Russia

[noddy]

David Satter is senior fellow, Hudson Institute, and fellow, Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He was Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times from 1976 to 1982, then a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the Wall Street Journal.

I know David Satter's opinions on Russia and I wouldn't waste 90 minutes of my time hearing all about it once more... Facts are more important than opinions, and all David Satter has to offer are his very subjective opinions. I prefer reading about actual facts and events concerning the present Ukraine crisis, and draw my own conclusions.

exactly, its usually better to stick to propoganda that suits your own opinions because that rings true as factual, it makes for a much more pleasant day of reading.

[Endovelico]

David Satter is senior fellow, Hudson Institute, and fellow, Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He was Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times from 1976 to 1982, then a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the Wall Street Journal.

I know David Satter's opinions on Russia and I wouldn't waste 90 minutes of my time hearing all about it once more... Facts are more important than opinions, and all David Satter has to offer are his very subjective opinions. I prefer reading about actual facts and events concerning the present Ukraine crisis, and draw my own conclusions.

exactly, its usually better to stick to propoganda that suits your own opinions because that rings true as factual, it makes for a much more pleasant day of reading.

There are enough facts about the Ukrainian criminal, fascist influenced government, and the US and NATO warmongering in Europe for me not to need any propaganda, Russian and non-Russian, in order to know what to think. Fortunately I'm still capable of thinking by myself.

[Endovelico]

Russian Duma may reauthorize Putin to send the Russian Army into Ukraine
3/24/2015

[Translated from Russian by J.Hawk]

“The Russian Parliament ought to once again give the President of the Russian Federation to use armed force in Ukraine if the US decides to send sizable arms supplies to that country.” This announcement was made by the First Deputy Chairman of the “Just Russia” faction, Mikhail Emelyanov.

The US House of Representatives adopted a resolution on Tuesday recommending the US president to approve arms supplies to Ukraine. The resolution calls on the president to “use the authority provided by Congress to furnish Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons.” According to the authors of the resolution, this measure would “increase the Ukrainian nation’s ability to defend its sovereignty.” The authors of the resolution also exclusively blame Russia for the deaths suffered during the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. At the same time, they ignore the fact that a significant portion of the refugees is in Russia.

“We believe that our parliament should not ignore this resolution. If the US begins genuine lethal weaponry supplies to Ukraine, we should not be shy about supporting the militia, including with weapons, and to give the president the right to send military units on to Ukrainian territory,” Emelyanov told journalists.

In his view, Russia cannot allow Ukraine to be transformed into an “international militant aimed at Russia.”

He called the US Congress resolution “provocative.”

“It shows that the US is not interested in de-escalating the conflict in Ukraine. The US is trying to arm Ukraine at all costs, because it views Ukraine as a country that is tying Russian down, something that the US needs in order to prevent Russia from developing into a superpower.”

http://fortruss.blogspot.pt/2015/03/rus ... in-to.html

It would be wise to think twice before further provoking Russia. There isn't the slightest chance that the US and NATO would prevail if war breaks over the Ukraine. This is another war the US cannot win. And if some people are considering a nuclear exchange, just look at the sizes of Russia and the US and their respective concentration of population and productive assets... Russia might be back on its feet in 50 years, the US in 200 years...

[noddy]

all i hope for when you euro's do your next round of petty butchery and slaughter for immature reasons is this time my country isnt dragged into it.

[Endovelico]

all i hope for when you euro's do your next round of petty butchery and slaughter for immature reasons is this time my country isnt dragged into it.

The UK, not Europe, has in the past drawn Australia into disaster. Quite willingly it seemed... Remember Gallipoli?... Stay close to the US and the same thing may happen again...

[Alexis]

David Satter is senior fellow, Hudson Institute, and fellow, Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He was Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times from 1976 to 1982, then a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the Wall Street Journal.

I am interested in all analyses whatever their source.

That being said, I agree with Endo on one thing: I am not ready to devote 90 mn of my time just to listen one guy. I want texts, I want to be able to get a hold of the guy's arguments in a few minutes.


I found this February analysis by Satter. Also that March interview. Extracts:

Russia wants to seize control of Kiev, Ukraine's capital, and prevent it from joining the European Union and NATO, according to Satter.

