Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Friday summoned US diplomats from the US embassy in Moscow to protest recent comments made by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan about the US supporting Ukrainian strikes on Crimea.
Russia has controlled Crimea since 2014, but Ukraine and its Western backers don’t recognize the peninsula as Russian territory. That means the Biden administration’s ban on Ukraine using weapons inside Russia doesn’t apply to Crimea.
But from Moscow’s perspective, US-supported attacks on Crimea are just as provocative as attacks on elsewhere in Russia. “It is time for Washington to learn that any form of aggression against Russia will continue to be met with the strongest possible response,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. The ministry said Sullivan was “effectively endorsing strikes” on Crimea.
Sullivan’s position is not new, as the administration has maintained throughout the war that Ukraine can use US weapons on Crimea. In July 2022, when asked by Antiwar.com if the ban on Ukraine using the HIMARS rocket systems to target Russian territory applies to Crimea, the State Department replied, “Crimea is Ukraine.”
The US backs Ukrainian attacks on Crimea even though Secretary of State Antony Blinken has acknowledged that an assault on the peninsula is a “red line” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials still insist that expelling Russia from Crimea is one of their war goals despite the fact that most Crimeans are happy they’re part of Russia. Ukraine would need to regain a significant portion of territory Russia controls to the north of Crimea to be able to launch an offensive to take the peninsula.
Red line for Putin?? Have they even been there? Putin wouldn’t have to do much other than sign a document or two…
Back to that Celebrity/Nemesis/Cult of Personality effect that has folks chasing imaginary Hitlers instead of understanding the institutions that actually wield power.
Ukrainian President has no legitimacy in Ukraine, and US knows it. He was and is a carefully managed asset. He won the presidency by promissing unambiguously to normalize relations with Russia and peacefully solve Donbas conflict. He brazenly lied. As he immediately upon being elected dropped everything he promissed as a candidate. He immediately lost support from 70% of his electorate. What matters here is — people are sent to war they did not want. War which Zelenski provoked by attempting to ethnically cleanse Donbas
Our decision makers know it, and do not care, For as long as our asset Zelenski has the power to send hundreds of thousands to die.
Right, he ‘s cognate of Bibi, and they’re now running search for his Polish twin.
What I’ve read is Zelenskyy campaigned on an “anti-corruption” platform and promised to end the conflict with Russia — on-going since 2014. He criticized Poroshenko for sending greetings to Russia — inferring he was too friendly with Putin. So it seems like he wanted to address the issues with Russia but didn’t want to become a Russian puppet. (I can appreciate that.) The “US/NATO/Western asset” argument is tired and unsupported by evidence available.
Russia invaded Ukraine. That is a fact. (Ukraine did not invade Russia and they were no threat to Russia.) You’re in an echo-chamber regurgitating Russian talking-points.
“”Zelenskyy campaigned on an “anti-corruption” platform and promised to end the conflict with Russia — on-going since 2014.””
2014 = Uke govt had been menacing Crimea and actually invaded there.
also 2014 = Russia repelled the Uke menace from Crimea and began protecting them. is that really your idea of “conflict with Russia — on-going since 2014” ?
So you’re one of those people that calls the US Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression”? (Please re-read my comment above.)
Ha ha … “echo chamber” … that’s awesome …
Dude’s been listening to MSM propaganda for years, uses the raving fanatic Colbert as an avatar for “rational thinker” and thinks he’s free … so sadly precious.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
And when called on his BS attacking a commenter, seeks establishment protection. Again, sadly typical.
You argue like a child. You throw out talking points and believe you’ve said something profound. You don’t refute my argument at all. Maybe add something to the discussion instead of repeatedly typing “MSM”and “thinks he’s free”?
You’re a dumb troll, nothing more.
Ukraine might not have been a threat , but it would soon have become a threat if Putin had done nothing he would now have US / NATO missiles on Russia`s border 4 minutes from Moscow , read the book ,HOW THE WEST BOUGHT WAR TO UKRAINE .
Are you really this ignorant? Latvia and Estonia already in NATO are closer to Moscow and much closer to Sankt Petersburg, NATO has not deployed missiles or permanently stationed troops in any of the countries that have joined NATO since 1991.
