In case the point remains opaque.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neocons-primary-war-tactic-branding

Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

Scholz, Zelenskiy play down talk of NATO membership for Ukraine

Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

Ukrainian government floats prospect of holding referendum on NATO membership.

A possible diplomatic path out of the Ukraine crisis came into sharper focus on Wednesday when a minister in the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine floated the possibility of a referendum that could keep his country from joining NATO.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the totally made up threat promulgated by Western imperialists.

(It should be noted that Zelensky is treading a very fine line with these overtures. The actual prospects of a Russian invasion are debatable, but he faces a very real threat from within if he is seen to be giving in to Russian demands.)

Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

Whenever I read news or quotes related to this selfishness conflict, I feel bad about Ukrainian citizens. They are the only one that truly would lose in this issue. They live with a flawed coin monetary system and a puppet Prime Minister of who...?
I don't if I would be able to get rid of such uncertainty all days of the week

It's only Ukraine

Even if Vladimir Putin decides not to invade Ukraine, as he has signaled the past few days, that might not mean he’ll end the crisis peacefully or diplomatically. The Russian president has another card he might play—a brusque, brutal move that would end the standoff to his advantage.

On Tuesday, the Duma, Russia’s parliament, passed a resolution authorizing Putin to recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic—the two provinces of Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region, which are occupied by armed pro-Russia separatists—as independent states. He could next move thousands of troops, tanks, and other weapons into the territories, at the “request” of their leaders, to defend their people from Ukrainian assault.

In this way, Putin could keep up the military pressure on the Ukrainian government without facing the many risks of a full-scale invasion. He could also further obstruct Ukraine’s already-forlorn prospects for membership in NATO—Putin’s main goal—since, in order to join the U.S.-led military alliance, a state must have stable borders, among other qualities.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/putin-backup-plan-in-ukraine.html

Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations. — SophistiCat

New membership in NATO should be accepted by all existing members and when you have Germany openly saying that even if "each country should be able to make decisions on which alliances to join" it was important to “look at the reality” and "de-escalate" the situation, I think the message is obvious for the Ukrainians. (That it has been obvious for a long time seems to escape many even here) But it seems that Scholz has directly stated this again to the Ukrainians.

After shutting down it's nuclear reactors Germany has made it's own mess in it's energy policy and likely will want to avoid any kind of sanctions at all costs and hold on to Russian gas imports. Otherwise it's a bit cynical to say that these Germany wants to "avoid a war" at any cost to a country that is ALREADY fighting a war with Putin's Russia and has lots large parts of it's territory to Putin.

So if the huge Russian army picnic on the Ukrainian border really was all for this, great. But of course NATO membership of Ukraine already wasn't going anywhere after Russia started a war in Eastern Ukraine AND has forces already there inside the country (even if we don't account the annexed Crimea being part of Ukraine, but talk about the Donbas region). Which leads me to think that Putin simply will try to milk for as long as he can the situation. Or at worst, go ahead with salami tactics if he gets an excuse for it. But that seems unlikely, as it simply is a stupid idea from start once the strategic surprise has been lost (and Putin already has Crimea).

Putin will go as further as he can and his objective is to control Ukraine, to show that the West won't come to the help. He may hope that after Zelensky a more favorable government comes to office. Good examples of how Russia operates can be seen from how it has dealt with Georgia and Armenia. As a president for life, he has the time to wait.

I think it is necessary to have some understanding of the complexities of the situation.

“We’re in an information war with the Russians and we have been for some time” - Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s center for Eurasian, Russian and east European studies.

The current U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy, which have traditionally focused on conventional military might, highlight the importance of information warfare in international conflicts. In the past couple of decades, the information environment has become one of the main battlegrounds of great-power competition. That’s because information warfare has the power to shape not only public opinion but also perceptions about how states are competing in key issue areas, such as public health and international development. In effect, major powers are using information warfare to sow domestic discord and distrust on their adversaries’ soil, rendering governments unable to focus on external threats.

The United States Isn’t Doomed to Lose the Information Wars – Foreign Policy

The first thing that is imperative to understand is that there is an info war going on between America and Russia, and this means that not only Russia, but America, too, is involved in disinformation and propaganda.