"Mr. Putin and his cronies will not take aggressive action if they fear that they could as a result lose their hold on power. This is why the time for maximum deterrence on the part of the West is now."

Do you think providing Ukraine with heavy weapons could serve to stop Russian aggression?

It depends on how you define ‘heavy weapons'. If Ukraine is given sufficient weapons to defend its territory, it will be much easier to at least maintain a kind of stalemate. In the long run, this stalemate could provide the basis for a settlement by making it clear to Russia that it cannot achieve its goals.
(...)
the debate now is about the provision of effective, modern weapons which will help Ukraine to resist the aggression to which it is being subjected, or possibly even turn the tide of the battle

Where Satter is standing is pretty clear:
- He anticipates that the Russian military will take control of Kiev city
- He wants the US or Europe to give extended weaponry to the Kiev government so that it can restart the war in Donbass

So this is a guy who wants to induce and incite Ukrainians to restart a war that has been settled by a peace agreement, a war that they don't have any chance of winning since Russia can be anticipated to continue providing enough military support to Donbass separatists so that they hold their ground against any new loyalist offensive.

This is a guy who wants to wage war against Russia until the last Ukrainian.

Now I know enough about that guy. Mr Satter and I do not have the same values.

[Alexis]

It would be wise to think twice before further provoking Russia. There isn't the slightest chance that the US and NATO would prevail if war breaks over the Ukraine. This is another war the US cannot win. And if some people are considering a nuclear exchange, just look at the sizes of Russia and the US and their respective concentration of population and productive assets... Russia might be back on its feet in 50 years, the US in 200 years...

There isn't any risk of nuclear war over the Ukraine crisis. Nobody wants to have his main cities destroyed and his population halved or worse.

There won't be any war between either US or NATO and Russia over the Ukraine crisis either. Nobody in the West wants to send troops fighting in Donbass. Not even the most strident proponents of anti-Russia policies are merely evoking such a possibility.

What could happen would be resumption of the war in Ukraine, from either side. No worse risk exists in link with this crisis. At the same time, it is not negligible, many thousands already died, many thousands more could perish if either side attempts to push its positions.

Best opportunity to prevent such a thing is application of the Minsk-2 agreements.

Those agreements incidentally prohibit explicitly arming of either side of the Ukrainian war by external countries. That's why the recent vote at US Congress calling for the president to send extensive weaponry to Kiev is not helpful, to say the least. It is to be wished that Obama is wiser than that. My feeling is that he is.

[Parodite]

Where Satter is standing is pretty clear:
- He anticipates that the Russian military will take control of Kiev city
- He wants the US or Europe to give extended weaponry to the Kiev government so that it can restart the war in Donbass

So this is a guy who wants to induce and incite Ukrainians to restart a war that has been settled by a peace agreement, a war that they don't have any chance of winning since Russia can be anticipated to continue providing enough military support to Donbass separatists so that they hold their ground against any new loyalist offensive.

This is a guy who wants to wage war against Russia until the last Ukrainian.

Now I know enough about that guy. Mr Satter and I do not have the same values.

I don't read it like you do. Satter's simple argument is that Putin wants to control Kiev in the sense of preventing the Ukraine to become part of the EU environment and NATO. This is true and what Puitn's actions are all about. He wants to control the Ukraine politically with the extended arms of his criminal oligrachy in Moscow.. and if that is not possible any longer he is willing to use military force; i.e. for as long as the gain is bigger than the pain.

As for the war in Eastern Ukraine, Satter's argument is also childishly simple. Given Putin's goals as per the above, the Ukrainian army should be armed to a high enough level (i.e. not beyond such a level necessarily) making the price for Putin high enough if he wants to persue more.. to create some sort of "stalemate" as Satter calls it - hence it it should work as a deterrence and freeze/contain the conflict. Which may of course actually save many lives compared with the alternative... where the Ukraine bit by bit sinks further into an escalating civil war and with Russia's involvement increasing.. with tensions rising between NATO and Russia to really dangerous levels.

