"Is The U.S. And NATO Pushing For A Russia - Ukraine War?" Topic

"The deep state/NATO combo's using Kiev to start a war to bury Nord Stream 2 and German-Russian relations… Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of war – with dire consequences for the whole of Eurasia.

Let's cut to the chase, and plunge head-on into the fog of war. On March 24, Ukrainian President Zelensky, for all practical purposes, signed a declaration of war against Russia, via decree No. 117/2021.

The decree establishes that retaking Crimea from Russia is now Kiev's official policy. That's exactly what prompted an array of Ukrainian battle tanks to be shipped east on flatbed rail cars, following the saturation of the Ukrainian army by the US with military equipment including unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)…"
Main page

link

Armand

Over time, Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial analysis, including conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric associated with the US radical right, the alt-right, and a pro-Russian bias. (Wikipedia)

It's nice to get Congress involved.

The6 Industrial military complex does like them some wars, someone else's is even better.

Divide et impera…and earn $ on selling weapons

Who is Pepe Escabor? After reading some of his past articles this article becomes more clearer.

Currently the Russian War machine would probably steamroller over any eu/NATO force.

Tally Ho!

Everything is just great.

No worries in country or abroad.

Smile and wave.

Oddball +1

Thanks!.

Armand

An interesting take on events and actions in the region.

I don't agree with the conclusions, but it is fun to read the spin.

Can't blame Ukraine for wanting Crimea back.

I suspect they are really, REALLY sorry they gave up their nukes in exchange for false promises of security.

I am wondering how Ukraine can return Crimea if the overwhelming majority of the Crimean population is against it?
Ukraine has long and consistently deprived Crimea of its autonomy, although when it seceded from the USSR, it guaranteed its preservation to the inhabitants of Crimea.
This does not justify Russia's seizure of Crimea, but how can this problem be solved now?
- Mass genocide of the local population?
- Mass expulsion of residents from their territories of residence? Their ancestors have lived there for several centuries. And they consider themselves Russian.

And why Ukraina must want to return Crimea?
Crimea is on mission to ruin muscovites aggressors. No water there.

On the end of day muscovites have only three options..
1. Return the Crimea. But Ukraina will take their Crimea back only with their own terms, with contributions and reparations. Aggressor must pay for his crime.
2. Deportation of the population to Siberia. To preserve occupied peninsula as military base. For military bases only there are enough water.
3. The full scale war with danger to escalate to WWIII.

pretty sure they'll be another option. I wonder if you were among those people who thought that the bridge will never be built and Crimeans will be crying for Ukraine to take them back.

Do an overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be ruled by Russia?

I suspect that is not assured.

Do an overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be ruled by Russia?

It doesn't matter what the majority of Crimeans want just like it doesn't matter what the majority of Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Palestinians, West Saharans, Acenese etc want.

In any case Crimea is ethnically 68% Russian, 14% Ukrainian and then a host of other ethnicities for remaining 18%. Russian is main language spoken even amongst ethnic Ukrainians.

Note Crimea was part of Russia until 1950s when Khruschev arbitrarily rewrote the then meaningless borders of the USSR.

From an economic perspective, Russia offers more opportunities especially as:

a.) Russia is economically far wealthier with a GDP per capita of $11,585 USD compared to $3,700 USD for Ukraine.

b.) Strategic importance of Crimea to Russia ensures ongoing massive investment in the area. The massive military presence alone justifies massive economic investment.

Finally Ukraine's growing number of fascists/nazis even before Maidan was making life difficult for non-ethnic Ukrainians.

1. Return the Crimea. But Ukraine will take their Crimea back only with their own terms, with contributions and reparations.

I suspect the Russians would prefer to destroy themselves and the world many times over before they did this.

If the Russians lose Crimea, they've lost the Black Sea as they're shunted eastwards a to a mere 420 kilometre coastline. The Black Sea fleet is effectively blockaded by default.

Worst still if Georgia and Ukraine enter NATO, Russia southern flank is completely compromised and the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake (assuming Turkey stays in NATO).

The map below shows why Russia will never allow Ukraine or Georgia to enter NATO. It also shows why they will never part with Crimea unless they're pushed out by force.

I suspect at some point in the future the Russians will attempt to retake over a lot more of the Ukraine. This will occur as the US position in the world erodes due to rising competition with China.

And there's someone else who would probably gladly join them in a crusade to gobble up chunks of Ukraine – NATO member Hungary.

Hungary still reels from the Treaty of Trianon where it was dismembered. There's been growing unrest regarding this and Hungarian leader Orban is subtly and sometimes not so subtly agitating for reinstatement of older borders (this affects Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia as well as Ukraine).

The Hungarians want some Ukrainian provinces back and have even offered ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine Hungarian citizenship

link

"Crimeans will be crying for Ukraine to take them back."

Crimean tartars are proud people and they asked Ukraina to stop supply Crimea with fresh water. Now fascists/nazis muscovites oppressors must supply Crimea with water by himself, as occupants are obliged to do.
____

"If the Russians lose Crimea, they've lost the Black Sea"

Black Sea is isolated lake and muscovites need this lake only for their aggressions against neighbours.
____

"I suspect the Russians would prefer to destroy themselves and the world many times over before they did this. (Return the Crimea)."