Second, we need to understand why Russia is threatening Ukraine with war. Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. NATO has encircled Russia, especially on its western flank.
2. If Ukraine were to join NATO, this would further expose Russia’s southwestern flank to NATO.
3. Ukraine as a NATO member would be a direct threat to Russia’s Black Sea fleet and to Russian access to the Mediterranean.

Most of the Black Sea coastline is already under the control of NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania. If Ukraine joined NATO, this would place major Russian naval ports like Sevastopol in Crimea, into NATO hands, and the Black Sea under almost complete NATO control. Russia needs the Black Sea to access the Mediterranean. I don’t think any government in the world would accept this if it was in Russia’s place. This is precisely why Russia annexed Crimea which had been part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire anyway.

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia, in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia.

Turkey has taken steps to keep Russian influence in the region in check. Ankara supports pro-Western countries such as Ukraine and Georgia and backs NATO’s enlargement. In the last few years, Turkey has cultivated close defense and economic ties with Ukraine … Speaking at a 2016 Balkan security conference in Istanbul, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked his NATO allies to step up efforts to balance Russia. Threatened by growing Russian influence, Turkey abandoned its long-time policy of keeping NATO out of the Black Sea and supported efforts for a stronger alliance presence there. Turkey backed Romanian calls for a permanent NATO fleet in the Black Sea to counter Russia.

Balance in the Black Sea: The complex dynamic between Turkey, Russia, and NATO – Middle East Institute

Map of Black Sea - Welt Atlas

I think even NATO’s “useful idiots” can see that the Crimean Peninsula is absolutely central to the Black Sea and the Black Sea is vital to Russia ….

Putin proved that no one but Russia cares about Ukraine. Russian domination hasn't been a positive experience for Ukrainians so far. Could that change in the future?

America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world. — Apollodorus

You do know that there is a war that could be defined as a civil war ALREADY going on in Eastern Ukraine with Russian forces involved?

NATO member Turkey has its own designs on the Black Sea and may occupy Crimea in a deal with Ukraine against Russia — Apollodorus

A very, very strange idea. Please give references to back up this idea.

in addition to stirring up anti-Russian opposition in Turkic speaking areas of Russia. — Apollodorus

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia. Closest come Crimean Tatar, and Azerbaijani that are Turkic languages. Yes, the Crimean Khanate was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire for three hundred years, yet it lost it in the late 18th Century. And a lot of borders have changed all around since the 18th Century.

And conveniently forgetting that Turkey and Russia have had also warmer relations too in their oscillating relationship? Just from September of last year:

Relations between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Biden administration may be frayed, but on Wednesday the Turkish leader made abundantly clear his access to an alternative partner for trade and military deals: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

At a three-hour meeting in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, Russia — the first for the two presidents in more than a year — Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan discussed weapons deals, trade and a nuclear reactor Russia is building in Turkey.

Turkey and Russia have been both friends on energy and arms deals and enemies in multiple Middle Eastern wars. Through mercenaries and proxies, the countries are on opposite sides in the wars in Syria and Libya, while both Turkish and Russian troops are serving as peacekeepers in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Putin proved that no one but Russia cares about Ukraine. Russian domination hasn't been a positive experience for Ukrainians so far. Could that change in the future? — frank

I think here Georgia would be a good alternative example. The two countries have had no formal relations since the war, but still Georgia has had to adapt to the new situation. And Russia

It was telling that when Georgia and Russia had it's war, Georgia had to quickly withdraw it's troops from Iraq to fight in their own country. Later Georgian governments have tried to normalize the relations, but that isn't so easy as Russia continues the bullying. An interesting event sparked protests in 2019, when a Russian MP sat in a chair reserved by protocol for the Head of Parliament and delivered a speech in Russian extolling "the Orthodox brotherhood of Georgia and Russia". It was a bit too much for at least part of the Georgian people. Likely the protesters had also other issues against the government.

I meant that Russia has weakened the Ukrainian economy where it has control and has left the area dependent on Russian subsidies. Its picnic surrounding Ukraine is further weakening its economy.

If you control through economic dependence (a strategy used by the US for decades), you don't really need to invade.

