I want you to have a rational and objective perspective about the situation in Ukraine that's not being led by US propaganda (eg. all our news comes from America, of course it's going to tell you only what you're supposed to think).
I want you to take note of history, rather than in-the-moment media sensationalism designed to inflame your senses, sell news, and get you to support certain government agendas.
The US is claiming Russia is violating international law by invading Crimea and Ukraine, but what was the US doing when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? What was it doing when firing missiles into Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia? There are many flagrant violations of international law that the US has engaged in, but - it doesn't want you to remember those.
Russia has stated that its recent (currently non-violent) actions are to safeguard the interests of the Russian people within Ukraine. What did the US do to protect US citizens during times of turmoil in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Haiti (2003)? The US has often sent in troops to other countries to ensure the safety of their own people, but are now complaining about Russia doing the same thing.
But let's get back to that perspective thing.
I'll use quotes from mainstream news sites so that you feel better about what you're about to read.
US a full partner in Ukraine debacle - From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.
It's important that you try to understand the geopolitical pressure that the US has been applying to Russia for more than 20 years. All of those countries around Russia that have joined NATO, they all have US military bases in them now. Russia is surrounded by US forces and missiles aimed at them, and the only reason the US hasn't attacked Russia outright is because of Russia's nuclear weapons. The US is stupid, but not that stupid.
Here's another very important quote from the above article:
Some policy makers in Washington have been congratulating each other for a successful American-aided regime change operation in Ukraine. Three factors converged to produce the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. First was his own autocratic instinct and utter lack of political skill, which led him to think he could ignore protesters. Second was the brave determination of the protesters themselves. Third was intervention by the United States and other Western countries — often spearheaded by diplomats and quasi-covert operatives who have been working for years on “democracy promotion” projects in Ukraine.
I had heard prior to Russia's recent actions that the protesters in Ukraine were receiving support from the US, which made me think that it was yet another US-sponsored attempt to destabilize a country in order to create civil turmoil and install a US-friendly puppet government in place. They've done it before, they'll do it again. It seems I was right.
And lo and behold, a US-friendly leader is put in place after (ex)President Viktor Yanukovych fled for the hills (Crimea, actually). And that's when Russia acted to protect their friend and asset.
Stephen Cohen, "Russia and Cold War expert", had this to say to CNN in a
recent interview:
One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets - the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western (ph) march towards (ph) post Soviet Russia, Putin had no choice, and he has no choice, and if you put him in the corner, you are going to see worse.
So the US was trying to include military clauses into an economic agreement, forcing Ukraine to abide by NATO military policy (which would probably include the establishment of NATO military bases in Ukraine) and when Yanukovych didn't agree to letting NATO into Ukraine, suddenly there's US-supported riots in the street.
The result of that was that Yanukovych was forced to flee, and a US-friendly leader was put in place who immediately called for NATO aid.
Not only that, the new leadership immediately overturned the laws that made Russian the primary language in Ukraine. This is also important, because there has been a lot of anti-Russian violence and harassment over the past few years, and this is another element of it.
How do you think Russia should have responded? Here's some more information for you to consider:
The Ukraine crisis: John Kerry and NATO must calm down and back off - Both John Kerry's threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government's plea for NATO aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, "We are on the brink of disaster" as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.
Were he talking about the country's economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month's insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.
America wants to have Ukraine in their back pocket, and be able to continue tightening their military stranglehold on Russia with more NATO bases. Of course they're going to get hysterical when Russia doesn't let them. They're like schoolyard bullies that only know how to throw tantrums when they don't get what they want because someone as big as them actually stands up to them and tells them to piss off.
Here's some more from the above article:
Kerry's rush to punish Russia and NATO's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. NATO should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is NATO's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called "post-Soviet space", led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.
...
The deposed Viktor Yanukovych, for all his incompetence, corruption and abuse of power, was the first president to oppose NATO membership in his election campaign and then persuade parliament to make non-alignment the cornerstone of the country's security strategy, on the pattern of Finland, Ireland and Sweden. NATO refused to accept it. As recently as 1 February, before the latest crisis, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the empire-building secretary general, told a security conference in Munich: "Ukraine must have the freedom to choose its own path without external pressure." The implication was clear: if only it were not for those beastly Russians, Ukraine would be one of us. Had Rasmussen said: "Ukraine has chosen nonalignment and we respect that choice," he would have been wiser.
The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership Between Ukraine and the Russian Federation [
link]
In 1997 Russia and the Ukraine came to an agreement after 6 years of negotiations about how they were going to manage their relationship moving forward.
Article 7 of the Treaty outlines the following:
In the event a situation arises that, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, creates a threat to peace, disrupts the peace, or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, it may propose immediate consultations to the other Party. The Parties shall exchange the appropriate information, and where necessary take coordinated or joint steps, in order to overcome such a situation.
Article 11:
The High Contracting Parties shall take all necessary steps on their territory, including the passage of the appropriate legislation, to avert and curtail any actions that are an instigation to violence or violence against certain individuals or groups of citizens based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance.
Article 12:
The High Contracting Parties shall ensure the protection of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious originality of national minorities on their territory, and create conditions for the encouragement of that originality...
Considering the nature of the treaty between Ukraine and Russia and their agreed contractual obligations to each other, Russia has done nothing to violate any international laws. They are protecting their interests and responding to their treaty-based obligations exactly as any other nation would in the same situation.
Also, within the contractual arrangements they have with Ukraine, Russia is allowed to have 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea - it only has 16,000 and it's had that them there for some time.
But western media is stating that Russia has 'invaded' Crimea with 16,000 troops. In fact, the new US-sponsored leadership of Ukraine has even made similar hysterical cries about troop movements in Crimea. But those troops have always been there.
The only reason I can see for these hysterical and untrue claims is that it's part of a plan to initiate anti-Russian hysteria and get the ignorant people of the western world on the side of the US.
When you actually look at history and actions of all the 'players' over the past 20 years, and you take an objective look at what's going on and why, the reality is completely different to what most of the US government-sponsored media would have you believe.
Don't let your reality be determined by western media propaganda. Don't let yourself join in on the hysteria and become part of the problem. If you're interested in something that is happening 'in the moment', start doing research and take a look at how history has led up to the particular scenario in question - whatever it might be. You will find truths that your mind-controllers would rather you didn't, as they try to get you back to watching mind-numbing 'entertainment'. Keeping you with a numb mind is their goal. Don't let them succeed.
“In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.” - 1984, by George Orwell
