deathtokoalas
yup. the russians took the bait. and now they're fucked. as this drags on for years, the americans will focus on completing their dismantling of the russian empire.

there's going to be a brief period of instability, but unless the russian army figures out how to massively multitask - and fast - this is potentially every bit as damaging to moscow as afghanistan was.

next stage is an invasion of syria.

SVGuss
US is dying and trying to bring as many to the grave as possible. In vain. And when Russia is fucked, asses are sore with some other people. 1612, 1812, 1945 to name a few biggest.

Mindaugas V
US is not dying and never will

deathtokoalas
i think these rumours of america's demise are much exaggerated. there's not a lot that has really changed, other than that they've expanded their sphere of influence. there's many decades before china or india can pose a real threat. and these arguments about debt are mostly coming from right-wing idiots that don't actually understand what money even is.

i think it remains to be seen how much of a bite the russians can take out of them on their way to the history books. that will have consequences. but, the russians are really their only serious competitor at the moment, and they're really doing a precision job on them.

lighthouse500
All empires die. 

Geehad
America's not really dying, I mean if America does all of a sudden "die" you do realize it's economic collapse would bring a severe blow to the World's Economy and severely damage foreign economies as well

Jesus TheDestroyer
You think too much.

Murphy82nd
America is not going to help Ukraine.  America has a laundry list of domestic issues and a populace that has become so sick of foreign intervention that I fear they'd even sit by as true atrocities are committed (Syria is already evidence of this).  America is waning and Russia is waxing.  Power is cyclical.  In some decades down the road this may change.

deathtokoalas
it makes me laugh, continually realizing just how bad reading comprehension is out there. helping ukraine is about the last thing on america's mind, but it's more than happy to incinerate it to distract russia so it can kick them out of the middle east.

americans helping somebody. lol.

.....well, unless you mean "help", in which case they already are, they just have to be hush-hush about it due to those pesky international laws.

Murphy82nd
It makes me laugh continually reading your comments.  How will intervention in Ukraine kick the Russian Federation out of the Middle East?

deathtokoalas
where did i suggest intervention? that's crazy talk, from right-wing news media. there's not going to be any armies moving around across countries in eastern europe. it's going to be a propaganda war that's going to work itself out through internal organizations clashing with each other.

you're more likely to see marine le pen seize offices in france than the russians actually invade ukraine. and, likewise, the americans have ngos operating in russia.

but, obama was just prevented from attacking syria (which is a russian protectorate, basically) a few months ago by some kind of threat from vladimir putin. we're not clear on what that was. it wasn't leaked. but it must have been naughty, 'cause it almost resulted in american destroyers docking at sevastopol.

now that vladimir is distracted, his threats are likely neutralized, or perhaps even countered. and the americans can get back to invading iran (of which syria is the second stage of, iraq being the first).

Murphy82nd
When I said intervention I was referring to Russian intervention.  You're clearly stating that Russian intervention in Ukraine will somehow lead to the Russians getting "kicked out" of the middle east.  How?  And how would America taking Iran kick Russia out of the middle east?  There is no support for any war with Iran in America, and with recent talks with President Rouhani there is less reason than ever.  I seriously don't know where you're getting these conspiracy theories from.

deathtokoalas
these aren't conspiracy theories, they're published american strategic statements. i explain to you what's happening, and i get a kneejerk and ignorant response. which i'm used to. but you'll see that this is correct over time, so take the few moments to understand. it's not even particularly complicated. and it's not a question of me being right, because i'm just explaining to you what the elite have published themselves (albeit not through popular media, which is designed for mass consumption by idiots). probably the most famous is the project for a new american century letter, but it's not the only place that the establishment has explained the long war it's currently orchestrating.

since clinton's attack on yugoslavia, the goal has been to dismantle the russian empire piece by piece. that's not a conspiracy. that's stated american imperial policy. you might not know that, but that's your ignorance. all of the invasions of the region since then have been a slow process of expunging lingering russian influence from their former satellite states in afghanistan, iraq, libya and syria. that is to say that they're "cleaning up the pieces of the collapsed soviet empire". there are other dimensions driving the alliances (the saudis are opposed to all secular rule), but (despite what some conspiracy theorists might say) the americans are the hegemonic power and it's their interests - dismantling what they see as a weak competitor - that are pushing the operation.

