Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Sarmatian]

...

In terms of political and military doctrines. It doesn't mean that 150,000,000 Russians think the same way. I thought it was pretty clear given the rest of my post.

Ask, and ye shall be answered.

[Gregoshi]

Let's stick to discussing the Ukraine and not UrMomma please.

[Fisherking]

It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.

If we were to do that, that we would have to assume that US is actively planning to invade:
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Cuba
4. Syria
5. Belarus
6. Zimbabwe
7. Burma

... because they were mentioned in the "Axis of Evil' or "Outposts of Tyranny" speech.

You know, the US has no coherent foreign policy. What usually gets offered up to the public is some well meaning idea that is a disaster looking for a place to happen but will make a bundle of money for those who are well placed.

Putin is the current leader of Russia. Bush is no longer in office. So Evil Empires is just so much tripe. Obama will deal with those his handlers tell him to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlfyR4v0rE


I supported the Ukrainians in their bid for a less corrupt government. Russian or Western interests played no part in it from my point of view.

I am not a fan of the interim government taking them either east or west in their policies. The problem with revelations are that they usually get hijacked.

I could even stand behind a fair vote in Crimea seeking independence. I am very skeptical of what has occurred there. I see it as nothing more than a thinly veiled Russian land grab.

I don’t think the EU or Russia have a legitimate role in Ukrainian politics other than the guarantee of their national boundaries.

As for NATO, my view is that it was taken over as a US policy tool after the cold war but realistically the Russians have little to fear from that direction, that may not be of their own making. At least for now.

I don’t see Putin as the devils step-son any more than I see Obama as the anti-Christ. I see them as self serving politicians, which may well make them just about the same.

I still expect Russia to grab more land. I don’t see any justification for that.

This east-west rivalry and those who try to justify it is just paramount stupidity. It most surely can lead to a war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.

A speech to both houses of Parliament, long, detailed and clearly intended for the ears of foreign diplomats.

Putin laid out his legal, moral and idealogical justification for the annexation - all are worrying.

Especially worrying is his reference to God judging the Soviet Government for the transfer of "Russian" lands to Crimea - it implies that the current borders infringe on "natural" boundaries - which further implies that Putin has a Divine Mandate to restore these lands to Russia.

Powerful stuff - and not good news for Ukraine, because he may well be looking to annex the South East next, and unlike a leader in a democracy he doesn't have to do it before the next election. Mind you, annexing Crimea will likely win him that election anyway.

[Brenus]

You know what: I agree with PVC. It is as worrying than the Western Speeches, when they proclaimed their moral Rights and Duties, and all theses Great Principles to go to war and as they did in the past, the right to do whatever they want for the good.
And when 2 blocks are equal certain of their "legal, moral and ideological justification for the annexation"/interventions, that is the path to confrontation.

So, instead to escalate the problem, perhaps it is time for talks, communication to take off. Not sure it will be enough to bring back Crimea in Ukraine but it might help in what left of Russian Ukrainians to wish to join Russia.

[Sarmatian]

You know, the US has no coherent foreign policy. What usually gets offered up to the public is some well meaning idea that is a disaster looking for a place to happen but will make a bundle of money for those who are well placed.

Putin is the current leader of Russia. Bush is no longer in office. So Evil Empires is just so much tripe. Obama will deal with those his handlers tell him to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlfyR4v0rE

I'd disagree with the assessment that US has no coherent foreign policy. That doesn't mean that every single administration holds the exact same view and would approach every single issue from the same point of view, but there have been so many constants in the US foreign policy that it would be foolish to disregard them.

Evil empire actually make an interesting example in that regard. I omitted two countries from that list - Iraq and Libya. Iraqi government was toppled during Bush administration, Libyan under Obama and there was serious danger of Syria becoming another example in that regard.

I'll respond to NATO-Russia relations in my reply to Seamus, because it will tie in nicely to that.

Seamus, I'm sorry, I've read your post but didn't have time to reply, and you've raised some interesting point.

Actually, that is just about exactly what I think happened. Nor is this just the "go to" response of the apologist. I encourage you to read Graham Allison's The Essence of Decision (used it as a focal piece for my dissertation). His treatment of the decision-making process in government during a crisis is scarily enlightening. It becomes clear that far more than rational evaluations come into play and that decisions are made often because of various internal political agendas that have zero to do with the issue at hand.

