Please don't read it as support for Russia but standard geopolitical fair. Because of the leaked Victoria Nuland phone call (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957), it's pretty clear that the US is engaged in some clandestine nation-building in Ukraine. This is not democracy but corruption of democracy.

In this situation, Russia is being an opportunist by securing its interests in the area. the US holds no moral authority over Russia in that regard. Putin knows that westerners are war-weary. And compared to ISIS, Russia is still a saint. So it's the right time for them to support their rebel allies.

Poor Ukraine is being torn apart between 3 world powers.

I wonder what kind of secret nation-building activities could US be engaged in? Last events that raised the patriotism level were annexing of one region and bringing deadly unrest to another and both had come from the same world power. I can't see the other 2 tearing us apart. Not that they had to. People are shifting towards West even more thanks to east neighbour's aggression.

In many former USSR countries there are large Russian minorities living which was moved there by the Soviet Union to "dilute" ethnic groups. A form of demographic warfare. They still live there and aren't always treated well by the ethnic majority. So when nationalists topple the government they get worried.

It's a much more complicated situation than the media reports even if it still doesn't justify a military invasion by any means.

I still don't get why people say that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40142&Cr=iraq&C...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/chemical-ali-de...

And yet the idea that Saddam did not have - or use - chemical weapons is treated as gospel today. WTF ?

I don't understand this. Suppose you are standing near a corpse, with a bullethole. You see smoke rising from the hand of a person who claims to have shot him. But the gun ... there's no gun.

My conclusion would be : obviously he did something to the gun, let's go search, if necessary search the neighbor's house.

The apparent conclusion I'm supposed to take away from that : "there never was any gun !"

Really ?

Are you serious?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

It does not support the assertion that Iraq did not have WMD's. Instead, it clearly states and illustrates that Iraq was building and improving the know-how and industrial capability to produce and use WMD's, including sarin-based chemical missiles and nuclear weapons, but during the 1995-2003 period wasn't producing actual WMD's (aside from limited development prototypes). They were certainly intending to use them in the future.

So yes, technically you're right that Iraq would not have had significant actual WMD capability in 2003. It did have the capability to change that very quickly.

So yes, this page answered what happened to the gun : it was kept disassembled in the backyard. I fully support the decision not to let Iraq keep the disassembled gun. I also find the assertion that without the Iraq war, groups like al-qaeda and/or hamas might have had the capability of firing long-range (100-200 km) guided missiles with Sarin and/or Anthrax payloads credible, although of course not proven.

(given the discoveries, this once again illustrates that you cannot trust the UN to do anything right. This "mistake" is once again a very, very strong indication that the UN WANTS to be deceived on these matters. As I've heard the UN described "Aid to dictators, on the condition that they violate human rights on a grand scale. This advances the cause of human rights worldwide ! Give us money !". That is a perfectly accurate assessment of that organisation)

> In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.[108]

> "ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250 km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN."

> "ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100 km to 150–180 km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF – one was shot down and one hit Kuwait."

> On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."[117]

And of course the beginnings of leaks into terrorist organisations :

> A 7 pound block of cyanide salt was discovered by U.S. military in safe-house for Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist residing in Iraq since prior the U.S. invasion.[110] The poison block was discovered in a raid of the safe-house on January 23 of 2003.[111]

(7 pound of cyanide salt is enough to kill everybody in a small town if you can get it to disperse through the air. Granted, probably wouldn't work with even mild wind conditions, but properly executed on an idealy moment, it can kill thousands)

What I find most amazing, though, is that somebody somewhere thinks that it is worth paying money for comments on portals like gazeta.pl — this is like sponsoring YouTube comments! Nobody sane ever reads them, it's a cesspool anyway.

The near-universal Western condemnation of Putin includes citing the "emotional address" in which he complained bitterly that the U.S. and its allies had "cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't involve you.' "

Putin's complaints are factually accurate. When President Gorbachev accepted the unification of Germany as part of NATO -- an astonishing concession in the light of history -- there was a quid pro quo. Washington agreed that NATO would not move "one inch eastward," referring to East Germany.