Correct. And this means, that Crimea are on mission until your fascists/nazis muscovites will collapse like Soviet Union. No need to free Crimea with force.
_____

As Putin concentrates for this military adventure against Ukraina all forces he have, it refers to collusion with China, like we will take Ukraine, you take Taiwan, then americans will be confused. Like Molotov-Rippentrop pact.

Crimean tartars are proud people and they asked Ukraina to stop supply Crimea with fresh water. Now fascists/nazis muscovites oppressors must supply Crimea with water by himself, as occupants are obliged to do.

Crimean tartars are 13% of the population of Crimea.

And if Russia is pushed, they will simply smash through eastern Ukraine to reinstate the water supply.

The Ukrainian military is small and incompetent and incapable of stopping an actual Russian assault. They barely managed to contain a small Russian contingent in Donbass equipped with obsolete equipment (eg T-64s) and no air support. In fact a single Buk air defence unit shut down the entire Ukrainian airforce which suffered massive losses due to outdated tactics and obsolete technology and complete disregard for electronic warfare.

Black Sea is isolated lake and muscovites need this lake only for their aggressions against neighbours.

Always amazed people on a military forum don't understand the basics of military concepts. Maybe you should view these issues without regressing to old hatred (I note you are Estonian). I am of Croatian extraction and can still view Serbia's actions with a neutral perspective despite a Serb artillery shell hitting my house and a Serb sniper nearly blowing my head off in 1991. You should try doing the same.

1. Black Sea is one of Russia's few year round sea accesses. Losing Black Sea removes key trade and naval access.

2. If Black Sea is totally under NATO control save a 420km strip, Russia has lost that sea access.

3. Russia's primary concern since the country was formed is stopping western invasions of which there have been many (last as recent as 1941). Hence the obsession with buffer zones (strategic depth) that can absorb western invasions (this was primary purpose of Warsaw Pact).

4. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russian defence requirements skyrocket. All of a sudden the southern flank needs massive reinforcement in terms of air and land forces and much more than what is there now.

5. Losing Black Sea reduces Russian strategic depth.

link

Thresher01, are you not sure about the desires of the Crimeans? OK. Check out the research of American professors)))

link

Cuprum2,

Americans cares little for the wishes of Ukrainians or Crimeans just like they care little for the wishes of Kurds who they used as shock troops against Saddam and ISIS and then dumped them like a piece of trash.

Americans cares little for the wishes of Ukrainians or Crimeans

Most Americans couldn't find either on a world map, and they will be told what to think by our highly biased and corrupt main stream media when the time comes.

"Crimean tartars are 13% of the population of Crimea."

And? They are the only Crimeans, other are foreigner occupants and colonists.
____

"1. Black Sea is one of Russia's few year round sea accesses. Losing Black Sea removes key trade and naval access."

And? See your own map, you presented. Muscovites have access to Black Sea even without Crimea. Without the Crimea they are limited in their aggressions only.
____

"2. If Black Sea is totally under NATO control save a 420km strip, Russia has lost that sea access."

Wrong, as described earlier. NATO then will only prevent muscovites aggressions.
Muscovites still have their access to sea for trade.
____

"3. Russia's primary concern since the country was formed is stopping western invasions of which there have been many (last as recent as 1941)."

Muscovites Federation was formed in 1991, as Republic of Ukraina. No western invasions against Muscovites Federation at all since then. Au contraire, as threat from muscovites cancels, as NATO mistakenly thinks, the power of NATO falls.

About 1941. This wasn't western invasion but well-timed counterblow against muscovites invasion. The Germans unknowingly saved Europe, sacrifices himself.
There are almost no invasions against muscovites empire in history, all are reactions to muscovites own invasions.
____

"4. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russian defence requirements skyrocket."

Why? NATO and Ukraina don't threat muscovites. NATO was created to defend the participants from muscovites aggression. You probably wanted to say, that muscovites aggression forces requirements will skyrocket.
_____

"5. Losing Black Sea reduces Russian strategic depth."

This is true. Muscovites cannot threat their neighbours there so easily anymore.
But their strategic depth against the China still the same.

And? They are the only Crimeans, other are foreigner occupants and colonists.

Totally irrelevant. By that definition all Americans are foreign occupiers and colonists.

And? See your own map, you presented. Muscovites have access to Black Sea even without Crimea. Without the Crimea they are limited in their aggressions only.

They have access but that access can be rescinded easily via blockade. Russian trade becomes reliant on the willingness of others. And the Russian navy can't sortie out at all as it would be destroyed by Crimean based forces.

Merely having a port is irrelevant. Having control of sea is critical to maritime trade. Thus has been the case ever since the days of ancient Athens!

Muscovites Federation was formed in 1991, as Republic of Ukraina. No western invasions against Muscovites Federation at all since then.

30 years is not a long time. Russian memory goes back centuries.

And the Russians see NATO expansion as a form of invasion.

In fact NATO has done everything to undermine Russian security:

- Deployment of THAAD in Eastern Europe to undermine Russian nuclear deterrent.

- Expansion of NATO well outside it's geographic scope including planned expansions into Asia via Georgia and Partnership For Peace initiatives going as far as Kyrgyzstan (which borders with China). PfPs are usually used as initial stepping stones to NATO memberships. If countries as far Kyrgyzstan join NATO or become allies, then Russia is surrounded on all 4 sides by NATO (except Chinese border)! The country's defence becomes untenable.