You have me at a disadvantage now, as I haven't read that piece of work. Remember that I live in a 3rd world country where Amazon doesn't offer deliveries.
I'll try to respond the best I can from what I've been able to gather from the second part of your post. Now, I'd agree that during a crisis irrational evaluations are put forth to decision makers, perhaps even more than rational. During Cuban crisis, I'm sure there was chaos when politicians tried to decide on the best course of action, both in Moscow and in Washington. That was a crisis in the true sense of the word. It happened fast, it got out hand quickly and the stakes were as high as they get. Considering Iraq, there was a year and half between 9/11 and the invasion, so there was ample time to take into account all aspects. What we have seen though, is that most of that time was spent methodically organizing support for an invasion, even though allied intelligence agencies were giving different information.

I feel it is highly unlikely that US intelligence agencies, which may not be the best but certainly are most funded, got that one completely wrong and disregarded information all other intelligence, from Paris to Beijing.

I have little doubt that such factors, in reverse of those applied by the USA, applied to the CCCP's efforts in those instances you cite. Nor do I blame the decisions made as acts of evil. I find the comm0-disctatorship of the Soviets anathema because it stifles the individual so badly and works so inefficiently -- but their foreign policy efforts were actually a bit more consistent than ours and clearly motivated by their sense of self preservation. I have often thought that THAT is why "trust but verify" went over so well with them.

As to the fear factor, the Sov's truly did think that NATO could come after them and possibly destroy them. One NATO member, operating alone under different management, had come perilously close to doing so. Equally, however, the West really did fear that we would not be able to stop a massive Soviet attack short of the use of nuclear weapons -- which were anathema to us for any number of psychological reasons.

I pretty much agree with this assessment. USSR hardly could've pulled an invasion of USA, but European NATO members could have been invaded theoretically. In USA, I believe, there was more fear about domino effect of additional communist revolutions in Europe and elsewhere, which could have left USA isolated on the world stage, and, potentially, even bring one to USA.

That line of thought is perfectly logical up until 1990's, possibly even before. With the dissolution of the CCCP, the threat of a communist invasion was gone. It didn't have the calming effect it should have had. Instead, it brought unprecedented enlargement of NATO and a general increase of US interventionism around the world.

As to the War on Terror, the whole thing is a bit nebulous. Warring on an idea/concept/cause cannot be accomplished solely by military means. The 9-11 attackers very much shattered our illusions that we were fundamentally safe on our relatively peaceful continent -- even though the numbers lost here do not hold a candle to the civilian "collateral" casualties caused in our response. Yet we could not not respond -- a frustrating dilemma. We then tacked on all sorts of other projects -- such as Iraq -- that were AT BEST tangentially related to countering Islamist terrorism. We still haven't achieved the appropriate combination of military, investigative, financial and diplomatic force required.

I feel that the war on terror was a convenient excuse to further other US interest. The public demanded some kind of response. The opportunity was there to do something to which there would have been much more opposition a year or two earlier. There was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, nor did Iraq harbour terrorists. Relationship between Saddam and fundamentalist movements was strenuous at best.

We can argue that Afghanistan was a mess for various reasons, but at least there was a clear link between the government and terrorists. In Iraq, no such connections existed.


Now, to go back on the principal reason why I tend to mention American foreign policy decision in relation to Russian. Indeed, they do not excuse what Russia did in Ukraine, but, at least in my opinion, they're illustrative as an example that what Russia did in Ukraine or Georgia isn't indicative of their desire to dominate the world, or proof that they're led by a megalomaniac, or that they want to grab indiscriminately as much land as they can. It is, from where they're standing, a rational decision which they didn't make easily and likely which they didn't wish for in the first place. It is that the possible alternative, for them, was much worse.

Powerful nations across the globe want influence. Denying them influence comparable to their power is actually detrimental to stability. That is especially true for Europe and Russia. Russia is the elephant in the room that everyone's trying to ignore, hoping that if they ignore it real hard, it will go away. Stability of Europe for the last few centuries was based principally on four nations, Russia, Germany, France and to a slightly lesser degree, UK, as they've had to balance their interests on the continent with their global interests. Anything involving security and stability of Europe that doesn't involve all of them is inherently flawed.

In addition, any conflict, even small scale, between Russia and USA will be felt by us all, especially us Europeans, irregardless of whether we're involved directly. In that sense, I blame USA more than Russia, as Russian actions were a response to US actions. Staple of Russian foreign policy in relation to the west since Gorbachev was "No more NATO on our borders". Why the need to push for more NATO members? Why Ukraine and Georgia? Does it enhance the security of core NATO members that much it is worth doing the one thing Russia made clear will ruin relations? Even against the wishes of local populations? Against the wishes of core NATO members? Even Kissinger said multiple times that Ukraine shouldn't be a NATO member and we would be hard pressed to find a more experienced person when it comes to global politics...

That's why I stand by what I've said earlier - until western, in particular US, politicians are willing to accept that Russia will wield considerable influence comparable to its power, this won't be the last crisis of this type.

