Well, that's just great. :/

Ukraine conflict: Rebels declare general mobilisation as fighting grows (Feb 19, 2022)

Russia behaves as would any other country given its size and military. — Manuel

Actually...no. Not at all.

China isn't as bellicose as Russia has been. China doesn't send it's forces to train to a third country and participate in a civil war as Russia does in Syria. Occupying contested uninhabited islets isn't the same as annexing a peninsula as large as Crimea or annexing South Ossetia.

Last time China had a war it was against Vietnam. China did this because Vietnam had intervened in Cambodia and hence attacked an ally of China. And that border war basically didn't go well for China. If I remember correctly, China has just one naval base outside China and that's in Djibouti, where a multitude of nations have a naval base.

China can feel every bit as threatened about the US with all the talk coming from Washington. However it's ways to deal with the situation aren't as aggressive as Putin's Russia.

India also has a large military, nuclear weapons and also it hasn't been as bellicose as Russia. After all, it has been the pacific where the US has put the focus. It's not projecting power further than it's borders and the ocean named after itself. Or have you seen India sending troops (or mercenaries with close links to the people in power in India) to the Middle East or Africa?

Last time China had a war it was against Vietnam. — ssu

Small point: the Chinese and Vietnamese have been duking it out for most of the last two thousand years. With pauses to fight others, or them not available, each other, mountain folks v. coastal folks.

I should've specified, a country in Russia's context would be acting as Russia is.

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance.

But it's true that China has been significantly less involved in border issues. India has the problem with Pakistan, no easy situation to be in. They've been rather harsh in Kashmir (Pakistan too), that's a really hard situation.

Part of it has to do with wanting to maintain regional power, as it had for most of the 20th century. It surely did not handle the collapse of the USSR in the best manner, and they're paying for it now.

I think they're "punching above" as it is.

For all its flaws, Russia is the last European nation that is still free and has not fallen into the New-World-Order spiderweb woven by the Anglo-Saxon “master race”. And this is why I think Russia has a point. — Apollodorus

So behind all the dissimulation and circumlocution and fallacious comparisons, you’re basically an apologist for Russia.

Sure about Russia not joining the Western sphere of influence. But Russia itself is hardly a paradise. I think they right in this situation.

But Russian elites are no better than Western ones.

Of course, the West has committed most of the crimes in the 20th century, because they've had the power to do so. But most states with power, do similar things.

Russia is not a free and functioning democracy. It’s a kleptocracy run by the rich oligarchs who were able to exploit the collapse of communism by privatising state-owned assets and taking control of them. Putin is an ex-KGB operative who has effectively made himself President for Life. Russian elections are not free and fair, political opposition to Putin is hounded with opposition leaders and activists routinely murdered, jailed or exiled. So I’m not buying any of this crap about Russia being ‘free’. In no sense is Russia a free society.

Ukraine voted to become part of the European Union by its own free choice, and an overwhelming democratic majority oppose any form of Russian interference or intervention, aspirations that have already been thwarted by Russia which has already carved off part of Ukraine and has been engaging in a guerrilla war since 2014 which has cost 14000 lives. It has no reasonable claim over Ukraine whatever and if and when it decides to invade, it will be an act of flagrant criminality and nothing more than that.

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance. — Manuel

My bad to forget Taiwan!

Well, Taiwan would be similar to that there would be an island or territory where the White Russian forces would have treated to and where the Imperial Russia would still claim a foothold to the Soviet Union. The Island formerly known as Formosa is truly a thorn in the side of China. After all, if the mainland China would have the same per capita as Taiwan, China would have surpassed in GDP the US long time ago. Above all, it's now quite democratic, more prosperous, than the mainland.

And you are correct that there is an analogue to Ukraine. Namely that Taiwan is no real threat to mainland China. It simply cannot build an army and invade and defeat Communist China. It simply isn't any kind of threat. The only threat is that Chinese, just as Russians, can observe that things are there better. Of course in the case of Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the more prosperous example (which explains why there could be a separatist movement in the Donbass at the first place).

