Congratulations people of Crimea

[Symmetry]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

[GoranZ]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

[AndyDufresne]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

Mmm, Russia is a propaganda machine. I'm not saying the West isn't, but it is pretty clear Russia is a propaganda machine too.


--Andy

[GoranZ]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

Mmm, Russia is a propaganda machine. I'm not saying the West isn't, but it is pretty clear Russia is a propaganda machine too.


--Andy

And your claims that Russia is a propaganda machine are based on what? I hope you wont ask for me to trust your word because I wont

I can prove that West is using media propaganda any time you like, even to reasonable prowestern supporter.

[BigBallinStalin]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

Mmm, Russia is a propaganda machine. I'm not saying the West isn't, but it is pretty clear Russia is a propaganda machine too.


--Andy

And your claims that Russia is a propaganda machine are based on what?

Does the Russian government have an incentive to lie about information? Do they have the ability to influence media companies? (same goes for the companies' owners, and their valuation of reporting truth versus abiding by consumer preferences and 'orders from above').

If the answer is, Yes, and Yes, then that's some evidence.

Figuring out the strength of that influence is difficult, but there's proxies like "how democratic is Russia?, how free is their press, what's the correlation like between freedom of press and democracy, what about economic freedom, etc.?"

If I had to guess, I'd say that Russia's media isn't as free as the Uhmerica's. A safe assumption is that both are pretty much propaganda on the topic of foreign policy.

[AndyDufresne]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

Mmm, Russia is a propaganda machine. I'm not saying the West isn't, but it is pretty clear Russia is a propaganda machine too.


--Andy

And your claims that Russia is a propaganda machine are based on what? I hope you wont ask for me to trust your word because I wont

I can prove that West is using media propaganda any time you like, even to reasonable prowestern supporter.

History shows, including recent history, Russia is a propaganda machine. Like I said, pretty much all governments are propaganda machines. That is one of the fundamental things about governance, propaganda.

In summary, back to Star Trek gifs.




--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

It's about time somebody
mentioned Hitler.

I forgot I was on
the internet.

Yes, someone did mention Hitler but he mixed some pictures(Probably they are also mixed in his brain, I wonder if doctors are able to help him )

And here is the man that is willing to fight every single living Nazi...

Actually it's a very important piece of history, and perhaps a clue to the future here. I realize that I didn't spell it out plainly.

In 1936 Hitler/Germany hosted the Olympics in Berlin. After showing off German prestige through this event; he sent foriegn agents throughout Austria, eventually annexing it into his Reich. It didn't get much attention in the world, as Hitler and everyone else shrugged it off as uniting people with a common history.
Czechoslovakia cried "We're surrounded!" Yet again, nobody paid much mind until Germany annexed them too. As we know today, Hitler wanted to surround Czechoslovakia in a pincher all along.

Today, Putin/Russia hosts the Olympics, then sends agents into Crimea eventually illegally annexing the Crimea into Russia. And nobody pays much attention, because as the apologists in the page have already said "they're mostly of the same ancestry." Now the Ukraine is in a pincher; the Russians have confiscated all but 1 of their warships, and the Ukrainian army has been decimated by a decade of corruption. Will Ukraine be forced to surrender herself the same way Czechoslovakia did? I don't know, but these are events are eerily similar.


My brain is working fine, use yours before you insult me.



But what really surprises me is the number of apologists and pro-Russian aggression people here and elsewhere. I'm an American, and a Northerner, and I view both secession and intimidation in a negative light. If Mexico sent paramilitary units into the Gadsden Purchase, how would these same people react?

[saxitoxin]

I view both secession

So you consider the Kosovar UDI illegal and support Kosovo's reintegration into Serbia.

and intimidation in a negative light.

"Shit, we must take up arms and go waste these, shit, damned katsaps together with their leader!"

(from Pope Joan's translation)

[thegreekdog]

I'm an American, and a Northerner, and I view both secession and intimidation in a negative light. If Mexico sent paramilitary units into the Gadsden Purchase, how would these same people react?

I'd be pissed. But last I checked, I have a pretty clear vested interest in the non-invasion of the Gadsden Purchase. I don't have the same vested interest in making sure Ukraine isn't part of Russia (at least not enough of a vested interest to pound the table and demand that my country does something about it).