- NATO/US undermining of traditional Russian allies like Syria, Libya and Serbia.

- American led agencies such as IMF trying to destroy Russian economy during Yeltsin era.

Au contraire, as threat from muscovites cancels, as NATO mistakenly thinks, the power of NATO falls.
About 1941. This wasn't western invasion but well-timed counterblow against muscovites invasion. The Germans unknowingly saved Europe, sacrifices himself.

You literally just justified Nazi aggression!

The Soviet military was not being prepared for any invasion of Nazi Germany. It was caught completely unawares by the Germans.

There are almost no invasions against muscovites empire in history, all are reactions to muscovites own invasions.

Totally untrue. If this what you get taught at school then Estonian history education is just pro-fascist propaganda.

"Totally untrue."

Try to prove opposite.
___

"If this what you get taught at school then Estonian history education is just pro-fascist propaganda."

You literally just justified muscovites nazi-fascist aggression! ;-)
Pro-fascist propaganda is in muscovites schools.
And muscovites agents of influence tries this in our russian schools also.
____

"The Soviet military was not being prepared for any invasion of Nazi Germany."

True. Soviet military feverishly prepared for invasion to Germany and was absolutely not ready for any defence. So Germans succeeded to destroy 6-7 times larger forces than them by surprise. There was not any muscovites defense plans at all.
____

"You literally just justified Nazi aggression!"

Prove this! You can go against historical facts? Germany and muscovites started the WWII together, as allies. Both invaded to Poland. Nazi and InterNazi friends. Their inevitable armed clash just occurred two weeks before soviets planned to start their own aggression.

I still maintain that the ultimate goal of both the USA and NATO (but not Europe) is the complete destruction of Russia as an entity.

It seems that since 1950s ideas of the Morgenthau Plan has been transplanted from Germany to Russia. Morgenthau Plan promoted destruction of Germany and turning it into a disarmed agrarian state with no industrial capabilities.

I would argue NATO/US goals are the same for Russia. Indeed the IMF emphasised deindustrialisation for Russia, not reform/renewal of industry. They called this shock therapy and it's still the primary IMF tool of choice.

The IMF and American economists involved with Russia's reform also promoted policies that impoverished Russians and transferred huge amount of wealth to a handful of Russian oligarchs.

In essence the American/NATO goal for post Soviet Russia was not a vibrant upper class democracy but rather an impoverished semi-feudal country controlled by a handful of extremely wealthy people with close economic ties to the west.

It backfired of course because the Russians are a proud people and could see the path they were on.

If there was no Putin, America's plans would have been accomplished and today Russia would be a completely impoverished economic wasteland (much like most of ex-Yugoslavia today).

The Americans would still rant and rave against Russia just like they rant and rave against Iran or North Korea and even occasionally Cuba. It's handy to pick on those small inconsequential players and ignore the Chinese elephant in the room.

As for evidence as to this outlandish theory – Russian GDP and investment in 1990s which saw the biggest peacetime fall in economic output in human history. This was all done under instructions from the IMF – the desperate Russians simply implemented everything the IMF told them to in order to get loans. The losses in GDP and production were worse than that in WW2.

Note there's no real improvement – the downward trend somewhat flatten but never stops. Now extrapolate that for next 20-ish years to 2021 and you're left with pretty much nothing.

The IMF openly promoted Russia becoming an exporter of oil and gas and agricultural products which basically means Russia was expected to become an impoverished third world country ala Nigeria or Democratic Republic of Congo.

Thus the US goading Russia and Ukraine into a hopefully long and costly war makes complete sense from this perspective.

arealdeadone, do not waste your time)))
Sho Boki is a well-known Russophobe and a Nazi lover on Russian wargamer resources. He's just to disregard any of your arguments)))
But he makes wonderful figurines, and for this he thanks a lot)))

And you are right – it was these actions that discredited liberal and democratic Western ideas in Russia. The actions of the West were perceived by the majority of the Russian population precisely as a desire to destroy Russian sovereignty and statehood. And it was these actions of the West that ensured support for Putin and his policies by the overwhelming majority of the population.

"Sho Boki is a well-known Russophobe and a Nazi lover on Russian wargamer resources."

How it is possible to be russophobe and a nazi lover at the same time???

Great article on Russia-US relations from the US Carnegie Endowment of Peace think tank.

Of particular note is this piece which basically states that the US sees its role in Russia as regime change.

link

a refusal to accept Russia for what it is, as evidenced by repeated initiatives to reform and remake its political system, despite the Kremlin's rejection of democracy promotion in and around Russia as a threat to Russian domestic stability;

Little wonder the Russians might be trying to influence American elections!

---

Note again the article highlights American pushes to "modernise and reform" the Russian economy. Again the highlights the American long term goal of destroying Russia as an independent sovereign state with its own self sufficient industrial sector.

Even the article condemns Russia for not playing the American game:

Moscow bears the lion's share of responsibility for the problems in its relationship with Washington; its failure to become integrated into transatlantic security and economic structures has been at the root of many of these disputes.