Well, that's just great. :/ — jorndoe

And that is also reported by TASS, the Russian news agency. So it can't be just "NATO propaganda".

LUGANSK, February 19. /TASS/. Head of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic Leonid Pasechnik has ordered general mobilization.

"General mobilization shall be announced on the territory of the Lugansk People’s Republic," he said in a decree published online. "The People’s Council of the LPR, the LPR government shall be immediately notified about the announcement of mobilization".

The decree said the mobilization aims to create conditions for repelling an aggression against the LPR by Ukraine. It orders full battle readiness for the People’s Militia and other military units. The republic also prohibited men aged 18 through 55 from leaving the region.

Donetsk People’s Republic
Head of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic Denis Pushilin has ordered general mobilization.

"I’m urging fellow citizens who are in the reserve to report to military conscription offices," he said in a video address on Saturday. "I have signed a decree on general mobilization today.".

"We will protect Donbass and all Russian people," he said.

And furthermore, accusations that Russia has been shelled by Ukraine:

(Russia Today) Two explosions reported on the Russian side of the border with Ukraine were the result of incoming artillery shells, officials have claimed, amid an escalating military stand-off across the border in the Donbass.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the FSB security service in the southern Rostov Region said that local border guard officials had recorded “ammunition strikes” near two rural settlements.

“One of the shells exploded two kilometers from the Russian-Ukrainian border on the outskirts of the village of Mityakinskaya,” authorities said. “Another shell destroyed an outbuilding on the ground of a private home in the Manotsky farming community.” No injuries have been reported, and a criminal investigation is said to be underway.

While officials have not yet publicly declared who they believe to be responsible for the alleged incidents, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has insisted they had nothing to do with Kiev’s armed forces. “We resolutely refute all accusations of any alleged Ukrainian shells falling on Russian territory,” he wrote on Twitter. “Ukraine has never opened any such fire. We call for an immediate and impartial international investigation of the incidents reported by Russian media.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also cast doubt on the news.

Looks really like Putin wants to enlarge the war.

So crazy. Absolutely crazy.

No, not militarily. They can only defend themselves, but I believe the US has a few submarines with nuclear capacity, which deters China.

That situation is more difficult. Look at what happened to Hong Kong, pretty sad.

But if China did want to expand to the South China Sea (misleadingly called), they have to go through Taiwan, which blocks them.

But, they're building islands instead. That's one situation in which I have no clue how to proceed.

Ukraine has a blueprint at least.

That situation is more difficult. Look at what happened to Hong Kong, pretty sad. — Manuel

One country, two systems could go only so long... until the Chinese leader decided that he did't need the West anymore and Chinese version of Marxism would do just fine. In 1997 when the UK did hand back Hong Kong to China, the economic situation of China was different: they needed that Western investment and technology.

I think that authoritarian regimes, however benign and open they might seem to be have a fundamental flaw in that they cannot trust their people as they see any opposition as an enemy that poses an existential threat against them. Democracy is just a sneaky way to undermine their nation.

Here is the fundamental flaw to a functioning democracy: in a democracy the opposition is your sparring partner. You might find yourself in the opposition and then gain back the leadership and you accept that you can lose in elections. And leaders retire.

In China this is obvious, be it the students in Hong Kong or the protests earlier in Tiananmen Square in 1989, a religious movement like Falun Gong or in the Maoist era, just that Chinese people simply were respecting the former foreign minister Zhou Enlai too much in his funeral, that causes the regime to clamp down on the counterrevolutionaries.

This is why any opposition in Russia, no matter what the agenda is, is viewed as a personal threat by Vladimir Putin on his regime (and himself).