I meant that Russia has weakened the Ukrainian economy where it has control and has left the area dependent on Russian subsidies. Its picnic surrounding Ukraine is further weakening its economy. — frank

Do note that both in exports and in imports EU countries altogether are far more important to Ukraine than Russia. Yes, by some stats Russia is the largest country in both exports and imports for Ukraine, yet in imports China is nearly as big and with exports just Germany and Poland are both combined are bigger than Russia. And then there are the other EU countries, like Italy, Netherlands, etc.

And this is important to understand just why even when pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was President, he tried to balance between the EU trade deal and Russia. Russia simply isn't so important and it's really a lousy deal just to be in the Russian camp.

Perhaps just to add here that modern Turkish isn't spoken in Russia — ssu

Perhaps we should also add here that I never said that “modern Turkish is spoken in Russia”! That’s another straw man of yours.

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity, whom Turkish president Erdogan regards as “brother Turks”. Erdogan has founded the Organization of Turkic States a.k.a. Turkic Council, consisting of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, with a population of 172 million.

Organization of Turkic States - Wikipedia

Spoken by more than 180 million people across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Siberia, Turkic is one of the widely disseminated language families in the world.

Interestingly, half of the Turkic speakers inhabit Russia and in territories comprising the former Soviet Union

Turkic languages spoken in large parts of Russia – Anadolu (TURKISH News Agency!)

We are always standing with our cognates, including our cognates in the Balkans, Meskhetian Turks, Crimean Tatars, Gagauz, and Uyghurs. We will continue to stand by them hereafter. Our priority is to serve our compatriots, together with our citizens – Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu

Turkey is one of the leaders in Crimea issue – QIRIM News (Crimean News Agency)

Russia has about 12 million people of Turkic ethnicity, plus Islam is Russia’s second-largest religion and Turkey sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world:

Why Turkey Will Emerge as the Leader of the Muslim World – Washington Institute

Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s which is why it has founded the Turkic Council of which Hungary, a European state, is an observer member.

There is absolutely no doubt that Turkey has a significant (and growing) naval force in the Black Sea that aims to restrict the movement of Russia's own fleet:

Due to Turkey’s procurement of S-400 air defense missiles from Russia in 2019, Turkey, NATO and the United States have some issues; yet Turkey is still a critical member of NATO. Turkey has developed an indigenous Atmaca guided missile, and the Gezgin cruise missile has increased the firepower of the Turkish Naval Forces. To limit the use of Russian naval power in the Black Sea against NATO, Turkey can reduce the operational effectiveness of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea by deploying Reis-class submarines armed with Gezgin and Atmaca cruise missiles.

NATO needs Turkey’s submarine force to balance Russia in the Black Sea - Turkish Minute

And it's a well-known fact that Turkey has an interest in Ukraine:

Ankara believes it has fundamental interests in Ukraine. Every Turkish official who spoke to MEE was quick to mention Crimea and the brotherly Crimean Tatars, who are seen as Turkic, as something that necessitates Turkey’s full attention on Ukraine. Erdogan said last week that Turkey will never recognise Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea ... The second issue is Ankara’s drone cooperation with Kyiv. Ukrainian firms are supplying engines to Turkey for a variety of advanced unmanned aircraft projects, with Kyiv beginning to co-produce the famed Bayraktar TB-2 armed drones last month.

Ukraine conflict: Why it really matters to Turkey - Middle East Eye

Turkey is simply waiting for a major conflict between NATO and Russia to start, after which it will side with NATO.

And as I explained to you already, the idea of a Turkish world from the Adriatic to North China was in fact an American idea introduced by Henry Kissinger who was Turkey’s best friend:

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV (TURKISH Economic Policy Research Foundation)

Unfortunately, trolls never learn … :smile:

Are you agreeing or disagreeing about Russia weakening Ukraine economically?

Shelling a kindergarten, then blaming the Ukrainians for starting it. Classy!

Watch MSNBC shill for Ukraine’s Azov Battalion.



Suspiciously enough, Congress removed a ban on funding them back in 2015. It looks like it's paying off.

Another aspect to the problem that I think is worth familiarizing oneself with, is the Clintons’ “RussiaGate” scandal.

