Bharat Rakshak

vic wrote:I think rather than just breaking off Crimea only, Russia should encourage multiple break ups of Ukraine, to keep Mainland of Ukraine occupied and also legally unable to claim Crimea.

If Gas supplies are cut off by Ukraine, then Russia should create trouble in Middle East, so that hike in Crude Oil prices will compensate for the loss.

tarun wrote:http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omid ... ents-show/

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark deep force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

Philip wrote:The moves have already been made for a legitimate merging of the Crimea and Russia,in whichever manner that the Crimeans want it.The current junta in Kiev is being called illegitimate by the Russians and pres-in-exile Yanukovych

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... hite-house

Political leaders moved fast in Moscow with the parliament rapidly introducing a law that would make it easier for new territories to be added to Russia's existing borders, a move that seemed directly linked to events in Crimea. The bill would allow for regions to join Russia by referendum if its host country does not have a "legitimate government". MP Elena Mizulina said: "If as the result of a referendum, Crimea appeals to Russia with a desire to join us, we should have the legal mechanisms to answer."

Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky flew to Crimea and addressed cheering crowds in Sevastopol, promising them financial and psychological support against the new government in Kiev.

Another law under discussion would ease the requirements for Russian-speaking Ukrainians to receive Russian citizenship, and late on Friday, the Russian foreign ministry said it had ordered its consulate in Simferopol to begin "urgently" issuing passports to members of the Berkut riot police. The toughest regiments of police in Ukraine, Berkut regiments were used by Yanukovych against peaceful protesters. In the western city of Lviv, Berkut officers got down on their knees and begged forgiveness for the actions of their colleagues, but in Crimea, the returning troops have been greeted as heroes.

In Kiev, a new cabinet was voted in by the parliament on Thursday and needs to get to work to ease the appalling state of the economy, with Ukraine's currency weakening and the country facing a serious risk of default. The new government has been recognised as legitimate by most regions of Ukraine outside Crimea, but still has work to do to integrate law-enforcement bodies and restart the functioning of the state.

Ukraine's armed forces are dwarfed by Russia's – but would be no pushover if the Kremlin did decide to go for broke. "It is a nightmare for everyone," said Igor Sutyagin, a Russian military expert. "The entry of Russian troops would be a deep humiliation for Ukraine … It would be a second Chechnya."

According to translated news sources within the country, Ukraine interim representative threatened Russia with nuclear weapons, if Russia does not remove their troops from within the Ukrainian borders.

Mikhail Golovko said in a live interview that,“Russia can not win in this situation, it is a violation of all international norms and guarantees … If they are violated, we reserve the right to recover a nuclear weapon. Resume nuclear status and will be quite different to communicate, “ he said.

Golovko said that Ukraine has all the necessary technology to recreate nuclear weapons, for these purposes must be “3-6 months,”

“They can not accept that Ukraine is moving away from their orbits. Under Yanukovich we were actually a colony of Moscow, signed an agreement … This onerous convulsions, attempts to play the card of Crimea “, he added.

“Crimea patchy, there is a very active group of Tatars … I’m sure that we can resolve … Admiral Igor Tenyukh knows the situation in the Crimea, he can respond appropriately … We have a real chance to cope. There needs cleaning staff … agents of foreign intelligence, “- he said.

The deputy called Russia’s actions ”explicit intervention”.

According to the BBC, Refat Chubarov, the head of the Crimean Tatar Majlis (assembly) says he is calling on Tatars to stay at home and not form resistance units. “Literally hours remain until catastrophe,” he said to the Gazprom-owned Russian radio station Ekho Moskvy. Tatars make up about 12 percent of Crimea’s population and have sided with the anti-Yanukovych protesters - now government - in Kiev.

The Russian parliament granted Vladimir Putin's request for permission to use the country's military in Ukraine on Saturday afternoon.

"In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory [in Crimea] ... I submit a proposal on using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the normalisation of the socio-political situation in the country," the statement said.

Earlier in the day, Russia's lower house of parliament asked Mr Putin to "take measures to stabilise the situation in Crimea and use all available means to protect the people of Crimea from tyranny and violence".

Crimean politician Sergei Aksyonov had earlier claimed he was in control of the area and declared that the armed forces, police, national security service and border guards will answer only to his orders.

Mr Aksyonov, who is head of the main pro-Russian party on the peninsula, appealed to Russia "for assistance in guaranteeing peace and calmness on the territory of the autonomous republic of Crimea".

