The "News" thread.

[JarlWolf]

Yeah. Ugly situations, which is why I stepped out of political debate. I'll my opinion, but I don't feel I need to debate how I feel to people who disagree. I'm too old and tired for that..


But on the note of Mexico, one could easily reverse the tables and say America is assuming manifest destiny again. Which I'm not; I don't believe in political stereotypes. I believe in stigma's which affect politics rather.

[Buster's Uncle]

Yeah; it took me years to grow out of wanting to argue on the internet.  I love a good argument, but a good one is really hard to find - I had hoped I wouldn't need to be as selective with my intelligent new internet friends, but they turn out to often be no fun at that for a different set of reasons than I deal with in RL.  (I'm not talking about people here.)  -And the urge to help people stop being wrong is a powerful one that still troubles me, but I often manage to control now.

[JarlWolf]

Also looking back on my posts I must be really tired, and no drunk isn't an excuse this time either- I ran out of booze a week ago 

Yeah. Ugly situations, which is why I stepped out of political debate. I'll my opinion, but I don't feel I need to debate how I feel to people who disagree. I'm too old and tired for that..


But on the note of Mexico, one could easily reverse the tables and say America is assuming manifest destiny again. Which I'm not; I don't believe in political stereotypes. I believe in stigma's which affect politics rather.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I spotted that, but I knew what you meant, so it don't matter.

-I miss the drunk posting when Green1's not around.

[Buster's Uncle]

Why U.S. presidents are powerless to stop the Russians
To understand Obama's dilemma, you really have to understand Vladimir Putin's psyche
By Paul Brandus | 3:15pm ET



Russian President Vladimir Putin greets President Barack Obama at the G20 summit on September 5, 2013 in St. Petersburg, Russia.  Alexey Kudenko/Host Photo Agency via Getty Images)



Why is Vladimir Putin tossing away his $50 billion Olympic effort to polish Russia's international image by intervening militarily in Ukraine?

It helps to understand the mindset of this balding former KGB colonel who clawed his way up under Boris Yeltsin to become president 14 years ago. (I actually crossed paths with him when he was an unknown aide to the corrupt mayor of St. Petersburg in the early 1990s).

This is a guy who has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the (20th) century." Like many Russians, Putin is deeply suspicious of what's called nazapad — the West — and fears being surrounded by enemies. Devastating invasions by Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941, which killed tens of millions, are huge parts of this Russian mindset that Americans may not fully appreciate. The fact that three former Soviet republics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) are now members of NATO also fuels this paranoia.

History and geography loom large in ways that American policymakers and the American public may not grasp. And when it comes to Ukraine — Europe's largest country — Putin sees unrest in his backyard, with millions of people, largely in the western half of that country, yearning for closer ties with the West. This makes Putin frightened.

And it's this paranoia that continues to make Russia — nearly a quarter-century after the Soviet collapse — so dangerous. The geopolitical fallout extends far beyond Crimea; Russia is now likely to be even less cooperative on critical matters like Syria, its role in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran, and more. It controls natural gas supplies to much of Western Europe, a nasty form of leverage that Putin would almost certainly use if needed. If the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and collapse of the U.S.S.R. itself two years later, then it's fair to say that the post-Cold War era is now over; what's next is anyone's guess.

So what can President Obama do about it?

Not much.

The fact is that Obama, like numerous presidents before him, won't — and really, can't — do much to stop Putin from acting in what he sees as his own backyard. The Soviet Union, and now Russia, has a long history of using brute force when it feels the need — and the United States has usually allowed it to happen.

In October 1956, Dwight Eisenhower ignored the pleas of Hungarian freedom fighters who were rebelling against Soviet rule. Ike, who had fanned the flames by saying he supported the "liberation" of "captive peoples" in Eastern Europe, did nothing when the chips were down, fearing a nuclear exchange with Moscow. Soviet tanks rolled.

A dozen years later, a similar revolt erupted in Soviet-controlled Czechoslovakia. The rebellion, dubbed the "Prague Spring," prompted a Moscow-led invasion. Lyndon Johnson's response? A stiff statement condemning the move as a clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

That was it.

One exception to this American docility: Ronald Reagan's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The 1979 attack prompted Jimmy Carter to cut off sales of wheat and to order a boycott of the Moscow Olympics. And when Reagan became president, he took it to the Soviets, training the mujahideen and arming them with Stinger missiles. His moves to roll back Soviet influence, as opposed to merely containing it, deserve much credit for forcing Moscow's retreat.

