quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I don't have the same the feeling.

The fact is, the US have very little to do with what's happening in the Ukraine --- and it's role is a fantasy of Russia's political propaganda. When I studied Russian and visited the country six times between 1985 - 1994, few Russians believed the cooked up news in their own papers and TV. The difference now is, the propaganda is much more audience / sensational / entertainment based than before, that it does stir up the nut-job faction of the country much like Fox News does here.

Back to the question, the whole point of NUKES is not to use them but to maintain the threat and fear of their use. So, since their development, there has not been anything approximating a world war since.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

We're already in WWIII, and have been since the first failed bombing of the WTC. my prediction is it will remain non nuclear unless Iran or one of these psycho groups like ISIS gets ahold of a Paki or Indian nuke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

It matters enormously for NATO and European security how Ukraine is lost. Ill just add, I'm not talking about the Crimea but about the eastern borders of the Ukraine. If the west allows Putin to take the eastern borders it will sharply diminish the security of Europe and of the West collectively. Its Obama who is studying the option of supplying lethal defensive arms to Ukraine if this recent cease fire fails.
What Russia is doing right now is testing the willpower of NATO itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

It matters enormously for NATO and European security how Ukraine is lost. Ill just add, I'm not talking about the Crimea but about the eastern borders of the Ukraine. If the west allows Putin to take the eastern borders it will sharply diminish the security of Europe and of the West collectively. Its Obama who is studying the option of supplying lethal defensive arms to Ukraine if this recent cease fire fails.
What Russia is doing right now is testing the willpower of NATO itself.

Why is the Ukraine any more consequential now than it was during the days of the USSR, the Eastern Block, and the Warsaw Pact? I don't like what Putin is doing, but I see little rationale for going to war over a non-NATO territory squarely in Russia's sphere of influence. Countries that promote instability and who are stupidly aggressive usually pay the price themselves.

To with: The USA in Vietnam, IRAQ, and Afghanistan. The USSR suffered in Afghanistan and pre-Soveit Russia suffered a disastrous war in the Crimea.

So, I'm trying to take the long view here -- that although it looks like the West is "threatened" and Putin is "winning," --- Russia will just lose out in the end by absorbing a complicated, expensive problem on its border that will fester for years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Having diplomatic relations is one thing --- being the spearhead behind a populist movement in the Ukraine is another. The Ukrainians themselves deposed the President and started the Maiden movement to clean up corruption and join the EU. Neither the CIA, special ops, or anything of the kind got that rolling. There was no US coup in the Ukraine, no "special advisors," or proxies or arms shipments, etc.

Russia says that's the case because it wants to discredit all anti-Russian, populist movements that oppose kleptocracy, crooked dictatorshsip, and oligarchy.

The Ukraine cannot be compared to: Chile, Guatamala, El Salvador, IRAN, IRAQ, Afghanistan, the Philipines, Nicaragua, et. al. wherein the US exerted a twisted, heavy handed influence on domestic affairs in a foreign country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

It matters enormously for NATO and European security how Ukraine is lost. Ill just add, I'm not talking about the Crimea but about the eastern borders of the Ukraine. If the west allows Putin to take the eastern borders it will sharply diminish the security of Europe and of the West collectively. Its Obama who is studying the option of supplying lethal defensive arms to Ukraine if this recent cease fire fails.
What Russia is doing right now is testing the willpower of NATO itself.

Why is the Ukraine any more consequential now than it was during the days of the USSR, the Eastern Block, and the Warsaw Pact? I don't like what Putin is doing, but I see little rationale for going to war over a non-NATO territory squarely in Russia's sphere of influence. Countries that promote instability and who are stupidly aggressive usually pay the price themselves.

To with: The USA in Vietnam, IRAQ, and Afghanistan. The USSR suffered in Afghanistan and pre-Soveit Russia suffered a disastrous war in the Crimea.