[saxitoxin]

Propaganda much from the Kremlin?

Or you are confused from Western propaganda and you cant determine what true and whats not

When people say "I oppose Russian involvement in the Ukraine" it's actually code for "Let's Kill Snowden!" Had it not been for Putin's protection of westerners fleeing from torture and persecution in their homeland - such as Snowden - this is the world westerners would still be seeing -



- instead of having the blindfold removed to face this reality -



Everyone wants to live in Fantasyland Utopia, no one wants to live in a Dystopian Wasteland. It's understandable if some of them are too frightened to be able to confront their circumstances and effect change from within. Those ones will cover their eyes in the flag and loyally regurgitate the slogans being repeated by their regimes. The west is essentially a sprawling, right-wing, fascist mega-state.

[BigBallinStalin]

What's wrong with being a Freedom Fascist?

[saxitoxin]

From a month ago, Max Blumenthal writing on AlterNet on how Reagan originally propped and supported the Nazi Ukrainians in the U.S. and Obama is now seeing the Reaganite plan through to its nightmarish conclusion ...

White supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev’s occupied City Hall, and demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I. Lenin. After Yanukovich fled his palatial estate by helicopter, EuroMaidan protesters destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died battling German occupation during World War II. Sieg heil salutes and the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol have become an increasingly common site in Maidan Square, and neo-Nazi forces have established “autonomous zones” in and around Kiev.

An Anarchist group called AntiFascist Union Ukraine attempted to join the Euromaidan demonstrations but found it difficult to avoid threats of violence and imprecations from the gangs of neo-Nazis roving the square. “They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists,” one of its members said. “There weren’t even any Communists, that was just an insult.”

...

In Washington, the OUN-B reconstituted under the banner of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), an umbrella organization comprised of “complete OUN-B fronts,” according to Bellant. By the mid-1980’s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members, with the group’s chairman Lev Dobriansky, serving as ambassador to the Bahamas, and his daughter, Paula, sitting on the National Security Council. Reagan personally welcomed Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7000 Jews in Lviv, into the White House in 1983.

“Your struggle is our struggle,” Reagan told the former Nazi collaborator. “Your dream is our dream.”

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-r ... page=0%2C0

The United States helped defeat Nazism in World War 2. Obama helped bring it back.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/ ... -plan-yet/

[Pope Joan]

Nazism is now defeated in Ukraine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588952/Leader-far-right-Ukrainian-group-shot-dead-police-shoot-special-forces-operation.html

[thegreekdog]

From a month ago, Max Blumenthal writing on AlterNet on how Reagan originally propped and supported the Nazi Ukrainians in the U.S. and Obama is now seeing the Reaganite plan through to its nightmarish conclusion ...

White supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev’s occupied City Hall, and demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I. Lenin. After Yanukovich fled his palatial estate by helicopter, EuroMaidan protesters destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died battling German occupation during World War II. Sieg heil salutes and the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol have become an increasingly common site in Maidan Square, and neo-Nazi forces have established “autonomous zones” in and around Kiev.

An Anarchist group called AntiFascist Union Ukraine attempted to join the Euromaidan demonstrations but found it difficult to avoid threats of violence and imprecations from the gangs of neo-Nazis roving the square. “They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists,” one of its members said. “There weren’t even any Communists, that was just an insult.”

...

In Washington, the OUN-B reconstituted under the banner of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), an umbrella organization comprised of “complete OUN-B fronts,” according to Bellant. By the mid-1980’s, the Reagan administration was honeycombed with UCCA members, with the group’s chairman Lev Dobriansky, serving as ambassador to the Bahamas, and his daughter, Paula, sitting on the National Security Council. Reagan personally welcomed Stetsko, the Banderist leader who oversaw the massacre of 7000 Jews in Lviv, into the White House in 1983.

“Your struggle is our struggle,” Reagan told the former Nazi collaborator. “Your dream is our dream.”

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-r ... page=0%2C0

The United States helped defeat Nazism in World War 2. Obama helped bring it back.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/ ... -plan-yet/

Wait... I thought President Obama was pro-Israeli?