So it can be seen American elites wish to destroy Russia and even those American elites that might see a problem with the American approach view Russia as being at fault for not behaving like a vassal state.

How it is possible to be russophobe and a nazi lover at the same time???

Russophobe = fear of Russia.

It's not a mutually exclusive proposition. Russia certainly isn't a pro-Nazi country.

In fact in the Ukraine, Russian nazis have joined Ukrainian Nazi units to fight the Russians in Ukraine.

If Black Sea is totally under NATO control save a 420km strip, Russia has lost that sea access.

NATO already control the exit of this sea, so what's the difference?

"Russia certainly isn't a pro-Nazi country."

Moscovia definitely have corrupted and aggressive fully Fascist regime with Nazi elements. This is fact.
____

"In fact in the Ukraine, Russian nazis have joined Ukrainian Nazi units to fight the Russians in Ukraine."

Actually Russian nazis have joined with Dombastan and Lugandonsk fascist collaborants and fight against democratic Ukrainian people. In first ranks of free Ukrainian people, fighting against muscovites fascist, terrorists and aggressors, are many local Russians.
____

Btw.. arealdeadone, can you back your words and tell us some sample, when, by your words, my statement "There are almost no invasions against muscovites empire in history, all are reactions to muscovites own invasions" was "Totally untrue".
____

greatpatton: "NATO already control the exit of this sea, so what's the difference?"

I say the same. Unfortunately arealdeadone answer: "Always amazed people on a military forum don't understand the basics of military concepts."
So we don't understand nothing. ;-)

NATO already control the exit of this sea, so what's the difference?

The difference is you can place cruise missile launching destroyers far closer to Russia if you have Crimea than if you don't.

Crimea is key to controlling the sea itself. It's strategically located in such a manner that you can exert control over the whole Black Sea.

The Black Sea fleet is dominant in Black Sea because it controls Crimea. Without Crimea it's essentially confined to a small coast line that's easily controlled.

It's the same reason the Chinese wish to control the SC Sea and why the USN controls as much of the world's seas as it can.

And NATO doesn't control the exit. Dardanelles and Bosporous Straits are governed by 1936 Montreux Convention which limits types of naval assets that can transit through them.

US just deployed 2 destroyers to the Black Sea and that is the most it can deploy given tonnage restrictions. US cannot deploy aircraft carriers or submarines to the area (Germans had to deploy submarines via land routes in WWII).

Basically the convention is designed to keep the balance of power within Black Sea states (ie Turkey and Russia).

And even during Cold War days Turkey strictly adhered to the treaty because it realised American carrier groups in the Black Sea also reduced Turkish power.

And Montreux Treaty allows Russia to sortie out to Mediterranean as it has done.

If Crimea is in enemy hands, then the ships can't even get to the Turkish straits.

Actually Russian nazis have joined with Dombastan and Lugandonsk fascist collaborants and fight against democratic Ukrainian people. In first ranks of free Ukrainian people, fighting against muscovites fascist, terrorists and aggressors, are many local Russians.

Your freedom loving people include openly Nazi Ukrainian units such as Azov battalion.

Russian neonazis don't like Putin – he's seen as too soft on immigration and other issue. Some numbers have relocated to Ukraine and have become anti-Russian fighters.

link

]Btw.. arealdeadone, can you back your words and tell us some sample, when, by your words, my statement "There are almost no invasions against muscovites empire in history, all are reactions to muscovites own invasions" was "Totally untrue"

1223-1236 – Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus

1571 – Ottoman invasion of Russia that destroyed Moscow

1605 – 1618 – Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth invades Russia, trying to exploit Russian internal instability to get land gains

1610 – 1617 – Sweden also invades Russia and to put a Swede on the Russian throne.

1707 – Swedish invasion of Russia (though this part of the Great Northern War where an alliance led by Russia tried to curb Swedish expansionism).

1812 – Napoleon invades Russia because he wants Russia to stop trading with British and Russia allied with Sweden.

1853-56 – Crimean War. France and Britain joins Ottoman Empire with goal of weakening Russia to maintain Ottoman power (Ottoman goals were conquest of land).

1918-20 – Western forces intervene to stop Bolshevik revolution.

1941 – Germany invades USSR for Lebensraum.

Should be note Japan had designs on Siberia for a long time but didn't have the capability to really solidify any gains.

Still Japanese attacks on Russia included:

1904-05 – Russo-Japanese War (aggression started by Japan)
1919-25 – Japanese intervention in Russia/USSR
1939 – Japanese attack at Khalkin Gol

Japanese also planned to attack USSR in 1941 (Kantokuen) but this was scrapped in favour of SE Asian assault and increased resource requirements in China.

Finally there is some evidence US supported Chechens against the Russians at least diplomatically (ironic then that Chechen islamists have killed or maimed so many Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq since).

Given the US still views that it has a right to interfere in Russia politics and to influence Russian economic policy it's clear why Russia is aggressive and fearful of the west.

You might want to actually read about history instead of just coming here and promoting fascism and racial hatred (you're constant referral to Russians as muscovites as some sort of insult).

Good! Finally some samples of your history "knowing". :-)
So here are your samples of western invasions against muscovites empire.