In the 1980’s the Soviet Union was experiencing economic difficulties that were aggravated by Reagan’s anti-Russian policies. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he introduced reforms aimed to address the economic issues but that also involved democratizing the Soviet system, including greater freedom of speech and press, etc. One of the results of this was that Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc countries and even Soviet republics began to demand greater independence, leading to the collapse of the Union in 1991 and the creation of the Russian Federation under President Boris Yeltsin.

The European Union (EU) was created in 1992 on the basis of the European Economic Community (EEC) that consisted of the original Coal and Steel Community Six (Germany, France, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg, Italy) plus Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

From inception, the EU aimed to take advantage of Russia’s weak position and sought to expand as much eastward as possible by incorporating former Eastern Bloc countries, including Russia itself. See the EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) of 1994 – which came into effect in 1997.

At the same time, the EU aimed to expand southward, into the Mid East and North Africa (MENA) through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) program launched in 1995.

Meantime, in America, Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. The first thing Clinton did in terms of Russia policy, was to put his old school buddy Strobe Talbott in charge, first as Ambassador-at-Large and then, from February 1994, as Deputy Secretary of State.

Talbot turned to George Soros who had extensive business experience in Eastern Europe. In an interview with The New Yorker, Talbot said:

We [the US government] try to synchronize our approach to the former Communist countries with Germany, France, Great Britain – and with George Soros (Talbot’s emphasis).

The World According To George Soros – The New Yorker

Soros hired economist Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute (for International Development) and his team was tasked by Clinton’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) with overseeing Russia’s transformation from state control to market economy. So, the principal architects of America’s Russia policy in the 90’s were Clinton, Talbot, Soros, and Sachs.

The main planks in their policy were “shock therapy” and “privatization”. “Shock therapy” involved the lifting of all price controls, which resulted in an inflation rate of 2,500% that wiped out the savings of millions of Russians overnight. “Privatization” involved the sale of state-owned companies to private buyers, both Russian and foreign (C. Freeland, Sale of the Century: The Inside Story of The second Russian Revolution).

Russia expert Peter Reddaway of George Washington University wrote that between 1992 and 1996, “although 57 percent of Russia’s firms were privatized, the state budget received only $3-5 billion for them, because they were sold at nominal prices to corrupt cliques.”

Soros and Sachs’ Harvard Institute became a hotbed of corruption that facilitated the transfer of Russian assets worth many billions of dollars to ownership by a handful of oligarchs.

The US Justice Department launched an official investigation into the Institute’s Russian operations, Sachs was forced to resign, and the Institute was charged with misuse of USAID funds and it was shut down in 2000.

The investigations revealed that operatives of the Clinton administration acting as “advisers” to the Russian government requested and received loans from the IMF, World Bank, USAID, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and Export-Import Bank that were transferred to agents in Russia, while billions of dollars were illegally transferred out of the country via US banks like Bank Of New York.

The head of the House Banking Committee, Rep. Jim Leach, said that the Russia scandal was “one of the greatest social robberies in human history” and that at least $100 billion had been laundered out of Russia (“’Dirty Money’ Scandal Could Top $100 Billion, The Times (London), Sep. 1 1999; “Hearing of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee,” Federal News Service, Sep. 22 1999).

Richard Poe, Remembering RussiaGate: Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many

Already in 1997, Russia’s Central Bank announced that it would no longer do business with leading US banks. When Putin came to power in 1999, Russia’s economy was dominated by a handful of local oligarchs in close collaboration with criminal elements, corrupt politicians, and foreign interests, and it took several years to bring key strategic assets back under state control.

Of course, in order to get rid of some oligarchs, Putin had to ally himself with other oligarchs as well as with foreign corporations, especially in the energy (gas and oil) sector. But, on the whole, it is indisputable that he ended the economic and financial chaos of the 90’s and has done his best to make Russia a world power again. And this is why, despite some opposition, he still enjoys the support of the majority of the Russian people.

And precisely because Russia is regaining its status as world power, it is becoming a thorn in the side of America, NATO, and the European Union which are resenting Russia’s challenge to their world hegemony.