He was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over the region's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev following the removal of Viktor Yanukovych.

Border guard ships have reportedly left bases to prevent the capture of military bases and ships in the Crimea region.

The move comes after pro-Russian authorities in Crimea and Russia's Black Sea fleet agreed to gThe Ukrainian army are on “high alert” in Crimea after Russia allegedly moved 6,000 troops into the border region, taking control of airports and roads.uard buildings in the region together, according to Russia's RIA news agency.

The international airport at Simferopol, the main city, confirmed its airspace was closed on Saturday after armed men took control on Friday.

"Due to limitations in the use of the airspace, the airport has temporarily suspended receiving flights," the airport said in a written statement.

A soldier rests atop a Russian armored personnel carriers with a road sign reading A soldier rests atop a Russian armored personnel carriers with a road sign reading "Sevastopol - 32 kilometers" Ukrainian military sources say that Russian servicemen also control military airfields in Belbek, near Sevastopol, and in Kirovskoye in eastern Crimea.

The Prime Minister of Ukraine vowed that his country will not be drawn into war by Russian “provocations”.
Speaking on Saturday morning, Arseny Yatseniuk appealed to Mr Putin’s government to halt military movements in the border region.

“It is unacceptable when armoured Russian military vehicles are out in the centre of Ukrainian towns,” he said before a government meeting in Kiev.

Russia, which has a naval base in Crimea, insisted any movements by its military in Crimea are in line with agreements with Ukraine over its naval fleet.
The Russian foreign ministry accused Kiev politicians of trying to destabilise the situation on the peninsula.
"In Russia, we are extremely concerned about the recent developments in Crimea," a statement said.

"We believe it is extremely irresponsible to further pressure the already tense situation."

Two airports in Crimea have been taken over by soldiers and armoured personnel carriers were seen on the roads as links through the area were shut off to the public.

The Crimean peninsula’s main port, Sevastopol, where Russia’s Black Sea fleet is based, has also been blocked off.

Barack Obama warned Mr Putin that there “will be costs” for any military intervention in Ukraine but did not go into details.

“We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine,” he added.

“Any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilising, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe.

“It would present a profound interference in matters that must be decided by the Ukrainian people.”

The local administration in Crimea moved a referendum on whether the Autonomous State of Crimea should have even greater independence forward to 30 March.

It only became part of Ukraine in 1954 when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred jurisdiction from Russia, a move that was a mere formality when both Ukraine and Russia were part of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet breakup in 1991 meant Crimea landed in an independent Ukraine.

vic wrote:Western World wants Russians to pay for pro-West Ukraine through Gas subsidies. I think that Russia should tell Ukraine to shove it and let EU sort out the mess, if they want continued Gas supply. If there is no agreement, Russia will suffer minor losses but Ukraine will be devastated without Gas supply from Russia.

But changes in the global trade in natural gas have blunted Moscow’s weapon, forcing the Russian pipeline monopoly Gazprom to cut prices worldwide and giving Ukraine slightly more bargaining power.

The boom in U.S. shale gas has left gas-exporting countries shopping for other customers. Europe, as it adds terminals to handle liquefied natural gas, will be able to offset its own declining production with supplies from countries such as Qatar. And in 2012, Norway’s Statoil sold more gas to other European nations than Russia’s Gazprom.

Shale gas production doesn’t make a major upward move until 2016, according to EIA. Spot prices for natural gas at the major Louisiana pricing hub will drop to $3.12 per million British thermal units in 2014 and 2015, below this year’s average forecast price of $3.25, according to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. Prices don’t pick up until 2016 either, in the EIA assessment.

Vann Tedd 01.03.2014 17:32
@Tony Allen 'it is time to step up to the plate!! Stop, listen, the people of this world are fed up with you'

No Tony allen ,the people of the world are FED UP with NATO and United States weapons of mass distraction lies and their illegal war and also their overthrowing of democratically elected governments and others. Fed up with their wars and western support for criminals and terrorist and financing the unrest in countries. This have nothing to do with Putin , but with the awakening of the world ,moving away from Fascism that NATO represent.

RT is an excellent channel,with English speaking anchors as good or even better than the Beeb too!

Time to start following the Russian news media.Why can't India have such Independent News Media I wonder.