But fast forward 20 years, and you'll find President George W. Bush, who in 2008 reverted to the Eisenhower/LBJ/Carter style of talking tough and then backing down. Bush had encouraged Georgia, a former Soviet republic, to apply for NATO membership and accept American arms and training. But Vladimir Putin had no intention of allowing America too close to its "near abroad" (as the Kremlin calls its border regions), and the Russian invasion was on. What did Bush do? "I was very firm with Vladimir Putin," the president said. "Hopefully this will get resolved peacefully." But Bush failed to support the Georgians. Moscow grabbed big chunks of its territory.

Other than the Reagan exception, the record is clear. When it comes to Russia, American presidents often talk tough but do nothing. Expect the same from President Obama even as Russian troops head toward Crimea.

Ukraine, after all, is even closer (in terms of both history and geography) to Russia than any of the above examples. To think Obama or any president could stop the Russian bear in its own backyard is naïve.

Russia traditionally feels secure only when its neighbors do not; today they do not.

Do not expect Putin to back down. And do not expect President Obama to stand up to him. That would be a historical aberration.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257221/why-us-presidents-are-powerless-to-stop-the-russians

[Buster's Uncle]

Why Russia authorized the use of force in the Ukraine



With the Russian Parliament approving Vladimir Putin's request to deploy troops in Ukraine, foreign policy wonk Ian Bremmer has weighed in with a graphic illustrating Russia's perspective on the Ukraine, and just why Russia is willing to entangle itself in the country, in spite of the warnings of President Obama and other Western leaders not to do so:





The territory that makes up the Ukraine today has been part of various Russian empires for much of the past 400 years. Some regions — including the troubled Crimea — have Russian majorities even today due to mass migration that occurred during the Soviet years. And Kiev — the Ukrainian capital today — was the first capital of Russia itself.

The breakup of the Soviet Union has been a long and messy process, and is in some ways still ongoing today in the Ukraine. If the Russian-majority regions including Crimea wish to leave and rejoin Russia, it would seem to be rather impossible and futile to prevent that process.
On the other hand, if Russia tries to annex the whole of the Ukraine, then that is much more likely to draw Western retaliation, a rather edgy and tense prospect given the massive numbers of Russian and Western nuclear weapons.
 - - John Aziz   

Did Russia just make a huge mistake in invading Ukraine? 






The Russian military is reportedly in effective control of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, a move that is bound to have deep repercussions for the region and Russia's relationship with the West. It's early days yet, but so far the sense is that Russian President Vladimir Putin has pulled a fast one on the new provisional government in Ukraine and a European Union that would like to pull Ukraine and other Russian satellites into its orbit.

But what if the wily Putin has actually made a terrible mistake?

That is what Eugene Romer and Andrew S. Weiss suggest in an article in Politico Magazine, arguing:

We should not take for granted that even in Ukraine’s east and south, where so many ethnic Russians live, that a military occupation will be a cakewalk. Many local residents surely do not want to become Russia’s 90th province. In Ukraine’s west, where the Soviet Army had to fight a protracted counterinsurgency campaign after WWII against Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas, armed resistance is certain to be strong. During the revolution, many army depots and armories were overrun so there are more weapons floating around Ukraine than at any point since 1991. And the leadership of the main instruments of coercion — the army, the interior ministry, and the intelligence service — are all in the hands of political leaders with strong Ukrainian nationalist credentials.

[Politico Magazine]

Furthermore, the fallout at the international level is going to be hell for Putin, even if the West stops short of intervention. The last scraps of credibility Russia had as a member of the United Nations Security Council — where it has steadfastly blocked action against Bashar al-Assad on the grounds of sovereignty — are shot. The great "reset" with the United States is in tatters. The Sochi Winter Olympics — which was supposed to be the face of a kinder, gentler Russia — will go down as the most expensive fig leaf in history. Romer and Weiss also suggest that Russia will be kicked out of the Group of Eight; surely some kind of economic pain will be involved.
Putin's Russia is more isolated than ever. Is Crimea worth all that?
 - - Ryu Spaeth

http://theweek.com/article/index/257222/speedreads-why-russia-authorized-the-use-of-force-in-the-ukraine

[JarlWolf]

You know, the articles you posted paints us like were some sort of villainous tyrant trying to stamp our foot down on others because of sheer paranoia.