"1223-1236 – Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus"
Eastern invasion against Rus (Ukraina), nothing to do with muscovites.
Actually muscovites starts as ulus of mongolo-tartars. Tartars give muscovites even religion and church. Muscovites were then Tartar tax collectors and oppressors over Rus. There was no Russian Empire yet.

"1571 – Ottoman invasion of Russia that destroyed Moscow"
Ottoman? Crimean Tartars and Ukrainians stopped muscovites aggression for while and punished their disobedient holopps. Muscovites, as vassals, pay tributes to Crimean Tartars until 18th Century starts. There was no Russian Empire yet.

"1605 – 1618 – Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth invades Russia, trying to exploit Russian internal instability to get land gains"
Rus (Belarus) was part of this Commonwealth and they tried to stop muscovites to grab Rus land and cities like Smolensk. There was no Russian Empire yet.

"1610 – 1617 – Sweden also invades Russia."
Russo-Sweden army broke the rebel siege of Moscow. Sweden are the founders of Rus and after tartars period also muscovian "kingmakers" until Charles XXII and Peter I. There was no Russian Empire yet.

"1707 – Swedish invasion of Russia (though this part of the Great Northern War where an alliance led by Russia tried to curb Swedish expansionism)."
Sweden stopped muscovites previous aggressive incursion near Narva and then helped Ukrainians. No invasions toward Moscow. There was no Russian Empire yet.
____

1721, 300 years ago, there was proclamation about a creation of Russian Empire and Russians. This was German project and Russians were mostly Germans and other outlanders. In 1666 one Croat created artificial Russian language and a century later the First of Russians, the German ruler of Russian Empire, Catherine the Great, ordered one of her scientists, Lomonossov, to go Ukrainian University and transfer this artificial language to official Russian state language in cyrillic alphabet. Lomonossov did it. A century later this mission of russification was completed and majority of Empires habitants speaks in this artificial language, more or less. In 1863 German-Danish Ukrainian born linguist Dahl created the first dictionary for this artificial language.

After Lenin's coup d'etat in 1917 all Russians (outlanders) were driven away.
So in beginning of 1930-s Stalin renamed all previous russified serfs, velikorosses, to Russians. So there are two antagonistic groups with no match, true Russians (outlanders) and new Russians (mankurts from many local nations). And this process continues, new mankurts are named now not as velikorosses but as rossiantsy. This is like creation of zombi and are very Nazi.
Therefore the using term "muscovites" is not insult at all, as you suggest, but correct term to avoid misunderstanding.

So now (1721) we arrived to Russian era. Let see, what do you suggest to be as pure western invasions without any cause.
____

"1812 – Napoleon invades Russia because he wants Russia to stop trading with British and Russia allied with Sweden."
Not at all. Russia invaded against France more than decade and after being destroyed in many battles, Russia was forced to sign a peace in Tilsit. But as we know, "The agreements signed by Russia aren't worth the price of the sheet of paper they are written on".
With ruining all Russian economy, the Czar Alexander I builded up a new army, more than million men, and declared war to Napoleon.
But as Duke Wellington and other capable European military leaders denied to lead this new Russian army (become Russians), then planned aggression in 1811 was cancelled. And in 1812 there was Napoleon himself against them, trying to force Russia to peace. But Alexander don't wanted the peace, he even hid from his courtiers all Napoleons proposals for peace.
So no unprovoked western invasions.
_____

"1853-56 – Crimean War. France and Britain joins Ottoman Empire"
Yes, Russia tried to grab land and conquer Istambul. Aggressor was stopped.
No unprovoked western invasions.
_____

"1918-19 – Western forces intervene to stop Bolshevik revolution."
Good thing to do. They supported Russians. But Russians lost and leaved Russia.
So it was not invasion against Russian or Russia, but absolute opposite.
______

"1941 – Germany invades USSR for Lebensraum."
1939 USSR invades Poland together with Germany.
Then USSR invades Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lietuva, Moldova.. continuing to support Nazis in their war in West with ammo and other supplies.
1941 USSR concentrated huge invasion army against Germany and demand lands from Germany. So this clash was just logical sequel after USSR previous invasions.

Next samples, please!

Wow some great historical revisionism there and lots of ignoring of facts and distorting of facts.

Tartars give muscovites even religion and church

Seriously? You realise there were attempts to bring Christianity into Russia well before Tartars. Indeed the first Russian Christian ruler was Olga of Kiev in late 9th and early 10th centuiries.

It was the Byzantines that introduced Christianity to Russia!

Eg 1571 – yes Crimean Tartars were there. They had massive support from Ottomans including 30,000 troops and artillery! The Crimeans and Russians were engaged in a long series of raids and skirmishes before this.

Eg 1812 – You are going against commonly accepted history. I guess this is the Lithuanian School of Historical Revisionism in play against

E.g 1853-56 – western support was there simply to keep the Ottomans in power. Note the west in the 19th century also supported wars against Ottomans to keep them in a state of decay too (Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878 and subsequent Treaty of Berlin))

Eg. 1918-20 – militarily intervening in another countries affairs to influence their politics is generally not regarded a good thing (I guess you think invasion of Iraq and destruction of Libya were good things too).

By the way it is recognised by historians that the western intervention in Russia in 1918-20 is the one event that permanently poisoned Russians against the west.