[Dukasaur]

In 1936 Hitler/Germany hosted the Olympics in Berlin. After showing off German prestige through this event; he sent foriegn agents throughout Austria, eventually annexing it into his Reich. It didn't get much attention in the world, as Hitler and everyone else shrugged it off as uniting people with a common history.
Czechoslovakia cried "We're surrounded!" Yet again, nobody paid much mind until Germany annexed them too. As we know today, Hitler wanted to surround Czechoslovakia in a pincher all along.

Today, Putin/Russia hosts the Olympics, then sends agents into Crimea eventually illegally annexing the Crimea into Russia. And nobody pays much attention, because as the apologists in the page have already said "they're mostly of the same ancestry." Now the Ukraine is in a pincher; the Russians have confiscated all but 1 of their warships, and the Ukrainian army has been decimated by a decade of corruption. Will Ukraine be forced to surrender herself the same way Czechoslovakia did? I don't know, but these are events are eerily similar.

Yup.

Everyone wants to live in Fantasyland Utopia, no one wants to live in a Dystopian Wasteland. It's understandable if some of them are too frightened to be able to confront their circumstances and effect change from within. Those ones will cover their eyes in the flag and loyally regurgitate the slogans being repeated by their regimes. The west is essentially a sprawling, right-wing, fascist mega-state.

This may all be true, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The fact that the U.S. has degenerated into a sadistic fascist police state does not mean that Russia has not.

The fact that BATF agents are able to literally get away with murder under the the guise of the War on Drugs, and that the the NSA plays Big Brother under the guise of the whimsically-titled "War on Terror" does not change the fact that former KGB agents in Russia enjoy the same immunity to the rule of law.

Calling Putin a hero because he's helping to embarrass Obama is like calling Stalin a nice guy because he helped defeat Hitler. One wicked tyrant scoring points at the expense of another is not an exercise in moral ascendancy.

[patches70]

We should be careful trying to put morality on the State. States don't act morally, they act within their own interests. There is a distinction. There is nothing wrong with a nation that acts within it's own interests, we should expect that shouldn't we?

If one nation's interests conflict with another nation's interests, then things can get violent.

Which leads to this Ukraine situation. Ukraine is within the realm of Russian interests. Who would deny that?

The Ukraine, however, does not fall into the US' interests. If one does believe somehow that Ukraine falls into US interests, then please explain how and don't use the moral arguments as those are complete red herrings when discussing the actions of nations.

Nation's don't act in moral interest, they act in self interest. Though nations may often try to portray their actions as "moral", but that's all just propaganda.

Never once in the history of the United States has it ever mattered who controlled Crimea. It's never mattered to our national security, it's never mattered at all. And it doesn't matter now.

Now if one wants to argue that the Ukraine falls into US interest in that it is a wedge to be used to isolate Russia, then you have something to say. But then to ignore Russia or blame Russia for being evil or tyrannical because it reacts to said actions is hypocrisy.
Russia is acting rationally. It's the US I am seeing as irrational here. Something nations do on occasion, act irrationally.

Russia took Crimea without firing a shot. Some 95% of Crimea electorate voted to reunite with Russia. Do his decisions appear to be irrational? No, they do not.

Why it appears irrational to some (read Merkel, Kerry, et.el) is because they didn't predict that Russia would actually move to protect it's strategic position on the Black sea that it's held for two centuries when it's neighbor was yanked out of Russia's orbit by a US back coup in Kiev.

Putin is an ethnonationalist who looks at Russians abroad the same way Israel looks at Jews abroad. That is Putin sees himself as the protector of Russia and Russian people left stranded abroad with the fall of the Soviet.

Look at it from Putin's side if you can. He took power after the disaster that was Boris Yeltsin. He saw a Russia looted by crony capitalism and millions of ethnic Russians left behind from the Baltic states to Kazakhstan.
He saw the United States break it's promise not to move Nato into Eastern Europe as the Red army moved out. Instead the US used the Russian withdraw to bring Nato to her front doorstep.


In our actions toward Russia we have further alienated her from ourselves, pushed her into greater cooperation with China and in return we get- Rumania as an ally. Does this make any sense?

Is Crimea worth going back to cold war status? Is Ukraine worth closer ties between China and Russia? How are these things in US interests?