Try reading up on things just a little before making such easily refutable comments.
“NATO has not deployed missiles … in any of the countries that have joined NATO since 1991.”
Incorrect. Aegis Ashore was deployed in Romania in 2016.
Not that kind of missile – the AGIS system is not a attack i.e. offensive system – sure you could use them as ballistic missiles like the Russians are doing with their S-300, but it would not have the range or payload capacity to serve as a useful first strike alternative.
For this to be of any meaning you have to find a missile capable of first strike, the missiles used in the AGIS have warheads of just up to 64 KG (140 lbs) so not really a threat as a first strike weapon, and only the ones with only a kinetic energy ‘warhead’ have a range of up to 1200 Km, while the ones with actual warheads have 240 to 370 Km i.e. not able to hit Moscow from any Ukrainian location let alone the Romanian ones.
Yes, Ukraine wasn’t a threat.
From December of 2021:
“Ukraine says it is planning ten military exercises for next year with the participation of thousands or foreign troops, in yet another move that raises the risk of a military confrontation with Russia.”
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/12/14/672664/Ukraine-planning-10-war-games-with-participation-of-foreign-troops-next-year
They were only a threat in the paranoid mind of Putin. Sovereign countries should be allowed to conduct military exercises to assure their readiness. (A majority of countries do.)
Right. I know the US would be cool with war games being conducted on their borders by an anti-US military alliance backed by Russia.
Well, judging by the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine, I’d say the US would have no problem with that.
so, never heard of the Cuban missile crisis …?
In 1962? Different story. 2023? No need to fear a toothless and clawless bear. They just make a lot of noise.
More to the point the US did not invade Cuba, it can be argued that the US precipitated the Cuban missile crisis by funding/backing the Bay of Pigs, but that they avoided overreacting when that met with firm resistance (unlike Putin).
Add to this that they absolutely did not invade when the missile crisis happened not during and at no point since, and the evidence for the US reacting like Russia, if ‘war games being conducted on their borders by an anti-US military alliance backed by Russia‘, is pretty much proved wrong.
Contrary to the popular MYTH Russia came out on top of the Cuban So called missile crisis thy got all the missiles moved out of Turkey / Italy . JFK was played like a second hand fiddle .
I’m not claiming that the US won the Cuban missile crisis, just using it to show that the notion that the US would do as Putin and invade any country that dared to make military exercises with a US hostile power is just false.
Uh, Bay of Pigs. US supported a proxy army invading Cuba. It failed because US did not provide promised air support.
Yes exactly – this was clear evidence that the US back in 1961 was going to react like Putin did in 2014, actually a little more reserved as they did not send in US troops.
So exactly proof that the US did not neither before nor after the missile crisis go to the kind of extreme of actually invading a neighbor even when they had actually tried to place nuclear armed missiles on their territory.
Don`t believe the Western Propaganda , the Pentagon has already said Ukraine can`t win.
But then you know you’d be lying. The US has problems with sheepherders infringing on their (US’) Syrian borders.
So why the F * US has been going after Latin American ciuntries for hosting Iranian delegates ,for allowing ships to dock or for cinducting buisness with Iran and why has it been sezing tankers of Iran? Why does it raise canard over presnece of Hizbullah and then put screws on the countries hosting them?Why does it start sanctioning countries using Ceaser Act ?Why does it want to sanction countries that want to do business with Russia and Iran ?
“They (Ukraine) were only a threat in the paranoid mind of Putin.”
they had been an actual threat to Crimea and other russian speaking regions since before Putin said “enough”.
There were separatists who wanted to break away from Ukraine (prohibited by the Ukrainian constitution). This was — at most — the beginnings of a civil war. That is by definition an internal matter. Putin seized the opportunity to conquer territory in a war of aggression. (Any “referendum” done after this, with military/security personnel holding assault rifles is immediately disqualifying.) Also, “Russian-speaking” does not mean they were Russian citizens. He had no right to intervene. History is tough to swallow sometimes but it remains history.
Donbas was under siege for 8 years. Some 14,000 people in that region are dead. There was ample evidence that Kiev forces were amassing for a push into Donbas. I believe the Pentagon has admitted it. Everything that has occurred up to this point falls on the Obama administration. The Trump administration did not help things by shipping Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. My guess for the immediate future is this: if Crimea cannot be taken, look for a drone attack on port facilities.