E.g. 1941 – What lands did USSR demand from Germany in 1941? Of course large chunk of Russian army was located on the western border – most USSR's key cities and industries were in the west. Ever hear of St Petersburg/Leningrad.

What next – accusing the Russians of aggression for actually defending themselves against the Nazis in 1941-45? Accusing Putin of aggression for rebuilding the Russian military?!?

I seriously think you're a fascist who hates Russians.

In any case it doesn't really matter – the Russians distrust the west for all these reasons as well as the "betrayals" of the 1990s (NATO expansion, Kosovo War, missile defence) and IMF led deliberate destruction of the Russian economy And since 2000 western actions have done nothing to help the Russians regain trust – more NATO expansion, more missile defence systems designed to undermine Russian nuclear deterrent (deployed in Romania) and NATO/US interventions in Libya (which violated UN resolution) and Syria.

Yes poor Russia . They are so misunderstood and put upon by the West. Talk to their neighbors and look into the Russian aggression against them over the last 300 years. All of Eastern Europe has had to live with being in between two great powers.

Yes the US, UK and Japanese forces that landed in Russia in 1918 to support the White Russians vs the Reds. So yes the US did invade Russia too.

NavyVet, I never said poor Russia, merely that Russia has good reason to distrust the west and in particular the Americans.

Russia has done plenty of horrid things to its neighbours ala invasion of Baltics in 1939 or Finland in 1939 and 1944 or the Turkish-Russian War.

(But then so have the Americans).

All of Eastern Europe has had to live with being in between two great powers.

Actually 4 powers – Prussia (Germany), Austria-Hungary, Russia and Ottomans. And then occasionally the French and Italians and then Americans (primarily in Russia).

And before that it was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Swedes in the north as well and Venice in the south.

History is complicated…

…but the Russians are well within their rights to distrust the Americans whose goal since 1919 (when they first deployed troops to Russia in what Chief of Staff Peyton C. March, called "a military crime" – back when US generals spoke more freely) has been to subjugate the country and replace its regime with one that is subservient to the US.

And as I previously mentioned this was nearly achieved in the 1990s before the Russians resisted under Putin.

"Wow some great historical revisionism there and lots of ignoring of facts and distorting of facts.
I guess this is the Lithuanian School of Historical Revisionism in play against.
I seriously think you're a fascist who hates Russians."

You cannot argue with facts and call facts "historical revisionism"?
You finished Moscow Lumumba School?
I don't hate Russians, au contraire, I am proud about our Russians like Adam Johann von Krusenstern, Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly and others. But I don't like the corrupted Fascist regime of muscowites. You, in other hand, seemingly like this Fascist regime and hate all his victims. This make you to be fascist. Or communist, like our Cuprum2 here, as you said that you are the leftist. Which is the same.
_____

"You realise there were attempts to bring Christianity into Russia well before Tartars.
It was the Byzantines that introduced Christianity to Russia!"

Learn history. Tartars were conquered and occupied by muscovites long time before Russia occurs. Also there were no Byzantines anymore then.
Byzantines introduced Christianity to Kievan Rus, this is Ukrainian history and muscovites are not part of it. Tartars even were not founded the city of Moscow yet. Before that there was only a small village of colonists in our Finno-Ugric lands, near our Moscow river. Btw.. Moscow, really Moskva, is even not Russian word, in our language this mean Dirty Water.

Muscovites got their separate ortodox church from Tartars, who appointed this church hierarhy and key persons.
_____

"Eg 1812 – You are going against commonly accepted history."

This means only, that I learn history, but you just repeat the historical revisionism from your muscovites Lumumba school.
_____

"E.g 1853-56 – western support was there simply to keep the Ottomans in power."

Correct. To stop Russian aggression and land grabing.
_____

"Eg. 1918-20 – militarily intervening in another countries affairs to influence their politics is generally not regarded a good thing"

Agree. This is why normal people are not happy with current muscovites agressions against all neighbours, Ichkeria, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraina, Syria etc.
_____

"By the way it is recognised by historians that the western intervention in Russia in 1918-20 is the one event that permanently poisoned Russians against the west."

Not real Russians but velikorosse Russians. West helped both sides. Allies helped Russians and Germany-Austria-Hungary war prisoners (together with Chinese) formed the core of Red Army. Until they all go back to their homeland.
______

"E.g. 1941 – What lands did USSR demand from Germany in 1941?"

Learn more about Molotov visit to Germany in November 1940.
______

"What next – accusing the Russians of aggression for actually defending themselves against the Nazis in 1941-45?"

Muscovites defended himself against the Nazis as allies and friends of Nazis with aggressions against Poles, Belarus, Ukrainians, Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Litovians, Moldovans?
_______

"In any case it doesn't really matter – the Russians distrust the west for all these reasons"

But as you said (according to victims of muscovites) – "Totally irrelevant" what muscovites do, distrust or not. Nobody trust them anymore, Fascist regime cannot be trusted. Putler must be stopped.

Are you aware that muscovia are fully compliant with 14 Common Features of Fascism by Umberto Ecco?

"And as I previously mentioned this was nearly achieved in the 1990s before the Russians resisted under Putin."