the expansion of nato in eastern europe has also happened within this policy of dismantling the russian state. for whatever reason, probably mostly pressure from european allies but also simply due to how willing the participants have been, the americans have been mostly (excluding yugoslavia) willing to forge a peaceful path in the region. but, the ukrainian government refused to do what it was told (in rejecting the eu package) and got taken over by force instead - like several countries in the middle east have, for the same reason. but, you have to look at the wider picture to understand the timing.

just to be clear: the american government doesn't care about popular support for the wars that they launch. i'm really sick of that argument being presented, like it means something. it tacitly legitimizes the scam that is american "democracy". the united states is a military dictatorship headed by a ceremonial commander-in-chief that is increasingly controlled directly by the army, not a functioning democracy. it doesn't even call itself a democracy, it calls itself a republic. and it was designed around the idea of being headed by a strong, charismatic military leader. the closest america has ever come to democracy has been various stages of plutocracy and oligarchy. america does what the generals say, not what the american people want. and it's been that way throughout history.

pick a war. it was unpopular. it happened anyways, because it advanced the interests of the elite. that's how america works.

now, your question didn't grasp the context well. i read it the way it should have been interpreted. the russians are already intervening in ukraine. it's not direct occupation. because it's not the twentieth century. that's not how major powers operate anymore. they have to orchestrate democratic legitimacy, but people are easily malleable sheep so this is easy. the americans do this too - they just did in ukraine. and it wouldn't be particularly difficult to stage an uprising in france or the uk or the united states, either. the useful idiots don't need to know that they're advancing russian strategic interests, they just need to be worked up into a frenzy over taxes or grazing rights or whatever other stupid thing makes them angry.

so, the timing (regarding ukraine) is important because they've reached an impasse in syria - russia's last remaining military outpost in the region (excluding their "ally", iran, which does not host or want to host russian troops). vlad flexed his muscles, and obama had to back down. but, any show of power is only true so long as the factors underlying it are. for obama (or obama's generals, let us not confuse ourselves in elevating the empty suit to the position of real decision maker) to remove putin as an obstacle, he needs to collapse the conditions that allowed his threats to be credible.

looking at the way the situation has played out, it seems like the goal was sevastopol and the threat consequently had something to do with something stationed there, or perhaps the ability to deploy from there. it stands to reason that, for the time being, that threat remains.

but as ukraine becomes a long and protracted conflict it is going to bog down resources, as it did in afghanistan (even if it's under the carpet). it's going to cost billions of dollars (even if those dollars are swept under the rug). it's going to distract the russian leadership. really, it's a textbook example of a decoy.

it may even force the russians to abandon tartus, at which point a russian occupation of syria (to counter an american invasion) is no longer a credible threat.

knowing exactly what putin's threat was would clarify some of these points. but knowing that there was a threat is enough to build the broad picture, which is that putin tossed a wrench in the plan to invade syria, and got a grenade thrown into his lap in retaliation.

infiltr80r
You have it all backwards.

Americans are focused on China entirely, that's why they were moving troops out of Europe as well.

This is Russia saying to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc. that "if you think you will leave our sphere of interest, we will come down and take it all".

deathtokoalas
interesting suggestion. what do you figure china's interests in central asia are?

infiltr80r
But what about the fact that China is Russia's quiet ally?

I'm from Estonia, are you familiar with the massive propaganda war towards the Baltics coming from Moscow?

Putin was also planning to do another invasion here, the only thing stopping him was the existence of NATO.

True, Americans don't do it to help anyone but in that sense they're exactly like every other country on the planet.

Do you think Russia does anything to help the people of Ukraine? It's all about securing resources which are controlled by a handful of people based in Moscow.

The average Russian could have a very good life if he had a fair share of oil profits but as it is, they're fighting for a system that is highly abusive (much more than in the west).

SugarTomAppleRoger
I disagree. The Russians are doing well here to my mind. The so called Ukraine government is being praised and supported by the English mainly, and the USA also. But they are being brutal, crushing demonstrations with tanks and rockets. Not a good publicity move.

deathtokoalas
the pr is irrelevant. the american military (who makes the real decisions) couldn't care less about public opinion. they can protest all they want, it makes no difference. don't like the democrats? well, your option is the republicans. and don't like them, either? well, then you can vote the democrats back in. it's a one-party state, with essentially no influence from the bottom up. and it's held together by police brutality.

what's important is that they're carrying out the strategic goal of draining away resources from the russians. and the hippies can march all they want, so long as they don't get too rowdy. then they got shot...

deathtokoalas
+infiltr80r
sorry about the late reply. google's spam filters are not very good, and i'm not aware of a place i can go to check what it thinks is spam. i just hope it's based on a learning algorithm and will get better. if not, it's going to slowly make the site unusable.