That we invade other nation's because its purely of national interest.

While I know you folks don't necessarily see it that way it still angers me a little that these opinions go about; and sure I can see why they do; but lets reverse the tables on real world examples.

After the 9/11 attacks America felt justified to invade and OCCUPY nations halfway across entire planet. Not even bordering them. Some parts of these nation's not even harbouring direct threats to their nation.

All in the name of a WITCH hunt. While I do not fully blame/disagree or fully agree to those invasions, for American and Western news agencies to paint us in such a fashion is hypocritical. The amount of bloodshed and invasion, of supporting RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS who have been known to burn, pillage, rape and kill their OWN people is ludicrous. I cannot see how such agencies can speak from such a high and mighty moral ground, it literally pisses me off.

These are nations RIGHT beside us. Do they realize how many terrorist attacks, how many lives, how many families and how much pain and suffering people have suffered not only in the countries with unrest next to us, but also within our very own borders!? AMERICA INVADED NATIONS ALL OVER THE PLANET LET ALONE THEIR "BACKDOOR!"

This is why I don't touch political forum or other places. Because of how sickeningly moralistic and arrogant people can be.

I served in Afghanistan and most people can't even begin to understand how much me and everyone serving in that horrid place suffered, how we bled for a cause trying to institute some form of ORDER and stability, not very much different from the agenda of the current coalition force there, not only having to fight local warlords but warlords FUNDED by a world power of all things. It makes me seethe in anger in how arrogant and lop sided these are; this is biased filth and completely arrogant and presumptuous...


Rant over. I know you people don't fully share these views but im a little bit angered at that media... I'm sorry for the outburst I just can't contain that much anger

Edit: And im not just angry about this either. I'm a little hurt over the escalations in Ukraine too; but things are getting out of hand over there... im just angry and tired. I have friends in Ukraine and I genuinely worry for their safety and have been for a while now...

Further edit:

And the fact that these articles state to threaten us on grounds of ideas of sanctions like that... sure Putin isn't the greatest leader, nor my country the most benevolent. But the sheer fact they like to calmly forget that their nations have single handedly created the majority of the third world; Africa, Congo in specific for example is now one of the worlds largest warzones because of CIA Assassination in the 1950's and the furthered support of President Mobutu, who RUINED his country through kleptocracy and political death squadrons... an example of one of many.

Or how in recent times many of these regimes supported rebel groups who were actively murdering minorities in their own country, ignoring these as "unpredictable." I don't support Assad's regime either, but the fact is that groups like Isis and other extremists managed to get support against the regime, which has slowed down the so called "legitimate" rebel front among other things puts me in a very bad mood.

Yeah, taken off the security council.... I am taking whole 10 or around minutes just to write without swearing...At this rate there shouldn't BE a security council is (don't click the spoiler if you don't want to see a swear, I can't express it any better.)

(click to show/hide)

so full of [poop].

I'm just angry and tired, im truly sorry but I can't let this be bottled up... this angers me a great deal and sparked me too badly...

Final edit:

I just hope things settle down. The last thing either Ukraine or my country needs is to combat a civil war. To clarify some of the information these articles have also skewered, the arms depots are being looted by nationalist supporter groups; chetniks if you will. These aren't the "bands of proleterait/the people" were talking about here, these are hard liner nationalists and political party supporters for the current provisionals/usurping government, and they are just about as popular as Yanukovych; these militants do not have the full interests of the Ukrainian people in their minds, only their visions of a "Ukrainian future" should look like...

and they might spark a fire in their own country for it...

[JarlWolf]

Also, just to give you an example of those said militia's....



Neo Nazi's and fascists. Ultranationalists who not only raid arms depots, but support party that banned Russian langauge, among other things. The current government got into power by a COUP; not an election. They are not democratic, they are representing the people's will about as much as Yanukovych is.

Sure. I am opinionated, I am biased, whatever. But even so; look at the situation... look at this. 15,000 troops mobilized; I just hope this is settled quickly and efficiently...

[Buster's Uncle]

I think a better counter-example would be all the reprehensible US spy activity in Latin America propping up fascist banana republics.  We probably have a better record on the foreign imperialist adventures, even counting Iraq, but our spooks have probably done a lot more harm than your spooks.

You know, of course, that I was simply providing a few examples of US coverage of the current unpleasantness, not endorsing it - though I do think the point about Putin throwing away $50 billion has merit.