I think you make the mistake in assuming that Putin doesn't want more than just the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine as it stands now. For then indeed... it would not even be necessary to bother about the Ukraine any longer by the West; we could all move on and be happy. But Putin obviously is not satisfied yet. He doesn't want the remainder of the Ukraine join the EU environment let alone open their doors to NATO and will do all to prevent it. Just read the propaganda our man from Portugal is enriching us with, where Russia is on a media offensive repeating and repeating over and over again that it is NATO who is the agressor here.. not Putin's Russia. This propaganda is for Russian home consumption to sell more military aggression against the Ukraine.. making it easier for Putin to send more Russian "volunteers" / conscripts to "fight the warmongering NATO forces and its fascist cronies in Kiev". This is all too transparant Russian claptrap.. but apprently some otherwise intelligent and educated people buy it.

[YMix]

Satter's simple argument is that Putin wants to control Kiev in the sense of preventing the Ukraine to become part of the EU environment and NATO. This is true and what Puitn's actions are all about.

I disagree. As per

The Russian Federation is Ukraine's largest trading partner, with 25.7% of exports and 32.4% of imports in 2012.[56] The EU is Ukraine's second largest trading partner, with 24.9% of exports and 30.9% of imports in 2012.[56]

the economic pull exerted by the European Union is too great to resist and Ukraine, Moldova and Transnistria (even Belarus) are being slowly drawn into it. Putin knows this and he knows he can't fight it. His proposal of a common Eurasian economic space shows that he doesn't mind as long as Russia gets its share.

NATO, in the sense of a semi-hostile military alliance, is something else.

[Parodite]

Satter's simple argument is that Putin wants to control Kiev in the sense of preventing the Ukraine to become part of the EU environment and NATO. This is true and what Puitn's actions are all about.

I disagree. As per

The Russian Federation is Ukraine's largest trading partner, with 25.7% of exports and 32.4% of imports in 2012.[56] The EU is Ukraine's second largest trading partner, with 24.9% of exports and 30.9% of imports in 2012.[56]

the economic pull exerted by the European Union is too great to resist and Ukraine, Moldova and Transnistria (even Belarus) are being slowly drawn into it. Putin knows this and he knows he can't fight it. His proposal of a common Eurasian economic space shows that he doesn't mind as long as Russia gets its share.

But Putin was very much against the economic EU-Ukraine association deal, coming up with threats like sanctions:

Putin warns Ukraine against implementing EU deal -letter

(Reuters) - Moscow will curtail Ukraine's access to vital Russian markets if Kiev implements any part of a trade agreement with the European Union, President Vladimir Putin warned in a letter, toughening his stance on a deal at the center of East-West tensions.

In a letter to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, Putin warned that even changing national legislation to prepare for the EU-Ukraine trade deal, known as the association agreement, would trigger an immediate response from Moscow. [...]

Note also that suddenly cancelling the pending EU-deal by Yanokovych in 2013.. along with new legislation curtailing free demonstrations the Ukraine which sparked the bloody Maidan protests strongly hints that Putin made a clear warning to Yanokovych not to deviate from Moscows oligarchic dictats, i.e. most likely forced him to cancel it at gun point. Putin is not known for being nice to oligarchs who step out of line.

NATO, in the sense of a semi-hostile military alliance, is something else.

Association with the EU on political and economic matters.. means that NATO membership is only three steps away. Hence he opposes both as strongly.

[YMix]

But Putin was very much against the economic EU-Ukraine association deal, coming up with threats like sanctions

It depends on what the association agreement meant. As a personal guess, Putin wants to preserve the Russian Federation's trade surplus against the EU and keep Russian companies in business. At the very least, the agreement would have told Ukraine to remove all obstacles to foreign trade and capital.

From your own link:

According to EU officials, Russia wants to remove more than 2,000 products eligible for duty-free access to the European Union, tearing up about a quarter of the agreement.

Russian companies are also concerned they will not be able to import into Ukraine after Ukraine adopts higher EU standards as part of its implementation of the pact.

As I said before, Putin wants a share for his own country and some control over the near abroad. If you think that's wrong, have your government publicly tell certain countries to get out of the DR-CAFTA and NAFTA agreements and see what response you get from the USA.

Association with the EU on political and economic matters.. means that NATO membership is only three steps away.

If you want Putin to cooperate, either NATO membership stops being three steps away or NATO stops trying to genuflect with the Russians.