Well, since we're calling Chinese communist because they said so, shouldn't we also acknowledge that China is a democracy?

https://qz.com/2098528/china-wants-to-redefine-democracy/


Putin has a point about NATO being a political project, Eastern Europe sees the economic transformation of Poland and the Baltics and wants in. Western soft power is threatening Russia's influence and Putin is resisting but it's futile. At some point, Putin will be gone and Russia will fall into the Western orbit.

Ever since the fall of the USSR, this Westernisation has been happening at a very fast rate. It is the next big "annexation" or growth of influence, of the West, since WW2. Russia is trying to keep out Western influence, build a great firewall like China, say no more expansion of NATO or EU. It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century.

Well, since we're calling Chinese communist because they said so, shouldn't we also acknowledge that China is a democracy? — Judaka

:smile:

Well, I've noticed that the Marxists here aren't so excited about the current "Chinese Marxism" that the Chinese promote either.

It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century. — Judaka

If there is a revolution or civil war. Or Putin's regime collapses. After 2014 he and Russia has gone down a rabbit hole. It's a long, long way now to dissolve the distrust towards Russia.

The present militarism is really unheard of anywhere else and what is obvious is the lack of understanding how crucial trade with other countries is for the prosperity of one country. Italy and Canada have larger economies and they aren't putting money into exotic nuclear weapons and other military spending. Seems Putin is obsessed with territory and "geopolitics" and doesn't see that good relations with neighbors would be important in order for him to get prosperity for his subjects.

So behind all the dissimulation and circumlocution and fallacious comparisons, you’re basically an apologist for Russia. — Wayfarer

I'm not an "apologist" for anything. I'm simply saying that in logical terms, Russia has a right to defend itself against Western imperialism. The problem seems to be that you are emotionally and ideologically committed to the American cause which causes you to be in denial about flaws in the pro-American narrative (or propaganda).

As I said, what would you do if you were in Russia's place? IMO a refusal to answer a simple question like this, is indicative of duplicity and hypocrisy.

On my part, if I were Russia, I don't see how else I could possibly act except in a similar way to what Russia is doing. So where exactly is the "dissimulation"???

BTW I've noticed that some Buddhists on here tend to have a rather short fuse. Maybe they should try some meditation or something, don't you think? :wink:

Sure about Russia not joining the Western sphere of influence. But Russia itself is hardly a paradise. I think they right in this situation. — Manuel

I think what is happening here is that some people are emotionally and/or ideologically committed to the American cause which is why they are unwilling or unable to consider any facts that might contradict their beliefs. This is exacerbated by ignorance of historical facts. This is not necessarily their fault, rather the fault or failure of the Western education system. But without knowledge of the historical events that have led to a situation, no objective analysis of the situation is possible. This is also why, as can be seen, there isn't any genuine discussion here.

IMO to understand how the current situation emerged and developed over the years, we need to look at some key actors and their activities in the region.

George Soros is a Hungarian-born billionaire speculator and financier, and close associate of British, French, and US bankers. Between 1984 and 1989 he was involved in Eastern Europe where he established foundations in Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Albania, and elsewhere, for the purpose of promoting political and economic reform a.k.a. “open society”.

In 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, Soros’ financier associates founded the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to finance the “reconstruction” of Eastern Europe, which meant (1) currency devaluation and (2) selling state-owned assets to private buyers. As very few people in those countries had any cash, many buyers were foreigners, often in partnership with local “businessmen”.

When Clinton came to power in 1992, he put his old school buddy Strobe Talbott in charge of Russia policy, first as Ambassador-at-Large and then, from February 1994, as Deputy Secretary of State.

Talbot turned to George Soros, who hired Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) 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. Sachs’ HIID oversaw and guided disbursement of $300 million of US aid to Russia with little oversight by USAID and was later accused of misusing US government money.

Harvard Institute for International Development - Wikipedia

This is when the greatest robbery of the century began, with Soros, Harvard, and Clinton agents using money from the World Bank, IMF, and USAID to bribe Russian politicians and business managers into selling Russian companies, especially in the oil, gas, and metal sectors, to foreign interests and their Russian frontmen.