Actually all was on the contrary.
After muscovites ruined the USSR economy and all feeder republics left from Mordor, it turned out, that Federation can't exist by himself without feeders. But with Americans help the Federation's economy slowly developed, until KGB put Putin to rule. So all the flowers of American help Putin grab to himself and turned the land to way of Fascism. WWIII became inevitable.

So Russians started converting to Christianity via Byzantine missionaries or conquests of Russian towns and you think it was the Tartars?!?

As for it not being Russian or Ukrainian history, it's the history of both. Things were more fluid in the past and borders of countries changed (indeed most modern Poland is the old Prussia which was destroyed in 1945 and repopulated with Poles whilst Poland lost chunks of old Poland).

Indeed Armenia has something like 15 historical capital cities depending on who was ruling and the borders at the time.

After muscovites ruined the USSR economy and all feeder republics left from Mordor, it turned out, that Federation can't exist by himself without feeders.

This much is true. The same can be said of any large industrial country. Even the EU acts as a captive market for Germany whilst artificially lowering cost of German goods via the Euro.

But with Americans help the Federation's economy slowly developed, until KGB put Putin to rule. So all the flowers of American help Putin grab to himself and turned the land to way of Fascism. WWIII became inevitable.

Not true. I've already posted about the IMF's plan for Russia to become a deindustrialised exporter of agricultural and natural resources.

The IMF openly promoted terrible privatisation schemes that saw huge amounts of wealth transferred to private sector oligarchs for virtually free.

The IMF knew the loans it was providing to the Russians was being siphoned off by oligarchs and corrupt officials and went along with it because it destroyed Russian industrial capacity. As they say today "it wasn't a flaw in the system, it was an inbuilt feature".

There was never any plans to restore the Russian economy and the IMF led plan collapsed completely by 1998 when the Russian economy imploded.

Indeed the capital flight out of Russia was a direct result of the IMF's shock therapy liberalisation.

Similar IMF "solutions" were applied in Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea etc and recently Greece. (South Korea is one of the few that resisted the IMF poison).

All of these "bailouts" promote deindustrialisation, impoverishment of the people, and "opening" up of economies to western companies and in particular banking and financial sectors.

They're even trying to do it with Ukraine except Ukraine can't afford it:

link

The IMF even admits these policies don't actually work but still persist with them. Why? Because they promote the interests of western financial markets and large multinationals.

link

Not real Russians but velikorosse Russians. West helped both sides. Allies helped Russians and Germany-Austria-Hungary war prisoners (together with Chinese) formed the core of Red Army. Until they all go back to their homeland.

Red Army was mainly composed of peasants who had served with the Tzar's armies.

Indeed the largest group of foreign "mercenaries" fighting for anyone was the Czechoslovak Legion which fought for the Whites (Tsarists) until they got a few hidings and then negotiated to be evacuated out of Russia via Vladivostok.

West did not help both sides – all troops were deployed in support of Tsarist forces.

Learn more about Molotov visit to Germany in November 1940.

That was a friendly visit by all counts despite the lack of resolution. The two countries were literally negotiating a carve up of Europe and middle east (after their successful carve up of Poland).

Molotov did not demand German territories but rather Finland, chunks of Romania, Bulgaria and bits of middle east!

Hitler himself violated the Treaty with Russians by annexing a chunk of Romania.

-----

As for your "Russians" who you respect:

Adam Johann von Krusenstern – a Baltic German.

Barclay de Tolly – another Baltic German of Scottish descent!

So you like Russians who are not Russian but rather German. I wonder if you then regard Hitler's Wehrmacht as rightful Russians!

As for communism, no I am not a communist. I am a western style social democrat albeit of the more old school of economics (before social democrats sold out and became neoliberals).

I strongly suggest to close this thread before most of participants are going to DH.
All of us know, that you can never convince an adept of opposite opinion with all the facts in the world, because this adept convinced himself that his opinion is right, and everything you throw on him is just a test of his beliefs (and it is especially true for the internet discussions).

Yep .. another case of East meets West and everything goes to … again …

"So Russians started converting to Christianity via Byzantine missionaries or conquests of Russian towns and you think it was the Tartars?!?"

No.
Tartars give state church and equivalent of Pope to already baptized muscovites, not Russians. Also Byzantines baptized Rus, not Russians who appeared on map eight centuries later. Rus and Russians are different things like bus and business.
____

"As for it not being Russian or Ukrainian history, it's the history of both."

You must be historically correct here. Russian history starts with Russians at 1721.
There was no Russians before this, only old enemies – Rus and muscovites.
____

"Indeed the largest group of foreign "mercenaries" fighting for anyone was the Czechoslovak Legion which fought for the Whites (Tsarists)"

Correct. These were the only "German" war prisoners who fight for the Russians against Red Army and not as Red Army against Russians.
_____

"As for your "Russians" who you respect:
Adam Johann von Krusenstern – a Baltic German.
Barclay de Tolly – another Baltic German of Scottish descent!
So you like Russians who are not Russian but rather German."

Correct. Russians then were more like Americans now, they preserved their root and nationality, becoming a part of new artificial Russian nation with new artificial Russian language. So mostly Russians were Germans, yes, but all other foreigners were present also.
Word "Russian" in Russian language means not nationality but affiliation and ownership, belonging to group.
All this changed after 1917, when Russians disappeared and their name were hijacked by velikorosses. These were russifized former Russian slaves without roots, memory and nationality.
_____

"I wonder if you then regard Hitler's Wehrmacht as rightful Russians!"