As for Turkey, it is essentially an Islamist, militaristic, and expansionist dictatorship that is far worse than Russia in terms of democracy and human rights. France understands the need to contain Turkey. America, Britain, and their German puppet don’t. But any reduction in Russian power will put Turkey in a very strong position vis-à-vis Europe and this will have a destabilizing effect on the whole continent with disastrous long-term consequences.

IMO the situation is much more complex than it appears to be, and those who uncritically side with America against Russia may be doing more harm than good.

Shelling a kindergarten, then blaming the Ukrainians for starting it. Classy! — Wayfarer

Well, as in WW1 and in every armed conflict, each side will blame the other. Unless we were there or have hard evidence, I think it is unwise to jump to conclusions. After all, both sides have been firing at one another for years now. And supplying the Ukrainians with more weapons can only make it worse. Maybe this is NATO's plan ....

Are you agreeing or disagreeing about Russia weakening Ukraine economically? — frank

Obviously Russia is trying to weaken Ukraine by every means and also economically. So I agree with you. My point was only to show that the EU is far more important to Ukraine than Russia even before the current crisis.

I said “TURKIC” by which I meant people of Turkic ethnicity — Apollodorus

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border.

(And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.)

My point was only to show that the EU is far more important to Ukraine than Russia even before the current crisis. — ssu

I don't think this will be true going forward.

One of the last good Australians left:

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government."

The no-evidence rule also applies in London. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who spent £500,000 of public money flying to Australia in a private plane to warn the Canberra government that both Russia and China were about to pounce, offered no evidence. Antipodean heads nodded; the “narrative” is unchallenged there. One rare exception, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, called Truss’s warmongering “demented.”

Truss has blithely confused the countries of the Baltic and Black Sea. In Moscow, she told the Russian foreign minister that Britain would never accept Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – until it was pointed out to her that these places were not part of Ukraine but in Russia. Read the Russian press about the buffoonery of this pretender to 10 Downing Street and cringe.

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/17/war-in-europe-the-rise-of-raw-propaganda/

Februrary 18th already. Typical Russians. Late as usual. Too busy organising Canadian truckers and missed their deadline most likely.

If we're all going to be annihilated in world war three it could at least start on time. I had tickets...

WW3 has been called off. Again. :worry:

And I only wanted to clarify that, that Turkic and Turkish are two different things.

Turkey obviously upholds it's role with the Turkic people. I'm not sure that goes so far to have territorial ambitions about Ukrainian territory, like it obviously has closer to it's border. — ssu

I think you should clarify that to Erdogan, not to me. :smile:

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

One of the longest, yet least remembered (at least in the West) slave trades of history centered around the Crimean Khanate, a Muslim state that was a vassal of the Ottoman Turks. Existing from 1449 until 1783, the Crimean Khanate was both a giant repository for slaves (most of whom were Slavic Christians) and one of Europe’s largest slave markets.The Crimean Tatars and the Turkic Nogai people were responsible for one of the largest slave trades in history.

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

The Crimea, a peninsula on the border between the Christian West and the Muslim East, was a place where merchants from all over the Black Sea region, East and West Mediterranean, Anatolia, Turkey, Russia, and West European countries came to buy,sell, and exchange their goods. In this trade “live merchandise”—reluctant travellers,seized by the Tatars during their raids to adjacent countries—was one of the main objects to be negotiated.

Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea From the Perspective of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources – Academia Edu

The slave trade was the backbone of the economy of the Crimean Khanate. For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland–Lithuania over the period 1500–1700.

Crimean Khanate - Wikipedia

Parts of Ukraine including Crimea were under Ottoman occupation. Erdogan wants to reestablish the Ottoman Empire. Therefore he has designs on Ukraine and Crimea.

[Sultan] Selim died 500 years ago in 1520. It was during his lifetime that the Ottoman Empire grew from a strong regional power to a gargantuan global empire. For Erdogan, this sultan from half a millennium ago serves his contemporary needs. Selim in many ways functions as Erdogan’s Andrew Jackson, a figure from the past of symbolic use in the present. Selim offers a template for Turkey to become a global political and economic power, with influence from Washington to Beijing, crushing foreign and domestic challengers alike. He helps Erdogan too to make his case for Islam as a cultural and political reservoir of strength, a vital component of the glories of the Ottoman past, which he seeks to emulate in contemporary Turkey.
We should be wary of Erdogan’s embrace of Selim’s exclusionary vision of Turkish political power. It represents a historical example of strongman politics that led to regional wars, the attempted annihilation of religious minorities, and the monopolization of global economic resources ….