The history is what it is, and when Russian troops do anything in Eastern Europe, the world is going to be nervous, at best, just as when the CIA is active in poor countries - both nations have put a lot into earning their bad reputations...

[Buster's Uncle]

-And for that matter, the bias of the news coverage is more a matter of that being the way of the world than propaganda, I think.  Few Americans know of the allied invasion of Russia in 1918, yet I suspect Russian children hear about it in elementary school.  That's just how people are.

[JarlWolf]

Of course BUncle, I realize that; I am just speaking my opinion of those articles. They shot up my emotions and made me a little cross is all, not that you should feel bad for that sort of thing; its just when something needs to be said I will say it. Normally I keep clear mind but when I am confronted with something like that... I think you understand picture 

Discussion below, click if interested   

(click to show/hide)

Well our track record in Afghanistan was about as 'noble' as the current coalition was, and sure while there was some brutality in Eastern Europe and central, you also have to remember the majority of that occupation was during a world war and a fair share of those nations had fascist regimes with auxiliaries who actively fought us in our home cities, destroying our homes and people. There was way more conflict because my nation was fighting for raw survival and trying to eradicate the fascist menace from Europe, and it wasn't easy for us. Besides the lend lease programs and the small amounts of support we had from Yugoslav partisans and other local partisans it was tough.

Poland was a fairly brutal example of that as we were fighting, and while the Polish Home Guard weren't fascists by any means, they were still a fair threat to our efforts in liberating the rest of Europe from the Axis. They may have not been friends of the Germans themselves, but they still were a thorn in our sides as they saw us as a threat; I can't blame them fully either but its a sheer fact that we couldn't have allowed active guerrillas plaguing our efforts back then.

And as for Hungary and Germany; that may have been brutal... but think about what happened back home. The Americans justified nuking Japan after taking heavy MILITARY casualties at Pearl Harbour and Iwo Jima on civilian targets such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Could you imagine what the Americans would've done if at least half their mainland had been brutally occupied by the Japanese, they beat them back and occupied Japan again?

I don't think the results would've been pretty at all, and they still weren't even in real history.
We lost roughly 12 million people from the combined assaults of Germany, Hungary, Romania, Finland, and other European auxiliaries. Lots of our cities and land was torched and burned by the invaders, and while there was some slash and burn of supply depots by our own government, we did NOT burn our own villages and towns, that is a myth that has spread with second world war mythology, as much as carrots increase your eyesight.

While my nation isn't the kindest character on the planet, we didn't go in because we wanted to ruthlessly subjugate Europe. There was a reason we expended that much military effort and resources to occupy that amount of territory and people; and it was more then just trying to fuel our own survival.

I brought those examples up as they are references to direct military occupations;

of course another conflict the United States could bring up could be the Vietnam war. I myself was involved in training NVA and partisan groups back then as an instructor in my early years in the military.. so I guess we had a similar role if you want to go that far. Still, the NVA back then was a legitimate army, not a bunch of Mujahideen extremists, and the Viet Cong could be argued that it was brutal, but as a man who's seen both the Viet Partisan fronts and Afghan warlords, I can tell you right now the Warlords were divisive and terrifying of their own people. The Viet Cong had a fair bit of support amongst the local populace..

And while we could talk about espionage, and while it is a subject that I do have knowledge in, I am a soldier and the things that directly affect or involved me most was military operations and conduct. Espionage is always a dirty muddled affair and while you do see the effects of it; I like to avoid that subject as its not one that is light hearted with me. I used to fear and hate the intelligence agencies and still do hate them, for the sole fact of how uncaring and ruthless they are even for their own nations. I may have expressed this before but "intelligence" has led men I've known and was under jurisdiction for to go to their deaths when brass ordered them to locations these scumbag agents gave the drop on. I am not saying that the agencies are useless but generally speaking they are not to be fully trusted. They do have their own motives.

-And for that matter, the bias of the news coverage is more a matter of that being the way of the world than propaganda, I think.  Few Americans know of the allied invasion of Russia in 1918, yet I suspect Russian children hear about it in elementary school.  That's just how people are.

Of course; and I voice my opinion so things like that are heard. So that perspective is known, as much as I hear other people speak so often. It is a matter of expressing knowledge and perspective so others may understand before they judge, I don't bother sticking around often to debate their judgements after, they will judge and that is final. All I can do is provide information to affect that decision.