[Parodite]

Independent nation states like the Ukraine, Russia, EU members, can freely associate with whoever they want. Trade agreements are what they are too, for better or worse, each at their own economic peril or mutual benefit.

The only thing I hope, with you I suppose, is that they are the result of democratic process and controls as opposed to corporate scams and oligarchic "coups" which onfortunatley is often the case as with the landgrabs you once mentioned re Rumania. But all that is a far cry from igniting and fueling civil wars.. annexing chunks of territory of other independent nation states which is what Putin did in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

If you want Putin to cooperate, either NATO membership stops being three steps away or NATO stops trying to genuflect with the Russians.

Gimme a break...NATO doesn't f*ck with the Russians in as far as Russia proper is concerned. It only reacts to Russia where it f*cks others outside its own borders into former USSR republics with military force. If Putin wants the West and NATO to co-operate it better stops doing that. It has 3-4000 nuclear missiles that can obliterate Europe and a considerable amount of tanks and missile systems that are no match to former USSR states. Western Europe and NATO have all right and reason to create a defensive shield against this sonova mother f*cker Hijo de Putin.

[Endovelico]

But Putin obviously is not satisfied yet. He doesn't want the remainder of the Ukraine join the EU environment let alone open their doors to NATO and will do all to prevent it. Just read the propaganda our man from Portugal is enriching us with, where Russia is on a media offensive repeating and repeating over and over again that it is NATO who is the agressor here.. not Putin's Russia. This propaganda is for Russian home consumption to sell more military aggression against the Ukraine.. making it easier for Putin to send more Russian "volunteers" / conscripts to "fight the warmongering NATO forces and its fascist cronies in Kiev". This is all too transparant Russian claptrap.. but apprently some otherwise intelligent and educated people buy it.

What people forget about propaganda is that sometimes it is based on facts. The troubles in the Ukraine started when the US and the EU tried to pull the Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence in order to weaken Russia. Russia just reacted to that. What bothers Parodite and many other people in the US and in the EU is that this ploy failed. Russia not only foiled the western strategy but it also got more than it had before the crisis. And if the EU and the US keep insisting on this strategy the gains for Russia will be even greater. Intelligent leaders would have seen they couldn't win and they would have cut their losses. Unfortunately the US and the EU do not have intelligent leaders... Let's hope they aren't stupid enough to start a war that will kill many of them and risk destroying their countries...

[Parodite]

But Putin obviously is not satisfied yet. He doesn't want the remainder of the Ukraine join the EU environment let alone open their doors to NATO and will do all to prevent it. Just read the propaganda our man from Portugal is enriching us with, where Russia is on a media offensive repeating and repeating over and over again that it is NATO who is the agressor here.. not Putin's Russia. This propaganda is for Russian home consumption to sell more military aggression against the Ukraine.. making it easier for Putin to send more Russian "volunteers" / conscripts to "fight the warmongering NATO forces and its fascist cronies in Kiev". This is all too transparant Russian claptrap.. but apprently some otherwise intelligent and educated people buy it.

What people forget about propaganda is that sometimes it is based on facts. The troubles in the Ukraine started when the US and the EU tried to pull the Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence in order to weaken Russia. Russia just reacted to that.

lol.. oh yea. Your blinders are firmly glued to your skull. How is RUSSIA weakend when the Ukraine freely associates itself economically and politically with the West? And doing trade with Russia as they see fit? Unless you equate Russia with the former USSR... of course.

All the nonsense you post here only makes sense if you think Russia somehow is entitled to impose its will with military force on former USSR republics, and that the West/NATO opposing this behavior thusly engages in ploys, illegal violence and threats to the USSR... uh sorry.. "Russia".

[Endovelico]

But Putin obviously is not satisfied yet. He doesn't want the remainder of the Ukraine join the EU environment let alone open their doors to NATO and will do all to prevent it. Just read the propaganda our man from Portugal is enriching us with, where Russia is on a media offensive repeating and repeating over and over again that it is NATO who is the agressor here.. not Putin's Russia. This propaganda is for Russian home consumption to sell more military aggression against the Ukraine.. making it easier for Putin to send more Russian "volunteers" / conscripts to "fight the warmongering NATO forces and its fascist cronies in Kiev". This is all too transparant Russian claptrap.. but apprently some otherwise intelligent and educated people buy it.