Why Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Love Affair with the Ottoman Empire Should Worry The World – TIME

Erdogan is not shy to publicly chase his Ottoman dream and to reinvent himself as a Caliph. If Erdogan is out to overshadow the legacy of Ataturk, then undoing the Lausanne Treaty is what will help him accomplish this goal – even if it means declaring war. Once the 1923 treaty expires, Erdogan will immediately seek to reclaim the territories the Ottomans lost.

Erdogan’s mission to revive the Ottoman Empire – Muslim Vibe

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s chief aide said the Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies and established the modern border between Turkey and Greece, had “expired,” freeing Turkey up to seize rich resources including those in northern Iraq.

Erdoğan’s secret keeper says Lausanne Treaty ‘expired,’ Turkey free to grab resources - Nordic Monitor

Ankara is currently facing off against Greece and Southern Cyprus over oil and gas exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean. "They are going to understand that Turkey has the political, economic and military power to tear up the immoral maps and documents imposed by others," Erdoğan added, referring to areas marked by Greece and Southern Cyprus as their economic maritime zones.

Erdoğan: Turkey has power to tear up immoral maps imposed by others – A News (Turkish TV channel)

Erdoğan's foreign policy has been described as Neo-Ottoman and has led to the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, One of the most cited scholars alive, Noam Chomsky, said that "Erdogan in Turkey is basically trying to create something like the Ottoman Caliphate, with him as caliph, supreme leader, throwing his weight around all over the place, and destroying the remnants of democracy in Turkey at the same time"

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – Wikipedia

Crimea is an important Russian naval base in the Black Sea and is vital to Russia for access to the Mediterranean. It has no importance to Turkey or NATO whatsoever except to contain Russia and dominate Eastern Europe. Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia.

...

I don't think this will be true going forward. — frank

Remember we were talking about the economy and trade. Both Italy and Canada have a larger GDP than Russia. The German economy is many times larger. If Russia would have an economy the size of Japan, which is also many times larger than the Russian economy (which theoretically would be totally possible as there are more Russians than there are Japanese), then it would be different. To focus your trade totally with Russia simply doesn't cut it.

But that would mean that Russia would have to have those trade relations and manufacture stuff just like well, Japan or Germany does. And that would mean focus on something else than physical territory, but things like competitiveness, innovation, R&D and export sector. Something also than just weapons. As the old political saying which Clinton used against older Bush (who just had won the Gulf War) goes, "It's the economy, stupid!".

This is why Putin is actually so detrimental to Russia.

I know you like to whitewash Turkey but I don’t think you should deny what is established fact. — Apollodorus

Erdogan is one of those leaders who is ruining his country and tries to hide it with bombast nationalism and obviously wants grandeur. That's true and I assume you agree at least with that.

Giving Crimea to Ukraine and incorporating Ukraine into NATO means making the Black Sea a NATO, i.e. American sea. IMO it isn't rocket science to see that this is unacceptable to Russia. — Apollodorus

Who gave Crimea to Ukraine was Nikita Khrushchev. And Russia accepted in multiple occasions and treaties that Crimea belonged to Ukraine. Until Putin saw an opportunity and annexed it back. (Which, I'll remind you again, you haven't answered if you condemn or not).

It isn't rocket science either that Putin's own actions of annexing parts of neighboring countries has changed the dynamic totally within the West. Prior to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO didn't even have any military plans to defend the Baltic States, which had become members of the alliance. That was thought to be far too hostile towards Russia and was blocked by one NATO country. Do notice that when Bush made his declarations, not all NATO countries were enthusiastic about it. Back then NATO countries were dismantling their armed forces and NATO was desperately looking for new missions. Article 5 and the old Cold War NATO that was a past thing.

I meant that Russia appears to be suppressing economic activity in the areas they influence. Ukraine will have nothing to trade with anyone when Russia is done with it (possibly).

War is certainly immanent, though I hope I eat these words. If so, it will no doubt be a self-fulfilling prophecy premised on projection.