Putin is shaping events in Ukraine. It's time the west caught up
In the biggest security threat since the Balkan wars, western leaders are demonstrating a weak grasp of unfolding events
Observer editorial
The Observer, Sunday 2 March 2014

Unidentified soldiers block a road to the Belbek military airport near Sevastopol. Photograph: Vasiliy Batanov/AFP/Getty Images

One of the alarming features of the crisis on Ukraine's Crimean peninsula is the staggering confidence with which Vladimir Putin is pursuing his agenda there and in eastern Ukraine.

In quick order, Russian troops from the Black Sea fleet – as it has now been acknowledged by the pro-Russian prime minister of Crimea – have seized airports and strategic locations, including government buildings and broadcast centres. Saboteurs have damaged the fibreoptic telephone cables connecting Crimea to Ukraine. There are unconfirmed reports of attempts to seize an air defence missile base and of landings by military hovercraft. On Saturday the upper house of the Russian parliament voted unanimously to approve an intervention that was already happening.

For those familiar with Russian political and military strategy the recent moves are instantly recognisable from the old Russian military playbook – not least the emphasis on manipulation, surprise and provocation by which a sense of crisis is stoked up followed by an appeal for aid. Whether this will follow the pattern of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Russian peacekeepers occupied and effectively annexed territory, is a moot point on a peninsula with a large Russian-speaking population dominated by both the Black Sea fleet base at Sevastopol and by the large bases of the Russian southern military command across the border around Krasnodar and Rostov-on-Don. But for now it seems that is the intention.

It is for this very reason – combined with the Russian seat on the security council and its nuclear status – that Putin has ample room for manoeuvre in Crimea. Potential western sanctions against Moscow are limited to largely symbolic gestures, not least now the winter Olympics are over.

The real bind is for the new Ukrainian government in Kiev and for the EU, both of which will want to avoid a widening conflict, the latter because it would take place on Europe's borders. The reality is that an already fragile and divided Ukraine cannot risk confrontation with Moscow, paradoxically the power that was supposed to guarantee the security of its borders when it gave up its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, in a hint of what may be in store for Kiev, the Russian energy ministry – which has been employed by Putin before as a powerful economic lever against Ukraine – has issued a pointed reminder of how much Kiev owes Gazprom for gas imports.

The assertion of Russia's influence in Crimea, even if it stops at this point, fulfils two overlapping functions. It underlines Moscow's longstanding strategic interest there and also undermines Ukraine's new government in its efforts to establish its authority over the country's east, in particular in the run up to elections on 25 May. Already the actions in Crimea have prompted an inevitable response, not least in the eastern city of Donetsk, where strong pro-Russian sentiments are now much in evidence.

All of which means that in the short term a truncated, divided, increasingly impoverished and perhaps politically and militarily impotent Ukraine will emerge from this crisis. All of which will suit Putin. What is hard to see, having been so effectively outmanoeuvred over the last two days, is how the US and EU should respond beyond futile expressions of concern and outrage. Equally, it is clear that when western political institutions have attempted to penetrate Russia's neighbours – the suggestion of Nato expansion in Georgia, and closer EU integration for Ukraine – Moscow has pushed back hard on both occasions.

The only concrete efforts so far have been the threat by Barack Obama to boycott the G8 summit in Sochi later this year, and support for UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's deployment of his special envoy, Robert Serry, to Crimea to seek a mediated solution. So far Serry has been rebuffed.

One thing is certain: the current crisis presents the biggest threat to security in Europe since the Balkan wars, and western leaders, including Obama and David Cameron (who has spoken to Putin on the phone), have hardly been impressive in their response, demonstrating a weak grasp on the events unfolding. For now, Putin is ahead of the game. It is time for the international community to catch up

Much recent comment on Ukraine in the British press has been marked by a barely forgivable ignorance about its history and politics, an overhasty willingness to put the blame for all its troubles on Vladimir Putin, and an almost total inability to suggest practical ways of bringing effective Western influence to bear on a solution.

So perhaps we should start with a short history lesson. A thousand years ago Kiev was the capital of an Orthodox Christian state called Rus with links reaching as far west as England. But Rus was swept away by the Tatars in the 13th century, leaving only a few principalities in the north, including an obscure town deep in the forests, called Moscow.

