attention while looking at the website  was that the Polish army was on the move ?? where did that info come from?

[icyfroth]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

the asetts were never at risk really,  the ukrainians only wanted rid of their president.  they aren't foolish enough to go after russian assetts, that would be foolhardy.

---

I don't think it's the Ukrainians the Russians are worried about.

[lakeland27]

putin isn't worried about anything (well maybe falling of a horse or the tigers dose of  tranquilizer wearing off )  the yanks arent a threat ..  its a state of almost permanent stalemate 60 odd years old.  all we need is sting.