General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPutin says Russia was ready to activate nuclear arsenal over Crimea
Russia would have activated its nuclear arsenal if necessary a year ago when its troops secured the Crimean peninsula and carried out a referendum on the strategic peninsula's secession from Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a documentary that aired Sunday.
In the report timed to Monday's anniversary of the referendum, "Crimea: Path to the Motherland," Putin justifies Moscow's seizure of the Black Sea territory as necessary to protect Russians and military bases from what he described as a nationalist junta that had taken power in Kiev.
Putin accused the United States of masterminding the three-month uprising in the Ukrainian capital that ended with the ouster of Kremlin-allied President Viktor Yanukovich, who has since taken refuge in Russia.
While the documentary was clearly prerecorded, it served to project a vibrant and defiant image of the Russian president, who hasn't been seen in public for more than a week, spurring rumors that he is sick or has been deposed in a palace coup.
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-putin-crimea-20150315-story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Another thing, all the ones ready to start shooting should have thought about the consequences of doing so against a leader like Putin. Nuclear is not the answer we ever should make again.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Popular surveys show 85%+ satisfaction with the change.
They are much happier dealing with Putin than the Fascists in Kiev!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Pew polled it at 91%
If you believe in democracy, there is no valid objection to the Russian takeover of Crimea. They vote for it and poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Don't trust him.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)nor should you trust any politician, really, even the ones you like - recipe for disappointment
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Are you aware of the media control in Russia? Imagine FOX News on every channel cheerleading for Putin.
Are you aware of how waging war boosts a president's popularity? Remember Bush's approval ratings.
Are you aware of how Putin is using scapegoats like gays, liberals and "fascists in Kiev" as a threat to the nation in order to keep the Russian society enraged, scared and rooting for the Strong Man?
Oh wait, I just saw that you are using the "Fascists in Kiev" line, a piece of BS propaganda literally written by the Kremlin. Shame on you.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I'll ask you for it - I know I can count on you to parrot the most aggressive and unfounded rhetoric possible.
Just wondering, why do you want a hot war with Russia so bad? How does this benefit you, or anyone else?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)They are factual statements. Show us that they aren't if that's your position.
Pretty funny for you to accuse anyone of "war propaganda"--it's your man Putin talking about nukes and announcing this troops are on "full alert", and your argument in this thread is in favor of the use of force and invasion.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)comes right out of the war propaganda factories
spare me
I notice you won't state your motives, so I will feel perfectly free to speculate on them.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)You call basic facts about Russia "nonsense".It's like the Tea Party logic. Keep doublethinking Putin is doublegood.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"comes right out of the war propaganda factories..."
I use that excuse too when people hold opinions different than my own... though it says little and means less, it certainly advertises our petulance and allows us to mask a lack of any valid premise.
Bumper stickers are cool for the sub-literate.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Look up that poster's history and you'll see what I mean - it's exclusively war propaganda with a very specific focus on pushing war in Ukraine. He/she will post anything that promotes more war there regardless of its credibility.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)unless facts don't matter to you at all
which we have seen, they don't
uhnope
(6,419 posts)That's a major fail. The far right coalition in Kiev is fortunately tiny and getting tinier. Those are facts.
Kremlin has been pushing that "Kiev=fascist" lie for so long that some, like you, actually believe it. It's Orwellian again--a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
Unless, of course, you think the USA actually is Socialist because of Sanders...
cali
(114,904 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Not the Tartars. But who cares about them? Putin says they are racially inferior, so it must be true.
You have no qualms about endorsing imperial aggression and annexation. Might over right. And if a few nuclear bombs are dropped, who cares, right? Gotta defend the blood for oil and gas.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Then unless you invert the timeline completely, the aggressor is the Kiev regime and the foreign powers that back it. As the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia, the Russian takeover cannot be accurately characterized as "aggression", and there can be no valid objection to the voluntary annexation. The US taking over Hawaii was aggression and annexation. China taking over Tibet was aggression and annexation. Russia taking over Crimea is not - unless you reject the democratic will of Crimeans, and think foreign powers should make that choice for them.
As far as the Tartars go, they may not be happy with the situation but they were outvoted massively and that's how democracy works. It's not like the Crimeans did to them what the Kiev did to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (outlaw their language, make war upon them).
They didn't have to make war on their own population, you know. Except that it was necessary to meet the terms the IMF insisted on, so that the billions would flow to the coup government and from there to its cronies.
Ukraine becoming a battlefield for foreign powers does not benefit any Ukrainian except those who are making money from the conflict.
I'm really quite stunned how any American can be accusing the Russians of aggression here, in the wake of wars we have conducted and continue to conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere. None of those places have any historical significance for us, none play any role in our national security, none are even economically significant other than oil production.
What do you think it looks like to the rest of the world when the US, which invades another country on average every two years, accuses another country of aggression? It looks like world-class, breathtaking hypocrisy, which is what it is.
If imperium and aggression are your concerns, then your focus should be the same as mine, in opposing those forces right here at home, where they are more significant than the rest of the world combined.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I'm really quite stunned how any American can be accusing..."
It's quite simple and even more convenient to pretend that concern for A denies concern for B.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)What follows is called a tu quoque argument, otherwise known as a whataboutism, and it's a fallacy.
It also assumes people opposed to Russian aggression aren't opposed to American aggression, which is also illogical.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I'm seeing the same individuals both condemn Russia and say we should be bombing ISIS, approve of the war on Libya, approve of other US interventions, and so on.
I've really been shocked to find that as an anti-war advocate on a Democratic site, I appear to be in the minority in saying we need to stop the imperial policies and stop playing globocop and stop trying to dominate the world.