What people forget about propaganda is that sometimes it is based on facts. The troubles in the Ukraine started when the US and the EU tried to pull the Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence in order to weaken Russia. Russia just reacted to that.

lol.. oh yea. Your blinders are firmly glued to your skull. How is RUSSIA weakend when the Ukraine freely associates itself economically and politically with the West? And doing trade with Russia as they see fit? Unless you equate Russia with the former USSR... of course.

All the nonsense you post here only makes sense if you think Russia somehow is entitled to impose its will with military force on former USSR republics, and that the West/NATO opposing this behavior thusly engages in ploys, illegal violence and threats to the USSR... uh sorry.. "Russia".

Yeah! Sure! Your argument might carry some more weight if the US had not expanded NATO to the very borders of Russia, treating Russia as if it was a potential enemy. As such it isn't surprising that Russia tried to prevent the Ukraine being dragged into such a strategy. We aren't talking about trade, we are talking about an attempt to prevent Russia from ever being able to challenge again the US hegemony. That's why Crimea is such an issue. Everybody knows that Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, but the objective was preventing Russia from continuing using their Crimea naval facilities. I'm not surprised Russia felt threatened and decided to react while it still could.

[YMix]

Independent nation states like the Ukraine, Russia, EU members, can freely associate with whoever they want.

More or less.

But all that is a far cry from igniting and fueling civil wars.. annexing chunks of territory of other independent nation states which is what Putin did in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

I don't see the situation the same way you do. Let's leave it at that.

Gimme a break...NATO doesn't f*ck with the Russians in as far as Russia proper is concerned.

Not yet.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, I remember that Putin did shut down a bunch of NGOs because they allegedly took money from the USA to "promote democracy" in Russia. That sounds very plausible.

It only reacts

No. That thing right there is the basic tenet of US civic religion when it comes to foreign policy. "We always react. We are a reluctant superpower". It's a lie.

[Parodite]

Yeah! Sure! Your argument might carry some more weight if the US had not expanded NATO to the very borders of Russia, treating Russia as if it was a potential enemy. As such it isn't surprising that Russia tried to prevent the Ukraine being dragged into such a strategy. We aren't talking about trade, we are talking about an attempt to prevent Russia from ever being able to challenge again the US hegemony. That's why Crimea is such an issue. Everybody knows that Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, but the objective was preventing Russia from continuing using their Crimea naval facilities. I'm not surprised Russia felt threatened and decided to react while it still could.

Switzerland and Austria are in a much more dire situation.. as they are small and truly from all sides encircled by NATO! Why aren't they complaining, Endo? Russia has nothing to fear from NATO either, as long as it behaves like a normal country, respecting borders and jurisdictions.

What the Ukrainians wanted to do on the Crimea was their own business. Maybe prolong the Russian naval base and cash in some nice money for that in return, huge discounts on gazprom prices perhaps.. or allow a NATO naval base erected instead and get some nice money for that too but now from the West. Or just create a new biggest Disney Land, blinking casinos where the world-wide oligarchy can waste their surpluss money.. and many other tourist attractions.. this way deciding it to remain an entirely demilitarized peninsula in return for some nice cash from both Russia and NATO! (would be my choice if I had a say on it).

Point being which keeps escaping you: it has to be their own free choice. Putin came in with an army annexing it and further destabilizes the Ukraine by supporting the armed separatist gangs in Eastern Ukraine. Case closed.

[Parodite]

YMIX.. no clue what you are alluding to. If sponsoring NGO pro-democracy human rights groups in Russia translates to you as "f*cking" with Russians.. then I only hope the f*cking will continue forever.

NATO .. "not yet"? Just wake me up when NATO starts to behave ugly too... maybve even as dirty as Hijo de Putin himself. That would certainly start to worry me. Yawn until then.