Not at all. Wehrmacht wasn't under the authority of Russian Emperor.
Also there were new Russians then, soviet, former velikoross. Two millions of them changed the side and fight in Wehrmacht against Stalin regime.

If I had to pick one world leader who I thought governed with common sense, grounded and stable; not afraid to speak extemporaneously and relaxed taking questions from journalists of any nationality, and who was dedicated to his nation without showing any fake emotional hyperbole, that someone wouldn't be anyone from the West, but a real leader whose last name begins with the letter "P".

Legion 4, you missed the point.
This is not about East and West. We are talking about "right" and "wrong" Russians))) There are right Russians (they are Ukrainians and Belarusians) who oppose eternal evil from the East.
And there is an eternal evil from the East – the wrong Russians (Muscovites are a mixture of half-Mongolian Horde and various rabble who fled from all over Europe).
This is a well-known story to all: wild hordes from the East, degenerates and savages. Subhumans – Untermensch))) They cannot be changed – they can only be destroyed))) And free up living space for civilized peoples.

Well as we know "right vs. wrong" is in the eyes of the beholder. But I was talking more about the guys from NATO and some allied nations opinions vs. those from the "East"…

This is a well-known story to all: wild hordes from the East, degenerates and savages. Subhumans – Untermensch

And this is the exact attitude displayed by our Lithuanian friend with his love of German "Russians," hatred of "muscovites" (Slavs) and his opinion that Hitler's Germany gallantly and altruistically attacked USSR to defend western civilisation from evil Communist "muscovites".

It's nazism 101.

Unfortunately much like nazism is on the rise in Ukraine, it has also been on the rise in Baltic states like Lithuania, Poland and other eastern European states. This is both anti-Russian but also anti-semitic and based on white supremacist ideals.

Eg in Lithuania and Lativa there are regular parades of SS Veterans and their supporters to mark these countries independence.

link

link

Let's not forget Baltic state members of German auxiliaries and SS committed untold atrocities including active participation in the Holocaust so putting these men up as heroes is morally disgusting.

"There are right Russians (they are Ukrainians and Belarusians)"

No need to insult Ukrainians an Belarus to be Russians.
____

"Hitler's Germany gallantly and altruistically attacked USSR to defend western civilisation"

No. In retrospect it just turned out to be so. There was no altruism from Hitler.
If he hadn't done so, then German troops weren't stood near Moscow in the end of year but muscovites troops stand in Paris and all Europe would have fallen into slavery and covered by concentration death camps.
_____

"Unfortunately much like nazism is on the rise in Ukraine, it has also been on the rise in Baltic states like Lithuania, Poland and other eastern European states. This is both anti-Russian but also anti-semitic and based on white supremacist ideals."

Fascism and Nazism is even not in rise but already rules in muscovy. In neighbour states are not nazism but healthy nationalism, which is necessary to stand up against muscovites Nazi aggression which spreads up anti-semitic and supremacist ideals of muscovites Fascism. Jews stand together with local nations against anti-semitic nazism from muscovy.
_____

"in Lithuania and Lativa there are regular parades of SS Veterans and their supporters to mark these countries independence."

And? These men defended their countries against muscovites aggressors. And they had no other options to do that than together with Germans. Evil approached their homes.
_____

"putting these men up as heroes is morally disgusting."

There are even more morally disgusting things.
For example children and women in muscovites SS uniforms celebrating the conquering and occupation of Estonia by muscovites. Nowadays in Estonia!

Earlier they rioted and destroyed and robbed shops, when they were forbidden by our "untermensch" to celebrate their muscovite fascism in centre of our capital.

Now they gather in cemetery and wave there their forbidden nazi-fascist-communist symbolics.

Also I want to ask important question about arealdeadone's statement:

"They have access but that access can be rescinded easily via blockade. Russian trade becomes reliant on the willingness of others. And the Russian navy can't sortie out at all as it would be destroyed by Crimean based forces.
Merely having a port is irrelevant. Having control of sea is critical to maritime trade. Thus has been the case ever since the days of ancient Athens!"

How Ukraina then may "have access and sortie out at all as it would be destroyed by Crimean based forces", when muscovites occupied their Crimea???

And? These men defended their countries against muscovites aggressors. And they had no other options to do that than together with Germans. Evil approached their homes.

Again you defend Nazis and some of the worst ones around (SS, auxiliary police and einsatz units). Your Lithuanian compatriots in the Auxiliary Police Battalions murdered nearly 100,000 Jews. Is this what defending your home means to you?!?

Gathering Jews and shooting them or helping to deport them to concentration camps is not defending your home.

And those uniforms aren't SS, they are Red Army. Plus that is a memorial at a cemetery for dead Soviet soldiers who died fighting the Nazis.

Not sure what bunch of thugs looting a booze shop has.

You're one strange little fascist.

How Ukraina then may "have access and sortie out at all as it would be destroyed by Crimean based forces", when muscovites occupied their Crimea???

If Ukraine joins NATO and regains Crimea, then the US et al can base as many aircraft and long range anti-ship missiles (neither covered by Montreux Convention) in Crimea.