[gaelic cowboy]

In addition, any conflict, even small scale, between Russia and USA will be felt by us all, especially us Europeans, irregardless of whether we're involved directly. In that sense, I blame USA more than Russia, as Russian actions were a response to US actions. Staple of Russian foreign policy in relation to the west since Gorbachev was "No more NATO on our borders". Why the need to push for more NATO members? Why Ukraine and Georgia? Does it enhance the security of core NATO members that much it is worth doing the one thing Russia made clear will ruin relations? Even against the wishes of local populations? Against the wishes of core NATO members? Even Kissinger said multiple times that Ukraine shouldn't be a NATO member and we would be hard pressed to find a more experienced person when it comes to global politics...

That's why I stand by what I've said earlier - until western, in particular US, politicians are willing to accept that Russia will wield considerable influence comparable to its power, this won't be the last crisis of this type.

So there not allowed to decide if they want to join themselves?????

[Gilrandir]

Then, when Russia, having signed an agreement with a legitimate Government of Ukraine sees openly hostile forces over-taking power with “kill the Russian” propaganda, and running in the arms of an hostile coalition, which has proved several time to be an offensive weapon used to enforced Western (so anti-Russian) Politic, what the Russians should have thought?

There has never been the kind of propaganda you speak of on Maidan. There were Russians (from Russia) on Maidan, Russian flags were flying above some tents, Russian was heard aplenty there. The population of Kyiv is predominantly Russian-speaking and they helped Maidan in every possible way.
If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.

[Gilrandir]

I am not a fan of the interim government taking them either east or west in their policies. The problem with revelations are that they usually get hijacked.

I am not a fan of such radical moves on the part of an interim government either, but you must understand a difference between an interim government and an interim government at war. The latter can't shut themselves in to the news from outside and keep chanting:"This is not our business, we must hold an election".

[Gilrandir]

A speech to both houses of Parliament, long, detailed and clearly intended for the ears of foreign diplomats.

Putin laid out his legal, moral and idealogical justification for the annexation - all are worrying.

Especially worrying is his reference to God judging the Soviet Government for the transfer of "Russian" lands to Crimea - it implies that the current borders infringe on "natural" boundaries - which further implies that Putin has a Divine Mandate to restore these lands to Russia.

Powerful stuff - and not good news for Ukraine, because he may well be looking to annex the South East next, and unlike a leader in a democracy he doesn't have to do it before the next election. Mind you, annexing Crimea will likely win him that election anyway.

Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939 (of perhaps earlier, in 1938?). The same rhetoric on vicissitudes of ethnic brethren in other countries, call to save them from oppression of any kind and claiming that Danzig is a German city (like Sevastopol is a Russian one).
Unfortunately my computer skills are not that good, so I can't give a link or something like that. Perhaps others will find the speech in question and corroborate or correct what I say.

[Brenus]

“If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.” No. I mean Western Media saying Pro-European against Pro-Russian.

“Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939” Ooops Hitler… That is Western Propaganda I was referring to as well….

[Gilrandir]

“Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939” Ooops Hitler… That is Western Propaganda I was referring to as well….

You mean no similarity whatsoever?

[Sarmatian]

So there not allowed to decide if they want to join themselves?????

Did you not read the post????

Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.

Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?

[Husar]

Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939 (of perhaps earlier, in 1938?).

I can totally see how that immediately discredits someone forever.

Every time someone says it, it has to be true, and it's not like people make these comparisons lightly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Sarmatian:

Here is a decent downloadable précis of Allison's 3 perspectives.

The point of the multiple perspectives is that numerous constraints and "interior" political agenda influence decisions and that those constraints are persistent. Thus it is NOT necessarily true that decisions made over the course of months have had time to "revert" to the rational. There were, almost certainly, elements in the US government who wanted to "finish the job" in Iraq -- Schwarzkopf felt that stopping short of Turkish border in Gulf One was the wrong choice for example -- and that segment was reinforced by the neocons who saw the neutralization of Iraq and Afghanistan as the means to "cloister" the greatest threat in the region, Iran. That made for a whole lot of minds predisposed to see what they wanted to see in the data (and in our case to put our faith in a humint resource who had an axe to grind against Saddam and wanted to seem valuable (and get a better payoff) package after defecting) despite skeptical opinions from numerous NATO allies regarding the quality of the intelligence.


Regarding the Ukraine etc.

Sarmatian is making a good point about the Russian idea of defense. Is it paranoid of them to be so aggressive when defending their interests within Eastern Europe? Probably. On the other hand, as students of history you are all aware of WHY Russia tends to be a bit paranoid about invasions. or strong opponents sharing their borders. Presuming that they will act like "us" is a little silly. This Russian attitude has not always been well addressed in our foreign policy interactions with them.