Donbas was a Russian war of aggression foisted upon Ukraine in 2014, we have the Russians admitting to this and Putin deciding to acknowledge the Russian soldiers who have fought there between 2014 and 2021.
Does any evidence of this Ukrainian build up precede the Russian build up near the Ukrainian borders – and if so can you link it?
Given that Ukraine had very little in the way of heavy weapons, and given that the Russians took months to push through the Line of Control – why do you think this would have been possible for the Ukrainians at all, and that you believe that the Pentagon has admitted this carries no weight without a source!
Right, right. North American Terrorist Occupation didn’t expand. Didn’t bomb and destroy Yugoslavia. So-called “zee vest” didn’t invade and occupy Ukraine. There was no violent imperial coup in 2014, no civil war in Ukraine. Uncle Shame didn’t rape Ukraine. He didn’t even touch her! This is all just Russian/Chinese spy balloon disinformation.
Very worked up with that incoherent rant, my friend. Why not take another shot at it and space out your Russian propaganda points?
Many more countries received the bombing treatment.
Consulting your profile, I see that you joined on May 24, 2023, and frequent only the three Anti-War sites. Your avatar is — aptly — Steven Colbert.
I assess that you are a flag-draped, mind-locked “USA! USA! USA!” booster or a Ukrainian or CIA/MI6 propaganda bot.
Have at it.
Russia saw the Neocon project coming, prepared, and will prevail.
Putin repeatedly appealed to the (Neocon-vassalized) West, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, to construct a mutually-protective European security architecture. The Neocons, long obsessed with the destruction and looting of Russia, ignored/dismissed those appeals and continued with their homicidal/suicidal anti-Russia project.
Putin was thus compelled to prepare for war. The criminally-insane Neocons, blindly over-confident, believing that Russia would be easily defeated, continued their advance, unprepared, to inevitable humiliation. Propaganda notwithstanding, that humiliation is now unfolding right before our eyes on the world stage. Reality, what a concept!
Russia was prepared. Putin had this war won before it began.
I am reminded of the fable of the grasshopper and the ants.
A new world is dawning. Eurasia will rise. NATO and the EU, cut off from cheap Russian energy and raw material, will shrivel and die. And god only knows the fate of the US — ??? — currently in the grip of economic and domestic chaos and degeneracy.
Good luck to you all.
Any possibility of getting an intro to your LSD dealer? I haven’t had any really good stuff in a long time.
Well, that explains some things.
The best to you and yours Thomas,. on this Memorial Day
Russia was flat out turned down for admission to the Western Alliance, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There was no way we were going to let our major boogeyman become a partner. The next boogeyman is China. Peaceful coexistence is an anathema to world dominance. The Monroe Doctrine on steroids.
Your assessment of what/who I am interests me. Please let me in on the fun. Did you support the US invasion of Iraq after 9/11? If you recall, they used the same rationale as Putin did to invade Ukraine. If you didn’t support the US (falsely) using that criteria but did support Putin, then I assess you are a tankie.
I have been against many things the US has done in the past including BOTH Iraq wars. So, no, I don’t wrap myself in the US flag. You? How many pairs of Russian flag underwear do you own?
Yes, Iraq borders the US and has been a route of genocidal attack on the US twice in the past 200 years … so it’s identical to Ukraine for Russia, right?
Ummm…what?
(I promise I’ll respond more precisely if you can explain what you just wrote)
I’ll print slowly:
You compared the USUK invasion of Iraq with the Russia invasion of Ukraine, stating that if one was against the former, which most people here at Antiwar were, then one should be against the latter.
The problem with this silly comparison of yours is that Iraq is approximately 8,000 miles from the US and has never ever posed any security risk to us.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is abutting right against the soft underbelly of Russia and was the route of both the French and Nazi invasions of Russia in 1812 and 1941-43, both of which invasions nearly destroyed Russia.
Your comparison is thus nonsensical and foolish … Russia will NOT allow Ukraine to be a threat to it ever again, n matter what it takes including nukes. It is not Putin; any Russian leader would act the same.