Thus the 90’s era of the “Garvardniki” (“Harvard guys”) and the “oligarhi” (“oligarchs”) began.

Meantime, the European Union was founded in 1992 for the purpose of incorporating as many former Eastern Bloc countries as possible, including Russia, and the EBRD aimed to "reconstruct" 30 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia!

NATO was operating in tandem with the EU. As part of its policy of containing Russia, NATO in 1999 bombed Russia’s ally Serbia and incorporated Hungary and Poland. This was followed by Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia all joining in 2004.

Moreover, we know that Soros was involved not only in the “privatization” of Russian and Eastern Bloc state assets, but also in the overthrow of several democratically elected governments in the region.

As shown by New York Times columnist and author Richard Poe, Soros’ strategy followed a set formula entailing Seven Steps:

1. Formation of a shadow government
2. Media control
3. Imposition of economic sanctions
4. Funding protest groups
5. Provoking an election crisis
6. Mobilization of street protests
7. Funding opposition until the government is forced to resign in order to avoid civil war or NATO intervention.

https://www.richardpoe.com/2004/07/16/velvet-revolution-usa-2/

Soros himself later admitted in a news conference:

It is necessary to mobilize civil society in order to assure free and fair elections because there are many forces that are determined to falsify or to prevent the elections being free and fair. This is what we did in Slovakia at the time of Meciar, in Croatia at the time of Tudjman and in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic.

After Yugoslavia, Soros turned his sights on Georgia where he was involved in the “Rose Revolution” of 2003. But by then Putin had come to power and he intervened in the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 that resulted in the formation of the separate state of Abkhazia.

Through his Renaissance Foundation, Soros also instigated Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” of 2004-2005 that resulted in the election of pro-EU Yushchenko as president. However, in 2010 Yushchenko was replaced by pro-Russian Yanukovych.

Soros then got involved in the Maidan Revolution of 2013-2014 that ousted Yanukovych. Speaking of "Russian oligarchs", Soros also backed Ukrainian oligarch and presidential candidate Poroshenko and his closest rival and fellow oligarch Tymoshenko. Poroshenko won the elections and in 2019 was succeeded by current president Zelenskyy.

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, after years of EU and NATO expansion and constant Western interference in Russia and neighboring countries like Ukraine.

Incidentally, Harvard “economists” were also involved in the 2008 EU-US Union for the Mediterranean project that aimed to incorporate the Middle East and North Africa into the European Union, and in which Harvard Management Company invested $ hundreds of millions.

I think we can clearly see close collaboration between the EU, NATO, and US and international financial institutions in an attempt to take over country after country, and Russia being forced into a defensive position. Putin’s job was (a) to restore order and (b) to stand up to the West. And, at the end of the day, he has the support of the majority of Russian voters.

So, the issue is not whether Russia is "paradise on earth" given that America isn't perfect either (there is ignorance, lack of education, poverty, crime, violence, racism, separatism, etc., etc.), but whether the Russian government is acting in the interests of the Russian people, which in this case, I believe it does.

Russia is trying to keep out Western influence, build a great firewall like China, say no more expansion of NATO or EU. It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century. — Judaka

Well, it is entirely possible that Russia will eventually join. The West is trying to speed this up by overthrowing Russia's current government.

However, equally possible is that Russia will join China, India, Brazil, and parts of the Mid East and Africa to form a united front against Western imperialism and neocolonialism.

Personally, I doubt that American hegemony can last for ever. Much of the global economy is already dependent on China ....

Putin's work will be undone by his successors.

Putin is an authoritarian kleptocrat living out his fantasies, he likes playing these geopolitical games, he cares about history and talks a bit like Apollo here. Unlike with China's CCP, Putin is very much a one-man show and when he goes, things won't be the same. Russia can't emulate China's success but it can emulate the success of the other former Soviet states, which at some point it will try to, most likely.