What became known as Ukraine – a Slav phrase meaning “borderlands” – was regularly fought over by Tatars, Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Turks, Swedes and Cossacks. One large chunk, including Kiev itself, joined Russia in the 17th century. Galicia in the west fell to the Austrians in the following century, but was taken by Poland after the First World War, when the rest of Ukraine joined the Soviet Federation. Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin handed Galicia and its capital Lviv to Ukraine in 1945. All these changes were accompanied by much bloody fighting.

Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula followed a different but equally tumultuous path. The seat of a powerful and predatory Tatar state, it was conquered and settled by the Russians in the 18th century. Stalin deported its Tatar minority in 1944 because, he said, they had collaborated with the Germans. They were later allowed to return. Crimea only became part of Ukraine in 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Kiev as a present.

Ukraine became an independent country for the first time since the Middle Ages when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. It had many of the requirements for success: an educated population, good links with the outside world and substantial industry, though its economy remained distorted by the Soviet legacy. But it was still divided, with an uncertain sense of nationhood. Today 77 per cent of the country’s population is Ukrainian. But 17 per cent is Russian, a third of the population speak Russian and many of these people have strong family ties with Russia. Only the Ukrainians from Galicia look unequivocally to the West.

Meanwhile, most Russians feel strong emotional links to Ukraine as the cradle of their civilisation. Even the most open minded feel its loss like an amputated limb.

Things started well enough. Russia and Ukraine negotiated a sensible agreement to allow the Russian Black Sea Fleet to remain in Crimea. With well-judged concessions, the Ukrainians assuaged the demands of Crimea’s Russian inhabitants for closer ties with the motherland. But the Ukrainians were unlucky in their country’s new leaders, most of whom were incompetent or worse. They failed to modernise the economy; corruption ran out of control. Then Putin arrived in 2000, ambitious to strengthen Russia’s influence with its neighbours. And the West began its ill-judged attempts to draw Ukraine into its orbit regardless of Russian sensitivities.

Despite his best efforts, both overt and covert, Putin has failed to shape Ukraine to his will. He got his puppet Yanukovych elected president in 2004, only to see him overthrown in an Orange Revolution supported by millions of dollars of Western money. The “democratic” leaders who then emerged proved incompetent as well as corrupt. Yanukovych was re-elected in a fair election in 2010, but was even more incompetent and corrupt. His forceful ejection at the height of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, intended to showcase a modern and powerful Russia, was a humiliation for Putin and an unintended consequence of his intrigues. He is a vindictive man who will want revenge.

Read more: Ukraine vows to fight after Russia says yes to invasion
Moscow catches the world off guard
How far will president Putin go to keep his hands on Crimea?
Editorial: We don’t want a war with Russia

Although he is also a cunning politician, he already looks incapable of calm calculation. His apparent threat – or intention – to use force in Crimea would up the stakes in ways whose consequences neither he nor anyone else can foresee.

He may of course believe that the West will be unable to find an adequate response, and he may not be wrong. Western policy towards Ukraine has had two inadequate parts. The first is respectable but merely rhetorical: Ukraine is entitled to decide its future for itself, and Russia has no legitimate claim to a voice. The second is a piece of old-fashioned geopolitics: Russia can never again become an imperial threat if Ukraine is incorporated into Nato and the European Union. This part of the policy is impractical to the point of irresponsibility. It ignores four things. The members of Nato and the EU have lost their appetite for further enlargement. Most Ukrainians do not want their country to join Nato, though they would be happy to join the EU. A majority want to remain on good terms with Russia.

Above all, the West does not have the instruments to impose its will. It has no intention of getting into a forceful confrontation with Russia. Lesser sanctions are available to it, both economic and political, but they will hardly be sufficient to deflect a determined Russia from its meddling.

The alternative is for the West to talk to the Russians and to whoever can speak with authority for Ukraine. So far the Americans have been ineffective on the sidelines, the British seem to have given up doing foreign policy altogether, and only the Germans, the Poles and the French have shown any capacity for action.

An eventual deal would doubtless have to include verifiable agreement by the West as well as the Russians to abandon meddling in Ukrainian affairs, a credible assurance that Nato will not try to recruit Ukraine and arrangements for the both the Russians and the West to prop up Ukraine’s disastrous economy. The sums involved are vast ($35bn has been mentioned). The task of ensuring that they are properly spent will be taxing in the extreme.

All that would involve much eating of words on all sides. It would enable the West to show that it can move beyond fine rhetoric about democracy to real deeds. It will be very hard to achieve. It may already be too late. But the alternatives are liable to be far worse.

Rodric Braithwaite was ambassador in Moscow in 1988-92. His last book was Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan 1979-89

"Nations, like individuals, are born, live and die. In fact, as Shlomo Sands so brilliantly demonstrated in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, nations are really invented, created. In fact, the 20th century has shown us many nations invented ex-nihilo, out of nothing (in order to avoid offending somebody or getting sidetracked, I shall not give examples, but God knows there are many).

A "nation" does not need to have deep historical and cultural roots, it does not need to have a legitimate historiography, in fact, all it takes to "create a nation" is a certain amount of people identifying themselves as a community - all the rest can be created/invented later.

Thus the argument of some Russians that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation is fundamentally mistaken: if there are enough people identifying themselves as "Ukrainian" then a distinct "Ukrainian nation" exists. It does not matter at all that there is no trace of that nation in history or that its founding myths are ridiculous as long as a distinct common is shared by its members.

And from that point of view, the existence of a Ukrainian nation fundamentally different from the Russian one is an undeniable reality. And that is the immense achievement of the Latin Church - it undeniably succeeded in its desire to cut-off the western Russians from their historical roots and to create a new nation: the Ukrainians.

As an aside, but an important one I think, I would note that the Mongols played a similarly crucial role in the creation of the modern Russian nation. After all, what are the "founding blocks" of the Russian culture. The culture of the Slavs before the Christianization of Russia in the 10th century? Yes, but minimally. The continuation of the Roman civilization after the Fall of the 2nd Rome? Yes, to some degree, but not crucially. The adoption of the Christian faith after the 10 century? Yes, definitely. But the Russian *state* which grew out of the rather small Grand Duchy of Moscow was definitely shaped by the Mongol culture and statecraft, not Byzantium or ancient Rus.

It would not be incorrect to say that ancient Kievan Rus eventually gave birth to two distinct nations: a Ukrainian one fathered by the Papist occupation and a Russian one, fathered by the Mongol occupation. In that sense the russophobic statement of the Marquis de Custine "Grattez le Russe, et vous verrez un Tartare" (scratch the Russian and you will find a Mongol beneath) is correct. Equally, however, I would argue that one could say that "scratch the Ukrainian, and you will find the Papist beneath"." The Saker

---------------------------

The Saker man is evidently a "legal alien" living in Austria. This article is a potent explication of the present mess. I think he under-rates the possibility that Russia may decide to cut the Gordian knot in this situation, but, we will see. We will see, pl

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/

And that is the immense achievement of the Latin Church - it undeniably succeeded in its desire to cut-off the western Russians from their historical roots and to create a new nation: the Ukrainians.

It is becoming clear that the Nuland/neocon/NED campaign against Russia in Ukraine was probably a covert action intended to punish Russia for not supporting US/Israeli/Saudi and Turkish policy in Syria and to some extent with regard to Iran. I have no specific knowledge of US actions in this but "back azimuths" run into events and actors make the true story obvious. Was there to be a second phase of the spread of revolution, a phase aimed at Russia itself? We will probably never know.

"What we are risking is a great power confrontation. The various Russian strategic thinkers have already said that NATO bases in Ukraine would be a serious strategic threat to the existence of an independent Russia. So, if Ukraine moves into the EU and then NATO bases are on their way, there's no doubt whatsoever that southern and eastern Ukraine are going to split off, and I just don't believe the Russians are going to give up their naval base on the Black Sea. So, if the Americans push too hard, and by Americans I mean Washington, of course, it's going to be a great power confrontation. Very, very serious thing... I mean what in the world do you think Washington cares about democracy in Ukraine? They don't even have any in the United States! We have a police state that spies on everybody, the whole world. The media is a propaganda ministry. It's worse than it ever was in the Soviet Union. People have no idea of what's going on and what they're told about the Ukraine is a fabrication." Paul Craig Roberts quoted in the Voice of Russia

-------------------------------------

If you are Russian, it is very easy to see what has happened in Kiev as a neocon inspired US plot for which the "second act" will be an attempt to foment a similar uprising in Russia itself. This belief is reflected in the article quoted above.

Paul Craig Roberts and Phil Geraldi make strong cases for the continued influence of the neocnservatives. As a conspiratorial "vanguard" the neocons think nothing of changing their official party identity in pursuit of power.