So, it's not an assumption - it's my reaction to what I am actually seeing actual people advocate. It's as if people don't understand that the wars we get into are aggression (even though these same people often understood that quite well during the Iraq fiasco) - that only military action by other countries can be aggression. "It's not empire if we do it" is the clear and consistent message I've been seeing.
cali
(114,904 posts)the attack on Libya and haven't approved of any U.S. interventions. But hey, feel free to make bogus claims.
By the way, one can both oppose U.S. imperialism and Russian imperialism- and anyone who isn't alarmed by Putin's comments about putting nukes on the table, is willfully blind and hopelessly tied to their own biases.
Your post is all about assumptions re other DUers- and you're wrong.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)To seeing us argue on the same side on future threads about all the wars we seem to get into for dubious reasons.
If I saw Russian imperialism here I would be fighting it. I don't. I see a justified defensive reaction to US imperialism. It's not Russia which is militarily intervening all over the globe - it's us.
cali
(114,904 posts)I've been here ten years longer than you.
I'm just no one of those one dimensional thinkers that believe the U.S. is the only bad actor on the stage- or is always a bad actor, for that matter. It's a tad more complicated than that.
And yeah, I think Putin is an aggressive, insanely corrupt, dangerously unbalanced guy.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)However, given that we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined, and invade more countries than the rest of the world combined (since the end of the British Empire anyway), we are far and away the most significant actor.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm really quite stunned that you can gloss over that clear expression of insanity and aggression.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)The Russian naval base at Sevastopol is considered vital to their national security. It is also our policy to defend our vital bases with nuclear weapons, as is China's, India's, Pakistan's, Israel's, UK's, France's, and ever other nuclear nation.
To say that we are allowed to have this policy and they aren't sets up rules for a game that it should surprise no one that they aren't willing to follow.
Some people just have trouble understanding that Russia (and China and others) don't have to kiss US ass like the rest of the world does, since they can defend their turf from another US-led military expedition.
Other countries are allowed to defend themselves. It's not an exclusive divine right owned by the US or other western powers.
cali
(114,904 posts)Every head of state with nukes does not make such threats.
You're just making shit up.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Go ahead and look up the nuclear use policies of nuclear-armed states.
None of them has a "we will never use them" policy. All of them state the conditions under which by policy they will be used. All of those policies are consistent with the Russian policy.
If you think otherwise, find me an official nuclear policy from any country which says they would not be used in similar circumstances.
cali
(114,904 posts)I said it is highly irregular to threaten to use them- particularly in the manner Putin did here.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)and we're not the only ones - Israel makes nuclear threats regularly
and India has done the same (against Pakistan):
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/10/shay-m10.html
So has Pakistan (against India).
And believe it or not, China has made this same threat against the US (multiple times). If you don't read international news sources like I do, you probably weren't aware of it. Here's an example http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2718.html
Your conception of a world without overt nuclear threats between nuclear states and also against non-nuclear states is not even slightly correct. Every nation which has nukes (possibly excepting France) has threatened to use them in at least one specific circumstance directly tied to what it views as its vital security interests.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)It is a delight to read somebody on here who knows what they're talking about, for a change.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)It is a shame to see so many fall for the same old "Cold War" propaganda.
I might understand it from younger generations, but a lot of these people are old enough to know better.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)They are not have their ability to project power destroyed but would probably be about an equal hit economically, it essentially would be an existential threat to them as even a regional power and no government would allow themselves to be put in check like if they had any means to prevent it.
One should never be taken by surprise by the most likely outcome. Crimea was off the table and pressing to put it on there was fucking stupid and grossly irresponsible, literally poking the bear.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Ummmmm....no.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)the other avenues are Vladivostok and St Petersburg. They'd still be in a choke hold and effectively cut off from the Black Sea. You know good and we'll that is a no go.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Hearing that he was ready to use nukes projects an image of him as being as nutty as the North Korean leader.
cali
(114,904 posts)of Putin at DU. I'd be interested to hear what they think of this.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but for the past year on DU, Obama has been called the "relentless warmonger trying to restart the cold war" 
There is a very real reason why I use the term "useful idiots" with some posters...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We will be lectured how the US (read: Obama and his administration) antagonized Russia and pushed them to this desperate extreme so we are actually the ones dragging the world to the nuclear precipice.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This story should be pinned to the top until all our resident Putinistas have responded...
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)I could only hope someone might have explained "domino effect" to him since then.
Dumb ass. It would have been bend over and kiss your ass good bye time.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and natural gas. And now we find out it could have been radioactive blood with crispy corpses. And some still line up to promote Russian empire, even in light of this news.
cali
(114,904 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)this uneasy detente.It's not like the old Cold War with its limited respect each country has for one another.
I'm sure some kind of USA equivalents can and will be found. Isn't it reassuring to know there are two superpowers...each one insane? Do we want the neo cons to go unopposed?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)re-unite and remain a part of NATO after re-unification.
Never mind that the U.S. issued a solemn promise through then-Secretary of State James Baker to his then-Soviet counterpart Edouard Schevardnadze that there would be no, repeat ZERO, eastward expansion of NATO if the USSR allowed Germany's peacerful reunification to proceed. See, that was just an oral promise by a Republican SoS and so, of course, Clinton and his successors weren't obliged to respect or honor it. And it was just a promise anyway. No biggie.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I'd say it was smart to expand. Georgia, and now Ukraine, but thanks to NATO, never Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)in Eastern Europe, it was a stupid fucking promise to make.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)rein in the Russophobic warmongers at the Pentagon and State Department.
Kissinger is a realpolitiker in the old-school, Metternich style (unlike his lunatic successor Brzezinski). As such, Kissinger recognizes that global stability rests upon recognized and mutually agreed-upon spheres of infuence.