[Endovelico]

Yeah! Sure! Your argument might carry some more weight if the US had not expanded NATO to the very borders of Russia, treating Russia as if it was a potential enemy. As such it isn't surprising that Russia tried to prevent the Ukraine being dragged into such a strategy. We aren't talking about trade, we are talking about an attempt to prevent Russia from ever being able to challenge again the US hegemony. That's why Crimea is such an issue. Everybody knows that Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, but the objective was preventing Russia from continuing using their Crimea naval facilities. I'm not surprised Russia felt threatened and decided to react while it still could.

Switserland and Austria are in a much more dire situation.. as they are small and truly from all sides encircled by NATO! Why aren't they complaing, Endo? Russia has nothing to fear from NATO either, as long as it behaves like a normal country, respecting borders and jurisdictions.

What the Ukrainians wanted to do on the Crimea was their own business. Maybe prolong the Russian naval base and cash in some nice money for that in return, huge discounts on gazprom prices perhaps.. or allow a NATO naval base erected instead and get some nice money for that too but now from the West. Or just create a new biggest Disney Land, blinking casinos where the world-wide oligarchy can waste their surpluss money.. and many other turist attractions.. this way deciding it to remain an entirely demilitirized peninsula in return for some nice cash from both Russia and NATO! (would be my choice if I had a say on it).

Point being which keeps escaping you: it has to be their own free choice. Putin came in with an army annexing it and further destabilisesthe Ukraine by supporting the armed separatist gangs in Eastern Ukraine. Case closed.

I don't think for a moment that you believe your own arguments. You aren't that naive. So what's your problem? An inability - similar to that shown by our East Asian - to drop the cold war rhetoric?... Are we in Europe so much in love with being a US dependency that we can't consider freeing ourselves from those chains?... Russia is not the enemy, it is in fact our natural partner, both economically and strategically. Lisbon to Vladivostok could be a reality, to our advantage. Why do we keep being hostile to Russia?...

[Parodite]

I don't think for a moment that you believe your own arguments. You aren't that naive. So what's your problem? An inability - similar to that shown by our East Asian - to drop the cold war rhetoric?... Are we in Europe so much in love with being a US dependency that we can't consider freeing ourselves from those chains?... Russia is not the enemy, it is in fact our natural partner, both economically and strategically. Lisbon to Vladivostok could be a reality, to our advantage. Why do we keep being hostile to Russia?...

Russia proper is not an enemy. We can do business with them as we see fit. And most in the West appreciate Russia's cultural heritage. But Putin crosses borders.. literally and aside from the fact that he heads a criminal oligarchic gang. Nothing to like about him or his policies.

US dependency.. chains? Wtf are you talking about and in whose name? You speak for yourself only of course... Well if you don't want to freely associate with the US in any format.. then freely dissociate. Leave NATO.. the EU..the EUROzone.. all the best to you / Portugal. I'm in favor of people making decisions freely and for as long as they don't eat away the same rights of others. Putin is the worst example to follow if those things would matter to you.

[YMix]

YMIX.. no clue what you are alluding to. If sponsoring NGO pro-democracy human rights groups in Russia translates to you as "f*cking" with Russians.. then I only hope the f*cking will continue forever.

I would agree with you if Washington was interested in actual democracy.

[Parodite]

YMIX.. no clue what you are alluding to. If sponsoring NGO pro-democracy human rights groups in Russia translates to you as "f*cking" with Russians.. then I only hope the f*cking will continue forever.

I would agree with you if Washington was interested in actual democracy.

So you think Washington isn't.. why?

I think Washington, and the US public in general, is very much interested in promoting (and protecting) democracy and human rights in the world wherever they can. That they often do a poor job, failing to achieve their objectives.. is an issue that deserves attention.

US foreign policy I think usually is well intended, not just using democracy a cheap selling point. However, when they drive the car.. more people with different interests, i.e. not primarily promoting democracy, jump on the bandwagon too. They rather have a business interest.. making money one way or other. They not oppose democracy; more likely they don't care that much, if at all. After all, money can be made on everything. If the US succeeds somewhere in promoting democracy.. they will see opportunities to make money. If however the US fails promoting democracy.. they will still look for opportunity under the changed circumstances.