Make no mistake, next month Russia and China will be announcing the holy grail of energy deals. It's a done deal of long negotiations that have gone on for years. This situation in Ukraine has finally been the key to allow the deal to go through. This will allow Russia to be able to cut off Europe completely from oil and nat gas and not have to worry about going bankrupt because they'll instead sell that energy to China.
India appears to be close to making a major deal with Russia as well. As a previous poster pointed out, India is a growing economy with much greater potential than even China due to the difference in how they are run.

And so we push Russia into this, and what do we get in return for it? Some grateful bigoted Ukrainian leadership who didn't even have the majority's support anyway?

Who is acting irrational here?



I'll provide the details to the Russia China deal and the upcoming Russia India deal if anyone wants to know the details. They will be formally announced next month though, from which people will act positively shocked, shocked I tell you, that this happened.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ patches, sure, if one ascribes to realism. If one prefers "international liberalism" (i.e. invade countries to spread democracy and/or stop violence with violence), then one can insert as many moral claims as they see fit.

[thegreekdog]

@ patches, sure, if one ascribes to realism. If one prefers "international liberalism" (i.e. invade countries to spread democracy and/or stop violence with violence), then one can insert as many moral claims as they see fit.

Okay, but that's still in the invader's best interest, right?

I'm 100% all in on patches70's theory. If the United States can demonstrate to me that it's in the country's best interest (and, more importantly my best interest) to do X, then I am in favor of said action (morality aside).

[patches70]

@ patches, sure, if one ascribes to realism. If one prefers "international liberalism" (i.e. invade countries to spread democracy and/or stop violence with violence), then one can insert as many moral claims as they see fit.

Okay, but that's still in the invader's best interest, right?

I'm 100% all in on patches70's theory. If the United States can demonstrate to me that it's in the country's best interest (and, more importantly my best interest) to do X, then I am in favor of said action (morality aside).

So, TGD, has the US, Obama, Kerry and the rest made the case to your satisfaction that it's important enough for us to intervene, that it's in your best interests? And more importantly, that it's in our nation's best interest?

For my part there has been zero reason provided for why it's worth it for the US to take such a line, especially considering consequences for said actions which would be/are inevitable.

I just can't see any upside to losing Russia just to gain the Ukraine. That's a horrible trade off. And pushing Russia and China closer together is absolutely horrible. One of our saving graces was that Russia and China pretty much hated each other. I prefer it like that. Now that I can view as in national interests, keeping those two from getting too chummy with each other. As it's going now, it's not going so well and it all could have been avoided by just keeping our noses out of Ukraine's business.

I swear these world leaders act like spoiled children that absolutely cannot allow anyone else to throw egg on their face even if said world leaders threw said egg on their own face.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ patches, sure, if one ascribes to realism. If one prefers "international liberalism" (i.e. invade countries to spread democracy and/or stop violence with violence), then one can insert as many moral claims as they see fit.

Okay, but that's still in the invader's best interest, right?

I'm 100% all in on patches70's theory. If the United States can demonstrate to me that it's in the country's best interest (and, more importantly my best interest) to do X, then I am in favor of said action (morality aside).

No, not necessarily. It depends on how the state's interests coincide with each major policymaker view of the "state's" interests. For example, most realists were against the Iraq War 2.0 invasion, but a small group of neocons got their way with their international liberal agenda. The "state" then invades Iraq because that was within the "state's" interests.

National interest varies in degrees too. There's 4 categories for state's interests: Vital, Important, Peripheral, and No Interest. Realists would put invading Crimea at Peripheral or Zero. International liberals would put it at Vital or Important.


I like the realist aspect of patches' points, but realism does have a normative guideline: maximize state security. Having a normative guideline is unavoidable but having a complementary, moral guideline is necessary; otherwise, you could find plenty of reasons to beat up or threaten other people.

For example, suppose the US could maximize GDP by an additional 10% per year by killing 25% of the poor people and 25% of the very old people. Poverty falls drastically (cuz some of them die), but also because growth of 10% per year is insanely awesome. We'd all be ballers within a generation.

How would you know that such a policy is in the country's best interests without relying on any moral guideline?

[BigBallinStalin]

patches, what about imposing economic sanctions on Russia? What's your take on that?

[patches70]

patches, what about imposing economic sanctions on Russia? What's your take on that?

Sanctions are aggression. There is no reason to show Russia any aggression at this time, IMO.

Not to mention, Russia can strike back as well if they wish. If we want to get into a sanction war with Russia then we'll find ourselves in a pickle if we try and get too creative.

It's evident that we can't really do any real sanctions against Russia. That should be painfully obvious considering the laughable steaps taken thus far.
Russia isn't that reliant on the US and not enough leverage can be applied against Russia either. So sanctions are a waste of time at best and at worse they simply move Russia into realms we really don't want them in. Such as the China Russia deal.

China and Russia have been negotiating for a long time this deal but the two were never able to reach an agreement. Now, with Russia facing future actions that may force her to cut off the tap to Europe, something she can do but not do for very long as Russia depends on the income from that trade, Russia become more inclined to give room to the Chinese to reach a deal. Which they have now done, thus negating the impact of future actions that the Russians may have to apply.

Russia is planning a lot better, their thinking seems more long term or at least longer term. The US is focusing on the here and now, trying to make Russia behave as the US wants her to behave. That's just not a very good plan or idea. So Russia is taking steps that she wouldn't have been able to do so easily without the threat of sanctions from the US.

No, sanctions are for when you are willing to go to war with someone. Before you start shooting them you sanction them first, in an attempt to avoid the bloodshed. Sanctions are about the first thing a nation does before going to war with someone else.

So, is the US planning to fight Russia? If not, then the US shouldn't be enacting or threatening sanctions. Coercion works on the US' own populace but trying to use coercion against the Russian people only brings resolve and anger. And that's what the US is trying to do, coerce Russian citizens to stand against Putin and force him domestically to do what the US wants him to do.

It isn't going to work and it's only solidifying Putin's hold. Does that sound like a good idea? Not to me, so I'm not in favor of the sanctions. What I was in favor of is beyond doing because the US and the useful idiots believe the propaganda instead of taking a minute to understand the players and their real motivations.

Kiev is taken over by extreme anti Russian, violent bigots and ultra nationalists. And that's who we appear to be siding with. Crimea does the rational thing and decides to get out from under this government in Kiev while Russia increases the pressure to protect it's strategic Black Sea fleet. We'd do the exact same thing if we were in their place, without a doubt.
And yet, Russia is the bad guy in this.
Russia is the only one acting with any sense in all this and for their troubles they get threatened with sanctions. Sanctions are aggression of nations.
Why are we threatening to be so aggressive? What interest are we protecting with this aggression?

Answer that BBS before you ask me any more questions. Please. Unless you state your position clearly then I must assume you might just be trolling me when all I'm doing is trying to get people to think for a minute and see every side before making some decision.

I'm not taking anyone's side, Russia or the US'. My side is that what's happening in Ukraine is absolutely none of the US' business and that if we keep involving ourselves in things we have no business in then the cost will be greater at a future date, costs which aren't being considered by the pro-Kiev crowd. They only see some moral relativism and assume that such aggression is the right thing to do. I do not agree with that assessment at all. Aggression is the last thing we should be doing since all this problem in Ukraine can easily be solved at the ballot box.

It's as simple as that. Crimea went to the ballot box and if we are really believers in "democracy" then I don't understand what everyone is upset about. "Oh it breaks international law" bullshit when international law is just whatever the US says it is at any given time. Undermine the rule of law like the US has been doing for so long then we don't really have much of a moral ground to stand on now do we? We in the US shouldn't think we have the right to tell the people of Crimea what to do, no matter what supposed international law says.
And I'm not convinced Russia has broken any laws. Their treaty for their Black Sea fleet gives them authorization to have troops in the Crimea and as of yet Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine proper. But the Ukraine keeps giving more and more provocation because they are so filled with hate for Russia.

It's a bad recipe that's for sure, all the more reason the US should wash her hands of the mess except for the possibility of attempting to be middle men to get the various parties talking civilly, and when we are threatening sanctions that ain't what we are doing at all, is it?

[patches70]

I like the realist aspect of patches' points, but realism does have a normative guideline: maximize state security. Having a normative guideline is unavoidable but having a complementary, moral guideline is necessary; otherwise, you could find plenty of reasons to beat up or threaten other people.

Whoa BBS, you need to consider something that you might not have! If you do indeed like the realist aspect.

You see the argument goes (see JB's post for an example) is that Putin is trying to take over the world, or Europe or that he's bent on conquering a la Hitler and such.
But that argument falls apart quickly when we actually look at the facts.

The first fact one must consider is that at least thus far, Russia has acted rationally towards the Ukraine. Even if you don't like what Russia is doing, if you are honest with yourself you'll admit that it shouldn't surprise you and that even we might very well do the exact same thing in their position.

The second fact is that considering that Russia is acting rationally, we have to understand Russia's current situation, which may not be widely understood by the average person. Russia has not established any Russian rule over non Russian people. Even in Georgia, Russian intervened on the side of the Ossetians, who identify and consider themselves Russian. So this doesn't fit at all with the non realist position that Russia is turning into a conquering menace out to take over the world.

And if Russia is truly out to retake it's former vassals as people like JB complain then-

But why would Russia, today being bled in secessionist wars by Muslim terrorists in the North Caucasus provinces of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, want to invade and reannex giant Kazakhstan, or any other Muslim republic of the old USSR, which would ensure jihadist intervention and endless war?

Because that's what Russia would be getting into, endless war if they are indeed acting like the JB's of the world are trying to get everyone to believe.

You are a thinking person BBS, do you believe Putin is doing that?

He might be, I don't know for sure, but his current actions and his recent past actions suggest that he is simply looking out for Russian peoples. Whether or not he should be could be debate I suppose, but if, as in the Ukraine, if the seriously anti Russian crowd now in power went hog wild with their threats of killing Russians, would we stop them? Would we invade Ukraine to stop such a thing if Russia had chosen not to intervene in Crimea?
I don't see how Russia could rationally assume that anyone would lift a finger, thus the responsibility to protect Russian lives falls to....
Russia.

And that's why I see Russia doing the things she is doing. If the future things change then I'll have to reevaluate. But thus far, Russia is acting rationally and surprisingly even handedly. IMO.

I don't see why the US should go mucking around in it, unless you have some further information that I might not know about.

[saxitoxin]

The mistake is in being sucked into the false choice that western leaders are either correctly pursuing state interests or incorrectly pursuing state interests.

Normal IR theories - defensive realism, offensive realism, feminist constructivism, liberalism, Marxism, etc. - don't apply here because state interests are not at play. These are personal interests, the opportunity to grow new markets and, with them, new power. The resulting spoils are being used to line individual bank accounts. When the U.S. loots a country it doesn't divvy up the booty between American citizens. The U.S. government is the personal commercial enterprise of the people running it. They have an interest assigning a portion of the treasure to various vassals (the Republicans to big business, the Democrats to social interest groups), but that's the cost of doing business, like paying your employees. It's not what Inghram and Schneider meant when they discussed pluralist policymaking.



Once one rejects this 5th grade civics way of looking at the world - capitalism, communism, etc. - and realizes the U.S. is neither capitalist nor communist, but is in fact a feudal nation, a landstaat run for the benefit of the MEP chiefs, the inconsistencies of state actions resolve themselves.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't see why the US should go mucking around in it, unless you have some further information that I might not know about.

For one thing, Russia and China are trying to have more clout in Africa. After billions of dollars and 40 or 50 years of support to some of these countries (even longer for Liberia), America can't be seen to be weakening, or else progress in the Middle East and Africa will halt.

This is a geopolitical war. Crimea doesn't matter to the United States. The entire world hangs in the balance here. A resplendent USSR, one that ignores completely international agreements (the Budapest memorandum) will be a problem.

How will Iran respond to nuclear talks after seeing how the US and Russia jointly shat all over that agreement? How will those talks go if all the parties meeting with Iran from Russia and US are sanctioned against each other.

-------------------------
There is a true morality here. As Jimmy Carter said last night on Letterman, there are now more slaves in the world than at any time in the 19th century or earlier. Russia and China both base their economies on slavery. Regardless of all the stupid human rights (non-discrimination, freedom of speech and religion etc.), slavery is one that most can agree is despicable. And yet Putin hasn't even acknowledged the Crimean sex slave problem.