The promise was immediately broken, and when Gorbachev complained, he was instructed that it was only a verbal promise, so without force.

President Clinton proceeded to expand NATO much farther to the east, to Russia's borders. Today there are calls to extend NATO even to Ukraine, deep into the historic Russian "neighborhood." But it "doesn't involve" the Russians, because its responsibility to "uphold peace and stability" requires that American red lines are at Russia's borders.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20140501.htm

Not all opinions are equally valid.

All of US circa 2003? No downvotes back then.

IF you were Ukrainian you would not be defending it's government after they have been milking every citizen for their own purpose within the past 10 years.

So I'm confused by your agenda, but it's obvious you are here to post garbage that blindly fits your agenda.

It's funny to see the exact opposite story as the western media is giving. Stories about pro-russians being harassed by pro-western Urkainians and the government were (and are) abundant. From their point of view, a pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown. General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Constant allegations and sanctions against Russia while they feel they have very little influence on what pro-russians are doing in Ukraine. Mostly, it seems like there's a feeling of pro-russian sentiments being repressed, the west not giving a damn and Russia's hand being tied via international pressure.

Meanwhile, when I look at the western media, it honestly disgusts me. While pro-russian media generally seems to ignore a lot of stories that put them in a negative light, the western media seems to actively be painting pro-russian and Russia in a bad light. It's a general trend I've noticed in where western media is often on the offensive, and the "counter-party" on the defensive. I guess it's a cultural thing.

Regardless, the Ukrainian government has been making a fool of itself in both the western and eastern media. Since this whole thing started, they've done nothing but make unfounded allegations, trying to "poke the bear" (Russia) and instigate unrest. I feel that they're responsible for a large part of the needless escalation in this conflict.

PS: Your use of the word "propaganda" is an excellent example of how we view things. Everything the "other" side says is propaganda, anything "our" side says is necessarily the truth. This happens on both sides of the conflict, and I think it's a large barrier to actually start solving the problems. Rather than claiming "propaganda", we should consider it points-of-view, and the first thing we should do is ask ourselves: why does the other side hold this point of view, and how come they view it as a completely legitimate moral view to have?

PPS: My girlfriend is, at times, greatly distressed by this whole thing. Like many Russians, almost half her family is in fact Ukrainian. Surprisingly, this seems to cause feelings of sympathy for those family members by both sides, yet they remain quite harsh against other Ukrainian or Russian viewpoints.

1. Propaganda: in Russia, the media is very tightly controlled by the Kremlin. This is not the case in the US and most Western countries. Russia can use propaganda easily, and it is in their interest. The stories come out of their media are suspiciously different from any other stories from anywhere else. Simplest explanation: they are using propaganda, or at least coloring stories for their benefit.

2. The Ukrainian government is a joke. It was a joke when Yanukovych was in power too. It will continue being a joke until Ukraine is left alone to figure its shit out. You cannot expect a country that's been independent for under 25 years to do things perfectly. For a great example of countries that are democratic, yet get stuff wrong all the time see most Western countries.

3. The Ukrainian government did not cause all of this. Putin has a motive to invade Ukraine (rebulding USSR as his legacy) and an opportunity: currently nobody will oppose him and he has the upper hand militarily. Do you think he is so easily offended that something the Ukrainian government said will cause him to do something like this?

2. The US is definitely not "leaving Ukraine alone".

3. Typical jejeune analysis that reduces geopolitics to ego and personality defects (and only criticizing those of one side)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I91...

All sides must be held to account for any crimes committed. However, it's hard to have any kind of rational discussion when so many people have a Pavlovian reaction to the word "Russia" (and "China").

I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like even normally rational and logic-minded programmers and hackers are not immune to conditioning over a period of time.

Russia is offensive in their actions and defensive in the words covering it up.

Would you like to provide examples of Ukraine's unfounded allegations against Russia?

Would you like to explain how this is needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia?

The occupation of Ukraine is something that's only happening as of just now. Before that, the situation in Ukraine was much more akin to a civil war. The escalations by the Ukrainian government have been happening since the beginning of this whole thing.