Given the reality that votes are bought by dollars in the US.. the power and influence of a-moral money making can't be underestimated. However, there are more people on that bandwagon that are not business people. They are advisors to the presidency..but with way too little understanding of the realities that the US wants to operate in abroad. Badly informed, misinformed. Amateurs unable to read the map correctly, responsibly. They can advise the POTUS to engage in military adventures where the outcomes are totally different from the predicted, hoped for. No need to mention examples of these failures.

It seems to me that the US is adapting to this reality, in that it discovered it cannot do as much in the world as it hoped. It is, in fact, not the super power that it wants to be, and cannot be! So most likely the US will want to play a more modest role in the world, certainly militarily. At the same time, there are "American Century" cracks who still seem unable to learn. They may have come to conclude that you can't create an empire anymore with mere military force, but that money can still buy you a lot of influence and power, strengthen your strategic position in the geo-political game. Their game is money, influence, bribery. Whether this is pure bad or not, depends on the question if paralel to their questionable strategies.. they truly also want to invest in democracy or.. if they are cynically ok with propping up just another oligarch.

[YMix]

So you think Washington isn't.. why?

Because Washington defines democracy as knuckling under.

However, when they drive the car.. more people with different interests, i.e. not primarily promoting democracy, jump on the bandwagon too. They rather have a business interest.. making money one way or other. They not oppose democracy; more likely they don't care that much, if at all. After all, money can be made on everything. If the US succeeds somewhere in promoting democracy.. they will see opportunities to make money. If however the US fails promoting democracy.. they will still look for opportunity under the changed circumstances.

Given the reality that votes are bought by dollars in the US.. the power and influence of a-moral money making can't be underestimated. However, there are more people on that bandwagon that are not business people. They are advisors to the presidency..but with way too little understanding of the realities that the US wants to operate in abroad. Badly informed, misinformed. Amateurs unable to read the map correctly, responsibly. They can advise the POTUS to engage in military adventures where the outcomes are totally different from the predicted, hoped for. No need to mention examples of these failures.

By this point I'm guessing your problem with Putin is simply military intervention, but even there Washington is way ahead of Kremlin.

[Parodite]

So you think Washington isn't.. why?

Because Washington defines democracy as knuckling under.

However, when they drive the car.. more people with different interests, i.e. not primarily promoting democracy, jump on the bandwagon too. They rather have a business interest.. making money one way or other. They not oppose democracy; more likely they don't care that much, if at all. After all, money can be made on everything. If the US succeeds somewhere in promoting democracy.. they will see opportunities to make money. If however the US fails promoting democracy.. they will still look for opportunity under the changed circumstances.

Given the reality that votes are bought by dollars in the US.. the power and influence of a-moral money making can't be underestimated. However, there are more people on that bandwagon that are not business people. They are advisors to the presidency..but with way too little understanding of the realities that the US wants to operate in abroad. Badly informed, misinformed. Amateurs unable to read the map correctly, responsibly. They can advise the POTUS to engage in military adventures where the outcomes are totally different from the predicted, hoped for. No need to mention examples of these failures.

By this point I'm guessing your problem with Putin is simply military intervention, but even there Washington is way ahead of Kremlin.

Not quite. The purpose and success level of military intervention matter big time. To militarily intervene against ISIS for instance is totally justifiable even if the success is limited given the alternative, doing nothing, is unacceptable. I also find it acceptable that countries who want to become member of NATO can become member. Free association. The Kremlin gang however has no worthy intentions to begin with, given its nature in and of itself, for instance its support for another manslaughterer called Assad in Syria, or using military force and economic threats against former USSR republics. The only good thing Putin can do is stay home and mind his own business.. let the Russian people deal with him in time. He clearly is the violator in the Ukraine case.. I don't see what the US/NATO/West has done wrong there.

[YMix]

If you can find comfort in the plaintive cry of "But we meant well", good for you. It doesn't work for me. I try to focus on acts, not words.

He clearly is the violator in the Ukraine case..

I disagree.

I don't see what the US/NATO/West has done wrong there.

- prepared and precipitated a coup d'etat;
- replaced a bunch of oligarchs with another bunch of oligarchs;
- set up the country for massive plunder by the West. Don't bother telling me it won't happen;
- the US continues to push for a war that Ukraine cannot fight or win;
- all the while, the US and other Western countries (very likely including Netherlands) continue to launder the Russian mobsters' money.