I'm pretty convinced China's economy is about to implode, in the same way Japan's did in the 90s except worse. But even if it doesn't, do you really think those nations are going to provide a "united front"?

The middle-east is neutral or US-aligned except Iran, India and China aren't friendly, Brazil is currently Us-aligned. China doesn't really have a faction for people to join, people don't trust their tech, businesses or promises. Russia can receive help from China and be an otherwise isolated state, like North Korea or Iran. Russian people will never put any pressure on their government to join up with China, just nobody cares, it's a relationship of convenience and nothing more. Russia can fight against Western imperialism (to push their own brand of imperialism) at their own expense and by themselves - just like it is right now.

I think things are so bad for nations like Russia (if it doesn't join) that even if the US started to dwindle, let's say it had a civil war and split up. There's still an ever-growing EU, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea democratic bloc. And nations like Brazil, Mexico and India, are probably going to be joining that side, or be neutral, but not China's.

All that you mention there is fine and important for people to know. But even without such a context, one can say that the US would not allow for Russia to have military bases in Mexico, regardless of what Mexico wanted.

That historical info adds further foundations as to why Russia is acting as it is, which look to me to be rational behavior.

As for acting in the interests of its people, yeah in part. Last I saw most Russians cared about the local economy and COVID and did not think much about Ukraine. It would not be surprising to find out most people inside support Russia now, if it drags on much longer, this becomes less clear.

And, one should mention, that saying "the interests of X people", be it Russia, the USA, South Africa, Australia or whatever, can be confusing. It's not as if the interests of a public school teacher is the same as the CEO of some Bank, yet both belong to "X people".

George Soros — Apollodorus

Nobel peace prize candidate. It's a shame he can't run for presidency. What a man !

The US doesn't have a military base in Ukraine and doesn't need one.

This aggression is coming from Moscow, not Washington.

Yes, it doesn't need one. But why does Washington care about Ukraine and not Afghans? One is clearly connected to the US, the other is not.

I'll even suspend the assessment that the aggression is coming from Moscow, that is, I'll grant it to you for sake of argument. Why should the US intervene? Last I saw, the US had serious internal problems it could focus on.

Now if there was some problem with Canada, then we can speak about responding to aggression.

Yes, it doesn't need one. But why does Washington care about Ukraine and not Afghans? One is clearly connected to the US, the other is not. — Manuel

I don't think the US government does care about Ukraine. Historically they did because they wanted to foster the liberalization of the former USSR. Times have changed.

Why should the US intervene? — Manuel

They're not going to intervene. They're only going to increase sanctions that Russia is either prepared for, or can survive by turning to China.

Why should the US intervene? — Manuel

As Frank said, the US is not going to intervene. They just promise to impose more sanctions. Biden has said he won't even use the US military to evacuate Americans from Ukraine (as he did from Afghanistan). Likely will send military support to Ukraine and deploy more forces to NATO countries, as they have done already.

And of course, Putin doesn't care about sanctions:

(RT)No new sanctions can possibly deter Russia from doing what it wants, because Moscow has experience dealing with them for many years already, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko, on Friday, the Russian leader claimed Moscow cannot possibly avoid Western sanctions, because they are not aimed at altering the Kremlin's behavior. In his view, they are actually a plan to hinder the economic development of Russia.

“Sanctions will be imposed in any case. Whether they have a reason today, for example, in connection with the events in Ukraine, or there is no reason, it will be found,” Putin said. “The goal is different. In this case, the goal is to slow down the development of Russia and Belarus.”

The problem is that Putin is sticking to his argument, which NATO cannot do. You cannot erase quarter of a century of the alliance. However, Putin will try:

Putin "once again stressed the necessity for the United States and NATO to take Russia’s demands on ensuring security guarantees seriously and to respond to them in a concrete and substantive manner," the Kremlin said after their phone call.