Would you care to provide specific examples of the escalations?

* No Russian army forces were active in Crimea

* He would never annex Crimea to Russia

He then annexed Crimea, and distributed lots of decorations to the army corps that occupied it. How can we possibly still trust anything Putin says?

Regarding who is mistreating whom, what do you think about the forced march of Ukrainian POWs on the day of Ukraine independence, or about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/russia-ukrain...

1) That pro-russian government was corrupt as hell (as Putin's government is). You can google photo proofs. It's not a secret really for anyone.

2) Is there a way to overthrow a government legitimately? Neither fair elections, courts, or referendum were available

Is it propaganda when I'm stating Russia annexed the part of the foreign state and want to do it once more?

Maybe it's not true in this case, but that would be a much easier point to argue against if the west hadn't continually demonstrated that.

So in short, I think (but am not sure) that the whole concept of "State controlled Russian media" is a fallacy. Even if there's an agency that's state controlled, it doesn't matter. It would be like Fox news being owned by the U.S. government.

Yes, there might be some pro-russian international media that is not controlled by Kremlin, but most of the time you can trace the money to Russia. We can discuss any specific examples that you want - I'm not claiming knowledge here, but I don't want to do a lot of research for a HN comment. I'll give one example - rt.com.

I mean, you "think" that is a fallacy, but what do you base it on? Do you think things like this don't indicate a thing? http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

I'm not claiming there is no pro-russian international media that is not funded by Russia. I am saying it will be difficult to find it.

Imagine all the TV be like Fox News and actually controlled by the Government. You will get closer to Russian reality.

You also have to understand that whatever you read in english, that comes from things like rt.com is adapted to a broader and more intelligent audience and to foreigners. What you get in russian is different.

Disclaimer - I am a lithuanian, I am exposed to lithuanian media which covers things from Ukrainian perspective, sometimes covers news from the Separatist side; I am exposed to western media. Sadly, my russian is quite poor, so I'm not exposed to russian media in russian much.

If you want a more official position, google site:rt.com mh17 and you'll find lots of articles. I'll leave it for the reader to judge their presentation of the situation.

Yes, he is. This is as much about internal Russian politics as any international issues. The Russian economy is doing well, but most of the gains are concentrated in the hands of the ruling oligarchy. So the people haven't seen much benefit, and are angry about their economic situation. Putin has put out a lot of nationalist propaganda blaming NATO (specifically the EU and USA) for any economic hardship the people face. This distracts from the fact that he and his buddies are basically robbing the country blind. He has cast himself as the "defender of Russia" in a geopolitical battle against the US and EU.

A large part of this nationalist campaign has focused on building a "new Russian empire" from the former Soviet bloc countries. They've used the auspices of protecting "native Russians" in these countries (even though the idea of a "native Russian" is laughably absurd since the USSR forced everyone to learn Russian anyway) by providing Russian passports to anyone who wants one. They use the threat of invasion to extort cooperation from these countries and keep them in the Russian sphere of influence. Ukraine overthrew its Russian-puppet government, which prompted the whole invasion of Crimea.

Putin knows that the EU needs his oil, so he's testing his limits to see how much he can get away with. The EU has shown no signs of imposing any real sanctions because if they did, the EU would go through a similar situation that the US did in the 70s. So Russia's infractions have to go so far that the EU is willing to plunge itself into recession. I don't know where the limit is, but it's not anywhere close to where we are now.

It's also true that for all their faults Russians were right about Syria for example. Or maybe they just lucked into being right by doing the opposite of what the USG wanted.

Still others just don't want to be involved at all and are bothered by interventionist rhetoric. Or worried that involvement will only incite the situation. The latter seems to be a popular view in the EU.

So you are just listening to the propaganda from the other side. And you think you are right?

> What I am wondering is when Russia will completely take over Ukraine

This is not about this. Things are not black and white. The situation there is extremely complex.

Yes. This part sums up how un-biased you are.

You do realize it's fact checked by people on computers who are probably sitting on their ass in US?

Do you think people in the conflict zones are fact checking it? Seriously?