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't think anyone reasonably criticizes the Soviet Union for being a bad enemy in the war - it's more a matter of conduct afterwards.  Russia and the US both came out of the affair with significant foreign empires, and neither side's hands are clean.  For the Soviets, it was ideologically excused on the grounds of being part of the international revolution.  American ideology is such that we were so uncomfortable with having an empire that we mostly don't admit that we had one, and make excuses about the need to stop communism. 

-Not always without merit, either - Stalin and his successors believed in the domino theory, they were aggressive, and it was necessary to oppose them or watch the world turn red.

[shrugs]  Vietnam was an unpopular and very ugly war, so much so that about 13 years ago, I made my sister-in-law cry because I shook her father's hand and thanked him for being there -he was a captain there, and was very much damaged by the experience in ways I don't have to explain to you- and made some remarks about fighting there being necessary.  Apparently, I was the first person she knows of to have ever done so.


Hard winters make hard people, and rich people are so good at bullying that they often don't even know they're doing it.  Nobody's an angel.

[Geo]

Not much I can add to this, except expressing the hope the situation will stay calm there until the the end of month when there's supposed to be a referendum in Crimea.

Oh, perhaps one thing; I've been twice to Russia now, once in St. Petersburg and once in Vyborg (Viipuri?). The second time in company with a Finnish friend. It simply pains her to see what has (not) been done to the city since the Winter War of '39, and of course from a Finnish POV the annexation of large swats of land.

[Buster's Uncle]

Jarl, do you have any insight into the assertion below about Russian public opinion?

4 Reasons Putin Is Already Losing in Ukraine
Time.com
By Simon Shuster / Simferopol  3 hours ago


     
Even a week ago, the idea of a Russian military intervention in Ukraine seemed farfetched if not totally alarmist. The risks involved were just too enormous for President Vladimir Putin and for the country he has ruled for 14 years. But the arrival of Russian troops in Crimea over the weekend has shown that he is not averse to reckless adventures, even ones that offer little gain. In the coming days and weeks, Putin will have to decide how far he is prepared to take this intervention and how much he is prepared to suffer for it. It is already clear, however, that he cannot emerge as the winner of this conflict, at least not when the damage is weighed against the gains. It will at best be a Pyrrhic victory, and at worst an utter catastrophe. Here’s why:

At home, this intervention looks to be the one of the most unpopular decisions Putin has ever made. The Kremlin’s own pollster released a survey on Monday that showed 73% of Russians reject it. In phrasing its question to 1600 respondents across the country, the state-funded sociologists at WCIOM were clearly trying to get as much support for the intervention as possible: “Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?” they asked. Only 15% said yes – hardly a national consensus.

That seems astounding in light of all the brainwashing Russians have faced on the issue of Ukraine. For weeks, the Kremlin’s effective monopoly on television news has been sounding the alarm over Ukraine. It’s revolution, they claimed, is the result of an American alliance with Nazis intended to weaken Russia. And still, nearly three quarters of the population oppose a Russian “reaction” of any kind, let alone a Russian military occupation like they are now watching unfold in Crimea. The 2008 invasion of Georgia had much broader support, because Georgia is not Ukraine. Ukraine is a nation of Slavs with deep cultural and historical ties to Russia. Most Russians have at least some family or friends living in Ukraine, and the idea of a fratricidal war between the two largest Slavic nations in the world evokes a kind of horror that no Kremlin whitewash can calm.

Indeed, Monday’s survey suggests that the influence of Putin’s television channels is breaking down. The blatant misinformation and demagoguery on Russian television coverage of Ukraine seems to have pushed Russians to go online for their information. And as for those who still have no Internet connection, they could simply have picked up the phone and called their panicked friends and relatives in Ukraine.

So what about Russia’s nationalists? The war-drum thumping Liberal Democratic party, a right-wing puppet of the Kremlin, has been screaming for Russia to send in the tanks. On Feb. 28, as troops began appearing on the streets of Crimea, the leader of that party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, was on the scene handing out wads of cash to a cheering crowd of locals in the city of Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. “Give it to the women, the old maids, the pregnant, the lonely, the divorced,” he told the crowd from atop a chair. “Russia is rich. We’ll give everybody everything.” But in Monday’s survey, 82% of his party’s loyalists rejected any such generosity. Even the adherents of the Communist Party, who tend to feel entitled to all of Russia’s former Soviet domains, said with a broad majority – 62% – that Russia should not jump into Ukraine’s internal crisis.