china has a long term policy of not being anybody's ally. it's maybe a little enigmatic, but that's how it is. further, china and russia actually have difficult relations over the last century. they have some mutual defense concerns, but they're rivals for resources in central asia.

you've got the cause and effect in "the baltics" backwards. i think russia should be trying to destabilize latvia and estonia and lithuania (estonia isn't really a baltic state, it's more historically aligned with finland), because the governments in these countries are incredibly hostile to russia. they're hosting american missile bases that are being pointed directly at moscow. the correct thing to say is that if it weren't for nato expansion, russia wouldn't be justified in collapsing these states in it's legitimate self-defense.

but, what i'm getting at in this post is that it is too late for the russians to react in a meaningful way - and putin is responsible for this due to his inaction. the bases are there, now.

the russians have a better social system. but, pitting the russian oligarchy against the imf doesn't produce a set of good guys, no. that's what a lot of the propaganda is about - getting people to pick a side. but, it's one group of vampires against another. no good guys. the right side to pick is the side of the people and these are not represented by statist interests.

infiltr80r
Not a problem.

First off I should say that I'm an estonian living in estonia at the moment. Estonia is classified "Baltic" in the military-geographic division.

Quite surprised you think Baltics are treating Russia badly. It's like the military occupation that lasted for 50 years never existed in your world. Do you also know the little fact that Russia has violated the treaty of Tartu and refused to sign a border agreement with Estonia. Only until Estonia gave in and lost areas that was historically Estonian to Russia, the treaty was signed (this year of all times).

Why do you think Estonia basically welcomed NATO and the US with open arms? Was it that the experience with Russia had been so good, that we wanted to try something different? Or was it due to the fact of 50 years of ruthless military rule?

I'm quite informed what the Russian mentality is and while I oppose American wars, NATO is an absolute necessity here. In 2007 Russia threatened to invade the country as some ethnic Russians were rioting as a war statue was moved to a military cemetery.

You claim that NATO is "aiming" for Russia but you ignore the fact that Russia has deployed nukes aimed as Estonia (and all neighbors) as well. Without NATO, Russia would be here right now, russifying the whole population and destroyed what's left of the local culture (as happened during the occupation). Estonia at one point was developmentally equal to Finland, that is until the Russian invasion. Do you see why people here would resent Russia for that?

Just curious, where are you from? You seem to have read a bit on the subject but have a very warped picture of what Russia is about. The idea that Russia would let any neighboring country (that's not under Russian influence) exist peacefully is laughable at this point. You only need to look a few hundred years back to see what their intentions are.

The Russian social system in comparison to the West does not exist. I have no idea where did you get that information from.

Indeed, it should be the people who rule. Yet I contend that under western influence, the people will have a higher quality of life. Personally, even though the EU is corrupt and bureaucratic, I wouldn't want to be in any union with Russia as that would set the country decades back in time.

deathtokoalas
i don't care about international agreements. they're imaginary rules in some liberal fantasy reality that has never existed. it's delusional to keep coming back to them as though they mean something. in reality, states do what they need to advance their interests. they have never been constrained by international law and never will be. it's a failed world order that should be abandoned as utopian claptrap.

further,  you're again trying to draw moral equivalences when i'm explicitly trying to reject them as propaganda. states are not moral actors and should not be analyzed as though they are. when i state that placing missiles in the region gives russia a valid pretext to invade that they should have taken advantage of in order to advance their interests, that says nothing of estonian nationals, who are (and ought to be) irrelevant in the calculation. this isn't a discussion of human rights, it's a discussion of russia's failure to secure it's own borders, which has thrust it into a desperate situation.

russia has socialized health care, to begin with. they have a better social security system, as well.

i reiterate: a smart post-yeltsin russian leadership would have realized the strategic necessity of reoccupying the baltics very early on, as a counter to their clear encirclement by american forces. at the very least, it should have been crystal clear after iraq. pointing missiles at the region is not enough to secure their borders. they must occupy the region to prevent the possibility of a ground invasion, under the cover of an sdi.

it is, however, too late. the nato bases in the region cannot be removed, and it's consequently a matter of time before the full invasion of moscow. all the russians can do is make some desperate movements that will be countered by the superior nato forces, technologies and strategies.

their focus on ukraine right now is at best a strategic blunder. a smart, strong russian leadership would be focusing on controlling poland.

if i thought states could or should be held to moral guidelines, i wouldn't be an anarchist.