You are playing telephone, that's what you are doing. We all know how that turns out.

> Shameless plug - try grasswire's crowdsourced feed, curated and fact-checked by hundreds of people in real-time. https://grasswire.com/#/newsfeeds/1fece014-714a-4cd9-a9dd-6b....

by austenallred

Ukraine is still having protests in Kiev, and calling for impeachment of the person they just fought to have put in place there...

we can't cry foul at Russia arms/tanks showing up, considering what we give to Israel et al. also, considering Putin's track record, this is too brute force for him. he does things in such a way that make him look justified. it's hard to swallow.

NATO can't do anything. they say "no war", but how do you enforce no war? sanctions hurt, but can be lived with, that only leaves...more war

> we can't cry foul at Russia arms/tanks showing up, considering what we give to Israel et al. also, considering Putin's track record, this is too brute force for him. he does things in such a way that make him look justified. it's hard to swallow.

Yes we can. Just because someone is doing something bad/stupid elsewhere does not mean that everyone should do it. One country invading another is wrong, no matter how you put it. Moreover, this is not "military aid". This is Russian troops going into Ukraine. This is an invasion of a sovereign country.

So no, it is not hard to support Ukraine in this: Ukraine is being invaded by a bull with big plans for how to re-shape Europe. Ukraine is far (very far) from perfect, but that does not mean it's up for the taking.

Yeah, you're completely right. That bull is our MIC complex, that needs fake enemy to continue stealing over a trillion dollars annually.

The opposite, actually. Many of us see through the transparent and obviously ham-fisted attempts of the U.S. propaganda machine to drive us into another war.

It's pretty hard to have any nuanced debate on this subject, as you'll inevitably be branded a shill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80... http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/18/opinion/witness-to-iran-fl...

Which isn't done when it is the enemy. Here is a media analysis of the Iranian downing with the downing of a Korean airliner by Russia during the same period. http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/kal-007-and-iran-air-6...

Here are examples for MH17 after cursory searches (imagine swapping Russia/US in the sentences).

https://twitter.com/fstonenyt/status/489926529619476480

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/malaysia-airlines-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/roger-cohen-malays...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/opinion/masha-gessen-does-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/Putins-Unconvincin...

This isn't to equate Russian and American propaganda, only pointing out the material and serious distortions of western media.

Don't you mean that you have no delusions that NATO will engage in conflict? Otherwise you're saying you think they will.

Now — we start to see history repeat itself, and what do European countries do? France seems to be fine with continuing to sell warships to Russia. Germany is mostly worried about economy and what the lack of Russian gas will do to it. Great Britain seems to be mostly occupied with thinking about whether to leave the EU.

We don't necessarily need a full-blown conflict, but I'm of the opinion (that seems to be the majority opinion in Poland) that Europe should immediately impose serious sanctions and implement a plan to stop buying Russian oil&gas within, say, a year. Yes, it will tip economies into stagnation or even recession, but to hell with it: we should not be complacent and just watch as history repeats itself!

edit: I expect a lot of downvotes but no rational arguments.

Crimea? Always was Russian. Once given as a "present" to Ukraine. Do you doubt that a second referendum would give a different result? What did the west do in and with Yugoslavia? What about the NATO expansion towards Russia? What would the US do if Russia starts fucking around with Mexico?

Read this book and understand the foreign policy of the US and all the conflicts happening near Russia (Georgia, Ukraine etc.) http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboard-Geostrategic-Impe...

Or a little bit information from "the other side" http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/

The EU has nothing to do in Ukraine. And if people want to secede, why not let them?

Instead of the US/EU Freetrade agreement, the EU should have offered the deal to Putin and the problem if Ukraine does the deal with the EU or Russia would have been non-existent. A freetrade zone from Vladivostok to Lisbon would have been created.

You must be awful at Christmas. "I'm glad you enjoyed your present. Give it back now."

They had a referendum. Remember? Are you telling me the result would be different if done again? If so, why is the west not asking for this?

I don't believe in slavery. "Let my people go" is a phrase from the bible.