So, I'm trying to take the long view here -- that although it looks like the West is "threatened" and Putin is "winning," --- Russia will just lose out in the end by absorbing a complicated, expensive problem on its border that will fester for years.

You have an incorrect perception of the political status of the Ukraine. It was and in fact still is politically none aligned. In simple terms “neutral” the same as Switzerland. Would you be saying the same if Russia invaded Switzerland ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


You have an incorrect perception of the political status of the Ukraine. It was and in fact still is politically none aligned. In simple terms “neutral” the same as Switzerland. Would you be saying the same if Russia invaded Switzerland ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

On this one, Kirata is correct and I disagree with you here. The bottom line is that the US alone has spent more than $5 billion...that's Billion on Ukraine. Where does that kind of money go ? It goes to aiding Ukraine separate from Russia (USSR) and its corruption in every way. It is not all 'clean' money.

The bottom line in fixing this is easy but tough for the western banking cartel. ALL that needs to be done is cut off ALL western banking transactions from Russia through the BIS. (Bank of International settlements...Luxembourg) This bank serves 60 central banks and would cut Russia off at the knees financially.

The problem of course as usual the the greed of the western bankers. They will likely come billionaire-hat-in-hand to sanctioning govts. for a subsidy to replace the fees they charge. Banking boycotts...cost money kinkroids. That's what has brought Iran to the table. The sanctions lifted for their agreeing to negotiate was $700 million a month out of $2 billion a month in oil money...allowed in.

Then if need be...stop buying Russian oil.

THE BANKERS Rule the world kinkroids and rule ALL international banking transactions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

On this one, Kirata is correct and I disagree with you here. The bottom line is that the US alone has spent more than $5 billion...that's Billion on Ukraine. Where does that kind of money go ? It goes to aiding Ukraine separate from Russia (USSR) and its corruption in every way. It is not all 'clean' money.

The bottom line in fixing this is easy but tough for the western banking cartel. ALL that needs to be done is cut off ALL western banking transactions from Russia through the BIS. (Bank of International settlements...Luxembourg) This bank serves 60 central banks and would cut Russia off at the knees financially.

The problem of course as usual the the greed of the western bankers. They will likely come billionaire-hat-in-hand to sanctioning govts. for a subsidy to replace the fees they charge. Banking boycotts...cost money kinkroids. That's what has brought Iran to the table. The sanctions lifted for their agreeing to negotiate was $700 million a month out of $2 billion a month in oil money...allowed in.

Then if need be...stop buying Russian oil.

THE BANKERS Rule the world kinkroids and rule ALL international banking transactions.

What is your source for the $5 Billion and when and where was that money earmarked. This is news to me.

Is it your position that the USA instigated and created the Maiden movement and directly interfered in the domestic politics of the country? Everything that I've read is that this was a Ukrainian nationalist movement of indigenous origins tracing back to the earlier such movements there (Orange Revolution, I believe.) At best the USA followed it or tried to support it from behind -- and I've never seen that dollar figure that you've quoted anywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

It looks like the ceasefire in the Ukraine is once again falling apart. The Russian media are talking about going nuclear against America http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11412878/Putin-Will-he-go-nuclear.html and right now we are about as close to WWIII as we were during the Cuban crisis.

What do you think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


You have an incorrect perception of the political status of the Ukraine. It was and in fact still is politically none aligned. In simple terms “neutral” the same as Switzerland. Would you be saying the same if Russia invaded Switzerland ?

Where is my perception incorrect? I don't get comparing Switzerland to the Ukraine at all. How many Russians live in Switzerland and want to separate themselves from the country? When was Switzerland ever a part of the USSR? When has Putin ever meddled in Switzerland? Does Switzerland share a border with Russia?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

It looks like the ceasefire in the Ukraine is once again falling apart. The Russian media are talking about going nuclear against America http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11412878/Putin-Will-he-go-nuclear.html and right now we are about as close to WWIII as we were during the Cuban crisis.

What do you think?

Because there was WW1 and WW2....yes, we are heading towards WW3.

It's inevitable.