I'm not an expert on the history of Russian foreign policy, but there are a lot of credible voices outside of the MSM that tell a different story than the U.S. administration does. For example:

1. http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-t...

2. http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview-seymour-he...

Those focus largely on other topics, but both touch on how the attitude towards Russia (and others) has been manipulated by U.S. media.

Given the U.S. administrations' track records for deceit in manipulating foreign affairs, I'm not inclined to dismiss the alternative narratives easily. Western governments do their fair share of astroturfing and media manipulation as well (can give many sources on that, if necessary).

So Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who plans to conquer Russia and turn them into American colonies? Wow, you could have fooled me.

If he is pursuing such wildly aggressive foreign policy, then how come all the hawks in this country continually condemn him for being a wimpy surrender-monkey?

The GOP criticizes Obama like he's the anti-christ for literally everything. They've opposed their own bills that they sponsored just because Obama later made public remarks about them being good bills.

If you're referring to stuff like the "red line" fiasco in Syria, Hersh explains that too. See: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

So you do think that Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who spent his whole eight years as president planning to invade and conquer Russia? Including explaining to the American public why that would be a good idea?

Georgia is the only one of these that can cast Putin in a negative light - he let his personal ambition cloud his judgement. Could have stopped at the border of Ossetia, but decided to push on a bit to show Georgians who is the boss.

For both Crimea and Transnistria they had their own referendums after the fall of USSR where they wanted to separate from Ukraine and Moldova respectively - neither of which were recognized by the larger countries. Its absurd to expect a region that wants to separate to get approval from everybody else. Ultimately it resulted in an armed conflict just as we see today. There is more to the story than MSM is feeding us.

NATO would never use military force to fix stuff, right?

To annex part of a country? I don't remember.

It didn't annex it, they created a country out of it. And it still is a country. Can you say the same about Crimea?

How could they create a country out of a part of another country without an annexation taking place first?

Or, are you going to argue, that Russia did not annex Transistria and South Othetia because a country was created?

Kosovo?

Annexation?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex Simple Definition of annex : to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place)

There is a big difference between separation and annexation.

In general, do we have many examples of countries changing borders forcibly after some time mid-last century? I certainly don't remember such a thing from G7. In this light, annexation of Crimea stands out as a regression to older - and less civilized by some standards - ways of doing things.

Does that change the fact, that NATO did forcibly take a territory from Serbia? That is supposed to be OK? For all intents and purposes, the Kosovo government will do whatever the US government wants. The terminus technicus is puppet government.

Even Crimea itself is an example of stolen territory. It was part of Russia, until (Ukrainian) Khrushchev moved it under administration of Ukrainian SSR in 1954. It was excused as being in the same country anyway. When USSR dissolved, the Crimean referendum about returning it back to Russia was ignored by the newly-formed government in Kiev.

Bismark knew 150 years ago not to try to cheat the Russians. They will always come and take back, what's theirs.

> Even Crimea itself is an example of stolen territory. It was part of Russia, until (Ukrainian) Khrushchev moved it under administration of Ukrainian SSR in 1954. It was excused as being in the same country anyway.

Not entirely true as it was not a single-handed decision, it has been voted by a council.

> When USSR dissolved, the Crimean referendum about returning it back to Russia was ignored by the newly-formed government in Kiev.

Could you precise which referendum are you referring to? There were only two of them if I remember correctly: 1. Referendum for independence of Ukraine: Crimea participated and voted "for". 2. Referendum to make Crimea an autonomous republic: was voted "for" and made Crimea and autonomous republic (as a part of Ukraine).

The 1991 referendum was: Do you support re-establishing the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of USSR and a party to the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR? That means to be on the same level as Ukraine in the USSR, not under Ukraine.

There were additional referendums, in 1992 and 1994, but they were asking questions with the reality of being part of Ukraine.

Crimea was an "oblast" (or region) of Ukrainian SSR and the referendum was about re-establishing the Crimean Autonomous republic which was the case and was signed by Ukrainian SSR council: http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/712-12

During the separation of republics from USSR, Crimea stayed as a part of Ukraine (and voted for the independence of Ukraine, btw) which was a logical move in terms of infrastructure.

I'm happy to see the mention of Crimean referendum after the collapse of USSR - seems like the will of the people who are actually living there is easily overlooked if it goes against what the West (mostly US) wants.

If Scotland wanted to separate from the UK, would they need UK's approval? Of course not, its a referendum involving the Scots, people who actually live there, whether to stay or not.

To futher the matter Crimea is a military outpost, and was so for hundreds of years, since Russian Tsars took it from the Tartars, which themselves were part of the Golden Horde and the Turks. Messing with this kind of stuff brings realpolitik out real quick.

If it worked that way, most of Russia would belong to Mongolia.

If you want to be intellectually honest towards yourself, you must admit that Russia was going to be cheated off Crimea. They didn't accept that. That's all.

I am being intellectually honest. Going back generations and claiming historical territory doesn't work peacefully in the long run.

It's not generation. The generation born when it was part of Russia still lives there. Their land was stolen from them, they took it back.

Trying to cheat them does not work in the long run.

"Their land"? Ukraine wasn't changing any land ownership AFAIK. Russia on the other hand currently might be doing just that, for some people.

(Source: a person a met who was born there. He told me that as Crimea is now under Russian control, the land registry is also moved to Russian system. If you want to ensure land ownership of your home, you have to re-register. It's not cheap, so many people cannot afford it. If you don't re-register, nothing happens - unless you happen to speak out against the new order. In that case someone will notice that you don't own your home, it actually belongs to some new friend of the new powers-that-be, and in fact your home is somewhere in Krasnoyarsk Oblast which is where your family was registered in 1942 or so).

Like stopping Muslims from being murdered in the Balkans?