Russias ruling elite need external threats to keep their reign secure, otherwise russians would start looking inwards rather than outwards.
These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact.
But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here.
And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation?
Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory?
>Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
* https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine * https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban...
The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam & Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it.
One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the...
The US has given weapons to Mexican gangs: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congr...
And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them.
However, when a South American country decides to buy other than US-debt & weapons, it forments revolutions and installs dictators: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Le...
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11...
* And another one: https://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2015/01/28/us-ann...
* And another one: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-q...
In short: There is no Nazi in Ukraine. There are some attempts to create nationalistic ultra-right organizations by Russian agents, but they are monitored and destroyed as usual. (I destroyed one of them and deflect attempt to create another by myself when I was in operation).
"Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. Last summer the Daily Beast published an interview by the journalists Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein in which a member of the Azov battalion spoke about “his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.”"
There is also this: "In the course of a little over four minutes, the two American diplomats exchange ideas about who ought to be promoted, and who ought to be demoted, by the United States inside Ukraine, which is suffering through a difficult and even violent political dispute over whether Ukraine will tilt east, toward Russia, or west, toward the United States and Europe. Let it first be noted that it shouldn’t be surprising that Nuland would come off as a would-be imperialist or game player. If anything, she’s long been the neoconservative inside the Obama administration." (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-so-secret-ukraine-phon...)
Can you point to _any_ evidence? (But exclude information from Russian Federation, please: it's completely OK for Russian invaders to have fear of Ukrainian military and throw dirty words and bold statements at them).
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0vbGj9cO4
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTX6JRpRY_E
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw
https://study.com/academy/lesson/nation-state-definition-exa...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Azov_Bat...
My English is not good, so I don't understand some of the sarcasm you are using. I was asking out of curiosity and to get another opinion. I meant no offense.
I already pointed to source of Azov emblem: it's symbol of French Revolution. IN symbol was used in modern Ukraine since 1991 at least (i.e. from beginning of independence).
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA...
I'm interested in actual evidence of fascism in Azov, because it will help to uncover yet another Russian agent. Number of Russian agents in Ukraine is estimated to about 20 000 agents.
Absolute nonsense. Neo-Nazi'sm has established itself in all of the Balkan and Eastern-European states, and fascism is on the rise. None are immune to its effects, because its growth is a tool of the military-industrial complex in its effort to derive yet more profit from fear, hatred, inhumanity.
Yesterday, it was terrorists. Tomorrow its neo-Nazi's and fascists. Either way, we're gonna need weapons to defeat them all, aren't we kids ...
https://www.quora.com/Is-Russia-justified-in-its-annexation-...
That's like the US invading Canada and saying "if we didn't do it Canada could have threatened our existence!".
It's a ridiculous statement.
Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation - or is voting only "pure" when America does it (lol)?
Is the USA the only country who is "allowed" to protect its sovereign citizens?
So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back?
One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%.
The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis?
>Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving.
Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US.
>And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?