You could have printed more quickly and just gone with “I’m pro-war, if I like or dislike one of the regimes involved enough.”
Very irrational, Tom. So you are thinking that our involvement in the Iraq war is actually similar to Russia’s in Ukraine? Really? I’m very surprised and disappointed.
As I’ve said since last year, I don’t think Russia’s attack on Ukraine was wise and was certainly illegal. However, it was also severely provoked and understandable from realpolitik terms and in no way similar to Iraq.
I’m not even sure what you mean by “legal” in the context of the Russian invasion. Illegal under whose laws? Both the Russian regime and the opposing regime cited UN charter grounds vis a vis “legality.”
The main differences between the US invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that different types of excuses were manufactured to justify them.
“Illegal” as under relevant UN laws against unauthorized attack against sovereign nations, which we admittedly break all the time so let’s talk about immoral instead.
In one case you have pure empire expansion and MICIMATT feeding frenzy.
In the other case, you have Russia warning since 2008 that they will not tolerate nato expansion into Ukraine and Georgia, warning since 2014 about the situation in the Donbas, and warning on the eve of the war about an intolerable security risk on their approach lanes to their homeland. All warnings were ignored and indeed exacerbated by the west.
Russia lost more than 20 million men to defeat the nazis the first time around …. they will not shirk away from eliminating the threat this time either.
In one case you have the hubris of a declining empire with “Saddam has WMD, and also a noun, a verb, 9/11” as an excuse.
In the other case you have the hubris of a declining empire with “you didn’t give us whatever we demanded, even when we threw ourselves on the floor and threatened to hold our breath until we turned blue, so we’re PROVOKED” as the excuse.
Every junior school bully yells some equivalent of “RED LINE! RED LINE!” before beating up on the 98-pound weakling he intended to beat up on anyway.
Wow, we americans really have a tough time understanding the real security needs of continental powers, don’t we? Comes from our uniquely benevolent position protected by two oceans and equipped with weak and friendly neighbors. We simply have no concept of what it is to live in a world where millions of us had to die to protect the nation’s very existence, twice within 150 years …
In the real world of nation states, it is prudent to give way to the bully in his own neighborhood, especially when said bully can end most human life on earth purposefully or accidentally, if his security needs are ignored.
“Wow, we americans”
Speak for yourself.
In the real world of nation state regimes, they are overgrown street gangs and there’s no reason for thinking of them as anything else.
Millions of Russian died to protect a particular gang’s prerogatives from another gang. “The nation’s very existence” was never at stake.
Huh, I would have sworn that you’re a USian like me … sorry, my mistake.
As for the rest, that is just not living in reality, Tom … that’s living in some libertarian dream land where millions of people don’t die for their concept of a motherland to protect …
Do we want to minimize harm from warfare in the real world? In the real world, real people do go to all lengths necessary to protect their homes and land and, among the more powerful nations, Russians have been more traumatized than most.
I suggest that, to minimize harm, we should take their security needs seriously.
I was born on, and live on, turf that the “United States of America” gang claims to rule, but I don’t consider myself affiliated with said gang.
Dying for one’s concept of a motherland to protect isn’t the same thing as actually protecting said motherland. Generally speaking, when people are told they’re dying to protect a motherland, they’re actually dying to protect some thug’s claim to rule that motherland. Or even some other piece of turf.
Millions of Russians died to ensure that Stalin, rather than Hitler, ruled Russia. They didn’t die for Russia. Russia was always going to go on existing whether they died or not. The only change to that context in thousands of years has been the introduction of nuclear weapons, which could actually end all human life and thus end “Russia,” “America,” and other concepts that require living humans to give them any meaning.
I’ve never really been much of a “minimize harm” type. The harm is caused by people doing bad things. I oppose them doing bad things. The harm caused is on them, and it’s their responsibility to stop it, not my responsibility to tiptoe around trying to convince them to “minimize” it.
First: Ukraine was not a threat to Russia (and that’s not why Putin invaded anyway.)
Second: As it stands now, the Russians are on the precipice of losing badly.
Third: You are a tankie. You are not anti war — only anti-US/Western wars. Russian wars are OK with you.
I think it is more complicated than what you state. Russia felt provoked to invade Ukraine by Western promises to allow them to join NATO. West wants Crimea. I do not excuse Russian invasion. Criminal and stupid. It has been an enormous blunder. Even if they win, Russia has been humiliated by a ragtag army. They pose no real threat to Europe. What scares me is US push for escalation. We need to allow Russia to save some face or risk WWIII
Putin says he was provoked but that was just an excuse to take land. Ukraine as a member of NATO would only keep Putin from exercising control over Ukrainians. The only country that has invaded another is Russia. It is Putin’swar of choice that makes me want the Russians to lose and see Putin at the Hague.
Russia is the only country to have invaded another??? Uh, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya come to mind. That’s just in the past 20 years.
There are countries that have invaded others so it’s fine that Russian invaded Ukraine?
Your words were that Russia is the only country that has invaded a country, right? Clearly wrong. You come back with this reply? A fail.
Every day, Biden tramples over another red line and brings nuclear war closer. I’m sure the world will be so relieved when nuclear craters fill the Earth over who controls Crimea… which btw is literally filled with Russians who want to be part of Russia…
SO Mr. Dave DeCamp are you sure you are getting perhaps by accident very close to a Russian propaganda standpoint?
I ask because the list of countries that recognize Crimea as Russian is much much shorter then you here imply, consisting of only 7 countries one of them Russia itself: Russia, Syria, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Sudan. So not even close to limited to the western backers of Ukraine.
Even if you allow for the countries which though they have not recognized Crimea as Russian, treat it as such:
We still do not get to the rest being just the western backers of Ukraine, just to mention a few of the important non western supporters missing from either list:
Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan
Brazil, Argentine, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador,
Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, DRC
Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Lebanon
Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines
In that list I have not included micronations (like Comoros in the list of the countries that do recognize) and in the list I have highlighted members of the CSTO which have not recognized Crimea as Russia – what is your defense for including by implication these countries in the ‘western backers of Ukraine’?
“I ask because the list of countries that recognize Crimea as Russian is much much shorter then you here imply”
How, exactly, is he implying that?
By the saying that ‘… but Ukraine and its Western backers don’t recognize the peninsula as Russian territory’ thereby implying that others do. If he wanted to make the same point neutrally he would/could have written:
but Ukraine and its Western backers like most of the world, don’t recognize the peninsula as Russian territory.
A lot of countries in the world are not free to openly express their true beliefs when those beliefs go against what the United States wants them to be. That’s just the reality in today’s world.
So how come that:
Comoros, Burundi, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Armenia have dared to act as if it was OK and Russia was in it good right to annex Crimea?
Surely these countries are in fairly vulnerable positions and not in anything like a power position to ignore US penalties – so what gives?
The USNATO is not the only country that uses pressure … Russia does too.
Very true – as does China.
Do you know that these countries are not paying a price for their stance? Or that they won’t sometime in the near future? As a warning to others.
It is you who have to prove that they are. Either way they show that a country does not need to be powerful or already under sanctions to dare ‘defy’ the US.
He was talking about the parties involved. Russia and Ukraine/Western backers. They are talking about Ukraine using weapons there. No need to include anyone else and it’s a stretch to claim otherwise. And then to use that as evidence that it’s propaganda? Seems you were trying really hard to find a reason to call Decamp a Russian propagandist.
I’m not calling David DeCamp a Russian propagandist, I was asking him why he opted for that way to formulate the issue – and making him aware of the issue that this formulation had in my view.
This is not the first time Mr. DeCamp has formulated himself or chosen perspectives on the issues he writes about that look distinctly Russian – I do not really have a problem with this, only I wanted to know if he was aware of it.
“That means the Biden administration’s ban on Ukraine using weapons inside Russia doesn’t apply to Crimea.”
That addition to what he said is why he formulated it the way he did. There was no need to add the countries that don’t recognize Crimea as part of Russia since they weren’t relevant to what he was talking about,
As I stated and as several people by their responses have shown one way of understanding what is written is that the recognition is by implication more or less limited to the western backers of Ukraine. I know that you can read it as you do, and I think that this is how it was meant, if that was not what I thought I would have been more critical.
All I did was to ask Mr. DeCamp if he was aware of the implications of his chosen formulation.