Russia referred its proposals on security guarantees to the United States and NATO in December 2021. The proposed measures include guarantees that NATO will not advance eastward, including the accession of Ukraine and other countries into the alliance, as well as non-deployment of serious offensive weapons, including nuclear ones. Russia also demands the NATO military infrastructure be retreated to the 1997 borders.

Retreating to "1997 infrastructure" would mean that NATO wouldn't defend ANY of it's Eastern members starting with Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic and 11 other member countries.

All that you mention there is fine and important for people to know. But even without such a context, one can say that the US would not allow for Russia to have military bases in Mexico, regardless of what Mexico wanted. — Manuel

This is exactly the point I've been making. Of course the anti-Russian camp are being disingenuous. They claim that "the US doesn't have a military base in Ukraine". But if Ukraine joins NATO, there will be military bases with NATO and, probably, US troops.

That historical info adds further foundations as to why Russia is acting as it is, which look to me to be rational behavior. — Manuel

I think it is rational enough. As I explained already, Russia needs the Black Sea to access the Mediterranean. It can't possibly agree to a Black Sea controlled by its Western enemy. And Crimea is central to the Black Sea.

Moreover, Crimea is NOT Ukrainian. It was "given" to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954. But, first, Crimea wasn't his to give. And, second, it was only a political gesture without strategic significance at the time, as both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same one Soviet state!

Khrushchev couldn't have envisaged in 1954 that Ukraine would one day be not only independent from Russia but Russia's political and military opponent. Therefore, he couldn't possibly have meant for Crimea to belong to Ukraine in today's circumstances. I think Crimea should either belong to Russia as heir to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union (to which Crimea used to belong), or, if practicable, peacefully shared between the two.

And, one should mention, that saying "the interests of X people", be it Russia, the USA, South Africa, Australia or whatever, can be confusing. It's not as if the interests of a public school teacher is the same as the CEO of some Bank, yet both belong to "X people". — Manuel

Correct. However, there is something like "national interest", i.e. interest that is common to the people as a whole, and on which most citizens of a country agree. What matters is the interest and will of the nation. If the majority of Russians are behind Putin, then it is legitimate to say that he represents the interests and the will of his people. From what I see, he seems to have higher approval ratings than Biden .... :smile:

And it isn't just Russia. Is it in the interest of the German people to be told what to do by America, Britain, and Turkey? I don't think so.

As for Russia being a "kleptocracy", are Americans and Australians prepared to pack their belongings and return "their" countries to their original (Native American and Aboriginal) owners?

Are they calling for sanctions or war on China for annexing Tibet or on Turkey for invading and occupying Cyprus???

We'll see. They keep saying this invasion is imminent, for like the 5th time.

Again, I don't particularly like Putin - but we all more than know about his crimes, that doesn't really produce much thought.

But I don't think he's a moron. I don't think he will invade Ukraine to face off against NATO. That's suicide. Not just for him, maybe the world - and I wish I were exaggerating.



They can impose sanctions, but they'll have to be very careful. They can turn off energy supplies to Europe, which would be a big problem.

From a Russian perspective, ever since NATO's continued expanding to the East, after having been promised it would not move an "inch" to the East, they have reason to be warry. No powerful state would want a hostile military alliance, much less NATO, at the border.

If Russia does go in and invade Ukraine, it's over. NATO can't step back given the rhetoric its using. And Russia actually invades, then they indeed will look like fools for having done so, due to the repeated Western warnings of such an event.

It could happen, of course, world events are very complex and multi-faceted. We will see.



It was part of the quite disastrous disintegration of the USSR - which could have proceeded in a much better direction, with less suffering involved for all, as we are now seeing.

It's funny that Crimea is mentioned so frequently - and fine to mention it, fair - but Guantanamo is not. Yet Guantanamo has nothing to do with the US - there are no Americans living there, minus the base. But people don't like to hear this.