That does not necessarily mean Putin will face an uprising at home. So far, the anti-war protests in Moscow have looked almost pathetically temperate. But sociologists have been saying for years that Putin’s core electorate is dwindling. What underpins his popularity – roughly 60% approved of his rule before this crisis started – is a total lack of viable alternatives to Putin’s rule. But this decision is sure to eat away at the passive mass of his supporters, especially in Russia’s biggest cities.

In Monday’s survey, 30% of respondents from Moscow and St. Petersburg said that Russia could see massive political protests of the kind that overthrew the Ukrainian government last month. Putin’s only means of forestalling that kind of unrest is to crack down hard and early. So on Feb. 28, Russia’s most prominent opposition activist Alexei Navalny was put under house arrest less than six months after he won 30% of the vote in the Moscow mayoral race. Expect more of the same if the opposition to Putin’s intervention starts to find its voice.

The economic impact on Russia is already staggering. When markets opened on Monday morning, investors got their first chance to react to the Russian intervention in Ukraine over the weekend, and as a result, the key Russian stock indexes tanked by more than 10%. That amounts to almost $60 billion in stock value wiped out in the course of a day, more than Russia spent preparing for last month’s Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. The state-controlled natural gas monopoly Gazprom, which accounts for roughly a quarter of Russian tax revenues, lost $15 billion in market value in one day – incidentally the same amount of money Russia promised to the teetering regime in Ukraine in December and then revoked in January as the revolution took hold.

The value of the Russian currency meanwhile dropped against the dollar to its lowest point on record, and the Russian central bank spent $10 billion on the foreign exchange markets trying to prop it up. “This has to fundamentally change the way investors and ratings agencies view Russia,” said Timothy Ash, head of emerging market research at Standard Bank. At a time when Russia’s economic growth was already stagnating, “This latest military adventure will increase capital flight, weaken Russian asset prices, slow investment and economic activity and growth. Western financial sanctions on Russia will hurt further,” Ash told the Wall Street Journal.

Even Russia’s closest allies want no part of this. The oil-rich state of Kazakhstan, the most important member of every regional alliance Russia has going in the former Soviet space, put out a damning statement on Monday, marking the first time its leaders have ever turned against Russia on such a major strategic issue: “Kazakhstan expresses deep concern over the developments in Ukraine,” the Foreign Ministry said. “Kazakhstan calls on all sides to stop the use of force in the resolution of this situation.”

What likely worries Russia’s neighbors most is the statement the Kremlin made on March 2, after Putin spoke on the phone with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “Vladimir Putin noted that in case of any escalation of violence against the Russian-speaking population of the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia would not be able to stay away and would resort to whatever measures are necessary in compliance with international law.” This sets a horrifying precedent for all of Russia’s neighbors.

Every single state in the former Soviet Union, from Central Asia to the Baltics, has a large Russian-speaking population, and this statement means that Russia reserves the right to invade when it feels that population is threatened. The natural reaction of any Russian ally in the region would be to seek security guarantees against becoming the next Ukraine. For countries in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, including Armenia, a stanch Russian ally, that would likely stir desires for a closer alliance with NATO and the European Union. For the countries of Central Asia, Russia’s traditional stomping ground on the geopolitical map of the world, that would mean strengthening ties with nearby China, including military ones.

China, which has long been Russia’s silent partner on all issues of global security from Syria to Iran, has also issued cautious statements regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine. “It is China’s long-standing position not to interfere in others’ internal affairs,” the Foreign Ministry reportedly said in a statement on Sunday. “We respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

So in the course of one weekend, Putin has spooked all of the countries he wanted to include in his grand Eurasian Union, the bloc of nations he hoped would make Russia a regional power again. The only gung-ho participants in that alliance so far have been Kazakhstan (see above) and Belarus, which is known as Europe’s last dictatorship. Its leader, Alexander Lukashenko, has so far remained silent on the Russian intervention in Ukraine. But last week, Belarus recognized the legitimacy of the new revolutionary government in Kiev, marking a major break from Russia, which has condemned Ukraine’s new leaders as extremists and radicals. The Belarusian ambassador in Kiev even congratulated Ukraine’s new Foreign Minister on taking office and said he looks forward to working with him.