[rvg]

Sarmatian is making a good point about the Russian idea of defense. Is it paranoid of them to be so aggressive when defending their interests within Eastern Europe? Probably. On the other hand, as students of history you are all aware of WHY Russia tends to be a bit paranoid about invasions. or strong opponents sharing their borders. Presuming that they will act like "us" is a little silly. This Russian attitude has not always been well addressed in our foreign policy interactions with them.

Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

[Montmorency]

But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

The world is only as deep as one can see...

[Gilrandir]

A lot of pictures to disprove what I say

In my post I didn't speak of likening ANYONE to ANYONE. It is too general. I spoke of likening the particular speech of Person 1 to the particular speech of Person 2. I heard some abstracts (translated) which seem to bear out this likening. I was interested if anyone (for Germans it seems easier) could provide it in full so that we all of us could draw our own conclusions.

[Gilrandir]

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case).

According to latest polls the figure of those who wish to join NATO is 75%. In southeast it is 57-45%, in the center - 80%, in the west - more than 90%.

[Sarmatian]

According to latest polls the figure of those who wish to join NATO is 75%. In southeast it is 57-45%, in the center - 80%, in the west - more than 90%.

That's understandable given the situation, but it's a momentary spike. It will drop back to more manageable levels as soon as the crisis is over.
People will naturally assume that NATO membership would have protected them during this crisis, unaware that it was the possible NATO membership that was the prime reason for the crisis itself.

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience. This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries. Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded.

I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.

[Sarmatian]

But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

[rvg]

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience.

It can happen just fine under the right circumstances. Having a totalitarian empire unravel within a span of six years can do wonders for clearing people's heads. Not everybody of course, but most get message.

This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries.

Because Russia has been ruled by tyrants for almost the entire span of its history.

Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded. I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.

Well guess what, it's the Soviet-style thinking that is back now. Not some centuries-long cultural stuff, but good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

[Myth]

Has any one of you drank 3 liters of vodka with a guy named Vladimir Smirnoff and then have him drive you around? No? Then can it and bow down to my ultimate knowledge of Russian culture!

[Brenus]

“You mean no similarity whatsoever?”! And? Hitler probably did beautiful speeches about the love of mothers for their kids, so because Hitler said so, you can’t love you kids, or your country?

“In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned” Yeah, and happened: Kosovo, Missile shield. Poland joined in NATO and all the “coloured” revolutions around Russia. Russia didn’t provide any weapons to the Taliban (might change), swallowed humiliations after humiliations, then, oh! Surprise! This one was one too much.

“But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...” I was an eyewitness in 3 wars and I saw merely nothing, especially in mountains or forests…

“good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.” Agree, and in both sides. See some comments in this thread.

“Only better.” Only to you. Nothing singular, I always think my opinion is better than the others'.

[gaelic cowboy]

Did you not read the post????

Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.

Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?

I read it and was not impressed, essentially your understanding a particular geopolitical reality does not mean it has to be tolerated.
The West tried any amount of resets and accords over the years, its the russians who are poking everyone else in the eye for years.

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Post-soviet thinking about some lock on the future of any states is essentially an acceptance of a kleptocratic norm.

Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

Basically I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin, poke away I say.

[Sarmatian]

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.

I read it and was not impressed.

That's your problem.

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.

Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin.

I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[rvg]

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's your problem.

Actually its the worlds problem now

Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???

The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.

So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.

I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

and I totally oppose your thinking also.

The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

[Sarmatian]

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

Poorly chosen words, perhaps, which conveyed a slightly different message than I wanted. I thought it clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about political decision making. If it wasn't, I made it explicitly clear in the very next post.

If that's not enough, I'll repeat it again - I refer only to political decision making and political and military doctrines. I don't claim any special insight into frame of mind or soul of 150,000,000 Russians. I don't believe one can. I don't know how to say it any clearer than this.

Actually its the worlds problem now

Mine? No. I'm admitting from the start that I'm a euroweenie who doesn't believe in borders at all and am not willing to die for politicians on either side.

Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???

Never said that. Russia isn't more innocent than US/West in that regard and the difference in the level of meddling is explainable by the fact the Russia considers its near abroad to be its own backyard, USA considers the entire world as its own backyard.. It just isn't the evil empire everyone's considering it to be, but like US and some other countries, it is prepared to meddle in other countries to further its own interest.

So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.

Look above.

and I totally oppose your thinking also.

I know you do. I'd love you for it you were using arguments to do so, like Seamus, instead of repeating outdated political slogans. I might even learn something.

The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

That's not imaginary reality. Russia has the muscle to project power in its near abroad.