Agree that a peaceful co-management of the territories would be best. Maybe hard to carry out, but, worth a shot. Now it's a bit late for that.

No, they can't call out Turkey, they have too much to lose by getting into a political row with them. China isn't going anywhere. Those cases you mention can be multiplied probably dozens of times over. But, if they're Allie$, it's all fine.

I don't think he will invade Ukraine to face off against NATO. That's suicide. — Manuel

No it's not. NATO isn't going to do anything.

No powerful state would want a hostile military alliance, much less NATO, at the border. — Manuel

Usually it has been Putin who has pushed NATO back to it's Cold War stance. There was genuine talk of Russia becoming a member of NATO, we shouldn't forget. In the 1990's there really was "a window of opportunity". But that collapsed due to the Kosovo war NATO fought.

Relations between the NATO military alliance and the Russian Federation were established in 1991 within the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and since that time, NATO and Russia have signed several important agreements on cooperation.

Back then, Russia didn't seem as important as it seemed not to pose any threat.

It was part of the quite disastrous disintegration of the USSR - which could have proceeded in a much better direction, with less suffering involved for all, as we are now seeing. — Manuel

Not as disastrous as the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In fact, what we should be grateful for the last leaders of Soviet Union is that the it didn't end in a Second Civil War. Now we can see just how precarious the situation in the 1990's was. What was then lacking was the Slobodan Milosevic of Russia, that would have started to "protect Russians everywhere in the Soviet sphere". On the contrary, we had Boris Yeltsin, a leader of Russia who the August Coup wasn't able to detain, but defied them. The peculiar case happened then when the Russian federation, the largest member with the majority ethnicity of the union was against the Soviet Union. There simply was nobody to support the failed enterprise. Until now, when we have leadership in the Kremlin who will ethnic Russians everywhere.

It's funny that Crimea is mentioned so frequently - and fine to mention it, fair - but Guantanamo is not. Yet Guantanamo has nothing to do with the US - there are no Americans living there, minus the base. But people don't like to hear this. — Manuel

Actually the case of Cuba just shows how brittle the whole "sphere of influence" idea is. If you are overtly hostile towards a country, which the US has been towards Cuba, in the end you only have the option to invade. When sanctions, coup attempts, using proxies, assassination attempts aren't options anymore. Yes, you have that base GITMO where there is no business for the Americans to stray out of their base perimeter. With South American countries the US has to be even more careful as there simply isn't the option to militarily occupy them. Sometimes the pressure works, but sometimes it doesn't. And Russia has used all the alternative in the playbook to pressure Ukraine, which has lead Ukraine just to defend it's corner.

When the "sphere of influence" works is when the relationship is mutually beneficial and there is not hostility or aggression, just like the US enjoys with Canada (as the US hasn't any territorial claims at Canada and lost the last war when it was part of Great Britain). This is what @Apollodorus is utterly incapable to understand: the US didn't create it's sphere of influence by "divide and rule", but through integration, that the other countries saw beneficial also. Hence West European countries have accepted NATO as their own defense solution. That the US is bitching that the Europeans aren't paying up their share just show this relationship is different. There's a huge difference to the Warsaw Pact. After all, the only time the Warsaw Pact saw action was to crush the Prague Spring in 1968.

Which tells a lot about the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet system.

Lesson to be learned from the Nato-Russia standoff: An extremely effective way to prevent all-out war, by extension violence of any kind, is to make it a really expensive affair (economic sanctions, even just threats thereof, seem to work like a charm). Money (profits/losses) is a universal language. I wonder what Leibniz, who wanted to invent a logical language (calculemus) that could solve the world's problems and finally establish pax mundi, would've said about buying peace?

It's a MAD, MAD world! :up: — Agent Smith

And I'm sure that Leibniz wouldn't have liked that disappointing answer.

Have nukes. — ssu

It's a MAD, MAD world! :up: