Skip to comments.Existential threat: ‘Russians cannot allow Ukraine to be ruled by neo-fascists’
Posted on 03/03/2014 6:48:00 AM PST by 1rudeboy
The Ukrainian crisis is a peripheral issue for the EU and an optional conflict for the US, while for the Russian speaking population of Ukraine it is an existential threat, international affairs writer Srdja Trifkovic told RT.
RT: The Russian President has asked Parliament for permission to use a limited army contingent to stabilise the situation in Crimea how could that change the situation on the ground?
Srdja Trifkovic: In my personal opinion the Ukraine is getting closer to disintegration or at least a form of federalization to which the Russians can make a stabilizing contribution. Because any attempt by the mobocracy that has gained power in Kiev to establish its width not only in Crimean peninsula but also in other southern parts such as Odessa and Nikolayev and eastern provinces Donetsk and Kharkov can only lead to an outright civil war.
Ukraine is internally divided between the people in the center and the west who have radically different self-perception and radically different values and images of the future for themselves than people to the east and the south. And I think in the long term the Russian leaders have realized that some form of federal or con-federal order is the only way to avoid further bloodshed and outright disintegration of this somewhat hybrid country.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
Ukraine and Russian Ukrainians cannot allow themselves to be ruled by commies.
Hey at least we aren’t supporting Al-Qaeda this time.
Russia is ruled by an autocrat and he does not like competition I guess
I thought it was George Soros.
I think Putin is a killer, but......
Lots and lots of talk about this with nations that are close to each other. Is the US close to Libya? Why did Hillary and Obama overthrow the government of Libya?
I really have no idea who your father is, sorry.
No one was killed in Crimea - the West killed Serbs in its little Yugoslav War and now waxes indignant about respect for state borders and the sovereignty of small countries.
Spare us the history lesson; its getting old. And there is the West’s Kosovo protectorate and Albanian puppet state. Two can play the game.
The precedent - in case they need to be reminded in Washington and Brussels was already set by themselves.
If the invasion of Georgia was ok because Serbia, and
the invasion of Ukraine is ok because Serbia, then
the attack on Serbia was ok.
It’s just getting tough to keep a list. Neo-nazis, Chechens, George Soros, the EU, the US, Monsanto, the Easter Bunny....
Ummmm......I believe I was saying that. We, the US, jumped into overthrowing the government of Libya, and Libya is thousands of miles from our border. We don’t have any moral high ground to stand on to lecture Russia. And what have we gained from overthrowing the government of Libya? Four murdered Americans?
All “the people” really want is strong leadership and civil order. They want the streets to be clean, the youth to be pure, and the trains to run on time.
(that’s what I heard from some Germans about the good ol’ days)
I wouldn’t be so sure about that
Some al Qaeda supporters wear impeccably tailored suits and Rolexes and work in globalist/European financial institutions
Its still a relevant one. Back in the day the West argued it needed to stop ethnic cleansing. You can always invent an argument for a war. The West has no right to be Russia’s judge and jury. And for that reason - Moscow is rebuffing Western complaints about about illegality, respect for the post-Cold War Order and national sovereignty. The other year, NATO helped to overthrow a third world dictator on human rights grounds.
So where does the West get off denouncing Russia for invoking the same rationale? And then there is the matter of national interests. You know - the ones Secretary Kerry this weekend decried as living in the 19th Century. He needs to brush up on his history lesson.
“Why did Hillary and Obama overthrow the government of Libya?”
for the EU/globalist bankers
Just look at who is now running the oil fields and for whose benefit
You still don’t understand. If the West has no right to judge Russia, then Russia has no right to judge the West. Ergo, intervention in Serbia was ok because intervention in Ukraine was ok. Or, if intervention is Serbia was not ok, then intervention in Ukraine was not ok.
Globalists, and bankers. Thanks, I forgot to add those to my list.
I thought liberals aren’t supposed to be judgmental.
Which is exactly the point.
But then you know why I bring it up - doesn’t that belong to the 19th Century?
I’m just looking for some logical consistency, and not being judgmental at all.
Move globalist financiers to the top of the list
Ask yourself who really REALLY benefits from Ukraine integrating into the EU and who really “runs” the EU and what is the EU really all about??
Ask yourself why “man-of-the-people” George Soros is funding Ukraine “nationalists”, has been trying to buy the Ukraine since at least the early 1990’s and now, along with Obama’s CIA, is playing stupid covert political games that this time- in Ukraine- by calculation or miscalculation - twitted the Russians into crossing Putin's red line
What I want to know is, how did George Soros get those 100’s of thousands of Ukrainians into their own streets? That some serious puppet mastery, there.
Putin hates fascist as much as he hates communists.
“We, the US, jumped into overthrowing the government of Libya, and Libya is thousands of miles from our border. We dont have any moral high ground to stand on to lecture Russia. And what have we gained from overthrowing the government of Libya?”
More pro-dictator BS. We protected Libyan civilians from the Libyan military. What the Libyans did with that was entirely their doing, not ours.
“Operation Unified Protector was an NATO operation enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 concerning the Libyan civil war and adopted on 26 February and 17 March 2011, respectively. These resolutions imposed sanctions on key members of the Gaddafi government and authorized NATO to implement an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary, short of foreign occupation, to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas.”
Not hardly. Why not impose no fly zones over Cuba? Why not impose no fly zones over North Korea? Why just Libya? And again, what benefit has the US received from overthrowing the government of Libya?
“Not hardly. Why not impose no fly zones over Cuba? Why not impose no fly zones over North Korea? Why just Libya? And again, what benefit has the US received from overthrowing the government of Libya?”
UN sanctions and resolutions precipitated the Libyan No Fly zones. The US did not act unilaterally or strictly in our interest, hence no direct benefit. Protecting civilians from attacks by their own military isn’t really a windfall profit operations.