Americans should ask themselves if people like Victoria Nuland and Michael Rubin are dragging the United States toward a crisis and possible conflict with Russia.

The neocons gave us the Iraq war. What a triumph that has proven to be. What new mischief will they heap upon the heads of the American people? pl

Cosmo_R wrote:

vic wrote:I think rather than just breaking off Crimea only, Russia should encourage multiple break ups of Ukraine, to keep Mainland of Ukraine occupied and also legally unable to claim Crimea.

If Gas supplies are cut off by Ukraine, then Russia should create trouble in Middle East, so that hike in Crude Oil prices will compensate for the loss.

And it will screw us. India's oil bill will spike.

rsingh wrote:I wonder how India will react if Shri Lanka invites China to set up major base to control Indian Ocean? Do we have enough guts to invade S Lanka on the pretext of saving Tamils?

Bentley in Loule, Portugal

emails: Someone need tell the Ukrainians beguiled by EU promises that the EU countries who fell for the same promises are now in desperate trouble with millions out of work and starving as is now happening in Portugal where I live

Philip wrote:.Did it guarantee us alternative supplies at reasonable rates?

The second phase was not (yet) a direct regime change action on Russia (Putin's Russia is pretty coup proved) but a take over of the Crimea (with the help of (Muslim) Tartar irregular forces trained in Turkey), nullifying the Russian status of force agreement there and thereby neutralizing the Russian Black Sea fleet. It is that fleet that is supplying and protecting Syria.

This phase was interrupted when Russian forces controlled the airports and a Turkish plane had to turn around. That plan is now busted.

Russia can now pick the valuable eastern parts of Ukraine and dump the dirt-poor rest on "western" taxpayers.

Well done neo-cons.

My fear is not that Moscow or Washington will engage each other. Neither is stupid.

Rather, it is that some other actor eager to see a major power confrontation carries out some covert action that causes events to take on a life of their own. For example, the rioters in Kiev, Bandar and company, or elements of the radical Likudniks. These on-lookers to history remind me of Princip and the Black Hand. Both BHO and Putin must worry about a similar spark and I would advise them both to be vigilant

So they throw Ukraine into turmoil, shmooze with Ukrainian Neo-Nazis (white power flags and Wolfsangel runes on Maidan square were notable), or any ultra nationalist as long as only he is anti-Russian.

And apparently they have trained Tartar separatists (Jihadis?) in Turkey and planned to ship them over to the Krim to make a stir, all that just to stick it to Putin for having the gall to save the US from their own self-destructive impulses, not just once but twice?

Just take that demented lunatic McCain and look at what scum he gets himself on photo with.

Neocon allies generally appear to consist of the scum of the earth - and what a motley crew they have: Ukrainian neo-nazis, Syrian kidnappers and prisoner beheaders, communist terrorist cultis like the MEK, Tartar Jihadis, Chechen Jihadis, Beluchi Jihadis, probably Uighur Juhadis as well, just to cause China some headache - the madder the better.

Neocons will go to bed with anybody as long as they think they can use them against some of their choice targets.

This has often puzzled me about Western analysis of Russia. It is often predicated on wholly Western logic: surely, Russia won't invade [Georgia, Ukraine, whoever's next] because war is costly and the Russian economy isn't doing well and surely Putin doesn't want another hit to an already weak ruble; because Russia doesn't need to conquer Crimea if Crimea is going to secede on its own; Russia will not want to risk the geopolitical isolation, and "what's really in it for Russia?"—stop. Russia, or, more accurately, Putin, sees the world according to his own logic, and the logic goes like this: it is better to be feared than loved, it is better to be overly strong than to risk appearing weak, and Russia was, is, and will be an empire with an eternal appetite for expansion. And it will gather whatever spurious reasons it needs to insulate itself territorially from what it still perceives to be a large and growing NATO threat. Trying to harness Russia with our own logic just makes us miss Putin's next steps.

had already accused Russia of a "military invasion and occupation" of Crimea. Michael McFaul, until last week the US ambassador to Russia, castigated the Kremlin: "Russian companies and banks with business in the west will suffer as a result of reckless Putin decision. Will they speak up?" he tweeted.

But the parliamentary session roundly dismissed western criticism in advance. Senator Nikolai Ryzhkov said Russia should be prepared for the west to "unleash their dogs on us". "They ruined Yugoslavia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, all in the name of western democracy. It's not even double standards, it's political cynicism."