As for the impoverished nation of Armenia, a late-comer to Russia’s fledgling Eurasian alliance, it has also recognized the new government in Kiev while stopping short of any official condemnation of Putin’s intervention in Ukraine so far. But on Saturday, prominent politicians led an anti-Putin demonstration in the Armenia capital. “We are not against Russia,” said the country’s former Minister of National Security David Shakhnazaryan. “We are against the imperial policies of Putin and the Kremlin.”

Russia’s isolation from the West will deepen dramatically. In June, Putin was planning to welcome the leaders of the G8, a club of western powers (plus Japan), in the Russian resort city of Sochi. But on Sunday, all of them announced they had halted their preparations for attending the summit in protest at Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. So much for Putin’s hard-fought seat at the table with the leaders of the western world.

In recent years, one of Russia’s greatest points of contention with the West has been over NATO’s plans to build of a missile shield in Europe. Russia has seen this as a major threat to its security, as the shield could wipe out Russia’s ability to launch nuclear missiles at the West. The long-standing nuclear deterrent that has protected Russia from Western attacks for generations – the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction, or MAD – could thus be negated, Russia’s generals have warned. But after Russia decided to unilaterally invade its neighbor to the west this weekend, any remaining resistance to the missile shield project would be pushed aside by the renewed security concerns of various NATO members, primarily those in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Whatever hopes Russia had of forestalling the construction of the missile shield through diplomacy are now most likely lost.

No less worrying for Putin would be the economic sanctions the West is preparing in answer to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. Depending on their intensity, those could cut off the ability of Russian companies and businessmen in getting western loans and trading with most of the world’s largest economies. Putin’s allies could also find it a lot more difficult to send their children to study in the West or to keep their assets in Western banks, as they now almost universally do. All of that raises the risk for Putin of a split in his inner circle and, potentially, even of a palace coup. There is hardly anything more important to Russia’s political elite than the security of their foreign assets, certainly not their loyalty to a leader who seems willing to put all of that at risk.

And what about the upside for Putin? There doesn’t seem to be much of it, at least not compared to the damage he stands to inflict on Russia and himself. But he does look set to accomplish a few things. For one, he demonstrates to the world that his red lines, unlike those of the White House, cannot be crossed.

If Ukraine’s revolutionary government moves ahead with their planned integration into the E.U. and possibly NATO, the military alliance that Russia sees as its main strategic threat would move right up to Russia’s western borders and, in Crimea, it would surround the Russian Black Sea fleet. That is a major red line for Putin and his generals.

By sending troops into Crimea and, potentially, into eastern Ukraine, Russia could secure a buffer around Russia’s strategic naval fleet and at its western border. For the military brass in Moscow, those are vital priorities, and their achievement is worth a great deal of sacrifice. Over the weekend, Putin’s actions showed that he is listening carefully to his generals. At the same time, he seems to be ignoring the outrage coming from pretty much everyone else.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-reasons-putin-already-losing-ukraine-211452971.html

...

Leaving aside the implicit assumption in the article that the Russian intervention isn't really a peacekeeping mission -and that's what everyone is always going to assume when a nation does peacekeeping without dotting all the Ts at the UN-  I just don't know, man; I saw this afternoon that Poland is mobilizing along the border.  I feeling glad I don't live in Europe today.  Throwing blame on no one, this situation is still some scary s**t.

[JarlWolf]

Most people as I stated before are very concerned and just want the violence to end, on both accounts. We don't want our country (or Ukraine for that matter) to be involved in a civil struggle that could endanger lives. Lots of people have family and friends in Ukraine and Ukraine is a very close nation to mine.

It's fear of conflict and I can't blame them. Putin has never been a very popular leader, respected, but not popular. He's part of a nationalist government that's tied to oligarchs, and if you know me well enough you'd know I once ran for office in my local district within my oblast, for township. But due to election scamming I was knocked out the next term, even though I had the popular vote-

Putin and the United Russia party is a group of hawks. People do not like him or his party; and I feel that he's going to finally be removed from power next election, or possibly even earlier.

I don't think we'll have a revolution; but I do think lot is going to happen...

So far our forces have NOT moved further into Ukraine, they've only occupied the Crimea. The job of our army there is to defend Russian citizens and to persuade the coup d'etat government to step down from power. Yanukovych would be returned to Ukraine if the current gov't steps down, but he would likely be legally removed from office. Though I doubt he'll have any legal actions of anything happening TO him afterwards...

We'll just have to wait and see...

Edit: I also predicted socialist government would take more popularity at one point due to Putin and his party's decisions...

Looking at it all now its not too surprising...