It's a weird game of cat and mouse you describe but lets be clear, the annexation of Crimea, was, in Russias eyes a direct counter to the US backed revolution in Ukraine.

The US has wanted Ukraine in NATO for as long as I've been alive if not longer, having forces on the front door of Russia along the European border is something they deeply desire.. US Government's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs even admitted to pouring billions into the effort.[0]

So lets not pretend that the US government is in a morally unquestionable position either.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

I should have been more clear. By aggression I mean direct and overt military action.

Courting a country for NATO isn't quite the same as actively invading.

You are 100% correct that it's a game of cat and mouse.

>A new cold war has also been pushed domestically for the political benefit of Putin et al.

I don't think so, but I really lack the historical knowledge of the previous Cold War. However, Trump's remarks on starting an arms race are really troubling in light of all of this.

Currently this appears to be a tit-for-tat propaganda campaign. Maybe even some blatantly vengeful actions by a departing administration. We already know governments hack each other regularly, so what distinguishes that from some kind of Cold War mobilization of government hackers? A recruitment surge, less activity devoted to China or European nations, mysterious sudden problems in Russia cropping up?

When someone writes a story about a very good malware suite suddenly wrecking Russian infrastructure or collapsing businesses crucial to the Russian economy, then it'll obviously have started.

There were some stories about a Russian bank being hacked and money stolen, as well as a (related?) story saying that Russia had stopped a hack. I don't know how true any of that was and they vanished off the radar soon afterwards.

The invasion of Crimea was a direct response to US/NATO aggression.

1) The US helped plot to overthrow the Ukranian government in 2014.

2) Russia was not keen on NATO pushing for Ukraine to become a member, which would literally put the Russians major warm naval port under NATO hands.

3) Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries, the only reason Crimea became a part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union is because the SSR transferred Crimea from the Russian state to the Ukraine state in 1954 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the Ukraine as part of Russia.

4) The vast majority of the population of Crimea has been for hundreds of years of Russian ethnicity and language.

5) Crimea voted to rejoin Russia

The State of Politics are much deeper than you seem to admit.

Edit: Russia's support for Syria has more to do with the strategic location of Syria and the transportation of Russia's Natural Resources through that territory.

The Crimean invasion had many reasons. First, it is an attempt to keep Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. Ukraine is essential for Russia to rebuild its empire and restore its power. Ukraine served as a big agricultural and industrial resource for Russia for long time. Also many prominent Ukrainians made significant input into building the tzar Russian empire and later, the USSR.

In order to keep Ukraine in its orbit, Russia systematically undermined Ukrainian government and security using corruption (which was extremely effective). However, when a significant number of Ukrainians became more and more convinced with democracy (and here the strong political and cultural Western influence is apparent, nothing secret about it) they finally protested against corrupted politics provided by then-president Yanukovich supported (and controlled) by V.Putin.

With the occupation of Crimea and Donbass (Eastern Ukraine), Russia tries to keep influencing Ukraine in a military way, since the old way through corruption is no longer possible. It also played well internally and ensured electoral support for Putin as Russia economy started declining following the fall of oil prices. The occupation also intentionally demonstrated that the existing international law has no power it claims to have which implies that the global security system should be redesigned.

Is there any credible evidence that the US/NATO was behind a coup in Ukraine? Google doesn't reveal anything substantial.

Ukraine is/was a sovereign nation. Why should Russia stop them from joining NATO if that is what they want? The invasion of their country seems to suggest that a desire for NATO protection was warranted?

Annexing another sovereign nation based upon historical claims and access to a military port is blatant aggression and a return to the cold war mentality (sending unmarked military units over the border? Supplying arms and equipment?).

Leaving out Russian news sources of which there are numerous:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2...

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-trainers-ukraine

https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/west-hems-russia...

From the second link:

"[Nuland's] strong statement of preference for how Ukraine's government should be formed – and apparent confidence that the US has major influence over that – is a reminder of the disconnect between US government assurances that it doesn't meddle in nations' internal politics and its actual behavior (White House spokesman Jay Carney repeats this canard in his comment on the tape.) This was not a conversation analyzing unfolding events and how to respond to what comes next. This was about molding a situation according to US interests."

1) Obama's admittance in an interview on CNN

> Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-f...

2) Emails between the NATO general and US political staff, regarding US involvement in Ukraine politics during that time.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/

3) NATO agreed not to expand to the East in 1990 when the SU broke up, and Crimea Voted To Rejoin Russia.

Edit: Feel free to Listen to the Phone call between Nuland and Pyatt from 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Thanks for the links.

The second link is specifically about a US general going behind Obama's back in an attempt to escalate the conflict and the third even talks about how Russia is probably having similar conversations.

I don't disagree that the US/EU/NATO hasn't played games in the conflict. I do however think that there is a difference between political games and sending tanks across a border.

Thanks again for the links.

Many of your points are valid. However pointing to an "election" with no real choice while occupied by a foreign power undermines your position significantly.

> The US helped plot to overthrow the Ukranian government in 2014.

Which is not supported by any claims, except wild Russian propaganda.

> NATO pushing for Ukraine to become a member

Same.

> Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries

Russia (as is) didn't exist _for centuries_.

> to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the Ukraine as part of Russia

That's wrong on so many levels...

> Crimea voted to rejoin Russia

Sure. _After_ Russia invaded Crimea they've held highly falsified voting which wasn't recognized by any international officials.

All in all, your information tend to be highly skewed to Kremlin propaganda.

1) Supported by many claims and was linked to including verified phone calls.

2) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russia-wary-of-nat...

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/04/opinion/la-oe-walker...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/22/say-no-to-...

3)>"Gifted" because Khrushchev's transfer was ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. And he probably didn't think the Soviet Union would be gone less than 40 years later.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/c...

4) 2/3 of Crimeans are ethnically Russian, and Russians have been the predominant people in Crimea for 100 years

> Supported by many claims and was linked to including verified phone calls.

And you've failed to produce any sources for those _many_ claims?

Color me suprprised.

Oh you're a fucking moron who can't read a thread.

Listen to the hacked Nuland-Pyatt call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

Ron Paul: U.S. State Dept. Conspired To Overthrow Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZwPy8ogGXc

Ukraine’s Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshe...

Do you seriously doubt that <50% of Crimean population would have voted to join Russia?

If the population is hostile to the supposed aggressor there's usually guerrilla warfare that starts almost immediately after the invasion.

History has no shortage of examples of this.

Yet there's an absence of this in Crimea.

Absence? So why Russia started to exile, suppress and kill Crimean Tatars then?

Because they refused to acknowledge the referendum and threatened violence?

So there _is_ a resistance movement in Crimea.