And as I stated, the recognition is irrelevant to what he was talking about. There was no need to formulate it any other way. He was talking about the parties involved in the war, Ukraine and Ukraine’s Western backers and how they were ok with attacking Crimea since it isn’t part of Russia. There was absolutely no need for him to include anyone else.
First point this is for
Then why mention it – I believe it was relevant as is the fact that so few others recognizes Crimea as Russian.
In your opinion obviously not, in mine there was.
Because the opinion of the rest of the world does not matter to you?
“Then why mention it – I believe it was relevant as is the fact that so few others recognizes Crimea as Russian.”
The recognition was irrelevant to his point that Ukraine can use weapons in Crimea without it being considered Russian territory. And that is why the world’s opinion also is irrelevant in that sense. Decamp not including them is completely understandable. Russia, Ukraine and Ukraine’s Western backers are the only relevant parties.
“Because the opinion of the rest of the world does not matter to you?”
It wasn’t relevant enough to be mentioned. The parties disputing the territory are all that needed to be mentioned. They’re the ones warring.
“”Russia has controlled Crimea since 2014, but Ukraine and its Western backers don’t recognize the peninsula as Russian territory.””
did you forget that Crimea appealed to Russia for protection from Ukraine or do you simply ignore that fact.
The nature of that appeal is disputed (as to whether it was “Crimea appealing to Russia for protection” or “Russia, impersonating Crimea, appealing to Russia for protection”).
But it really doesn’t matter. Crimea’s status is unlikely to change in anything like the near term, regardless of “recognition” issues. The Russian Federation was OK with a long-term lease on the Sevastopol base when Ukraine was still a Russian imperial satrapy, but once it defected to the US empire, that base and surrounding territory were going to be secured.
Ukraine did indeed menace Crimea for reasons that only Kiev can explain, and Russia did indeed expel Uke forces from there and now Crimea is secure under the Russian umbrella and Russia is not likely to allow uncle sam to get it’s hands on it ever again.
No I look at time lines, Yanukovych had not been out of Ukraine for even 7 days when the Russians started ‘protecting’ Crimea, even had the Crimean’s appealed the very first day the Russians could not have started the action within the remaining 5 days – that is just not time enough to get the troops in place and make a decent plan.
So no I’m not ignoring anything, I’m just not wiling to support the notion that this was Russia acting upon Crimean appeals when the response time was such that the appeals had to be known to be coming a fair bit before Yanukovych was ousted.
maybe should ask Crimea what their version of events is
Why bother I know the facts and the Russians are not denying the timing of events – the Crimean’s are no longer the Crimean’s of 2014, about 600.000 Russians have moved to Crimea and a fair few Ukrainian’s have moved out as have people who did not desire to live in Putin’s Russia and could afford to flee.
With a pre annexation population of less than 2 million, the answer is not likely to be the truth, add to this that the Crimean’s were not exactly happy about their position within Ukraine all I’m likely to get is that they were happy to be rescued – that does not make the Russian takeover any more legal or the annexation any more legitimate.
maybe should ask Crimea what their version of events is
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
That way lies endless conflicts – so are you sure you want this to be the new world order?
It can’t be worse than the world order we are now in. A multi-polar world sounds just fine to me.
You’ve lived in a multi-polar world your entire life and you live in one now.
LOL! And you live in No Man’s land.
So you are actually for far more wars than we already have, good to know.
There’s a difference between not recognizing Crimea as a part of Russia and supporting military strikes by Ukraine inside Crimea. I doubt that many nations outside the west support Ukraine carrying out military strikes against Crimea, even if they don’t officially recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
Sure, only that is not what David DeCamp wrote, perhaps even more important there are even fewer nations that back Russian strikes in Ukraine.
With 142 countries receiving aid out of the 188 countries listed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2014, approximately 76% of the world received some form of economic assistance from the U.S., the majority located within Africa and the Near East.
Your point being that the US is very generous – and it does not apparently constitute such a threat to peaceful nations that they prefer to be better friends with Russia?
Only an idiot would think that foreign aid comes without strings attached. BTW, the majority of Americans oppose most foreign aid.
So your point is that the US is generous in spite of its population and that this generosity gives them some leverage – well color me surprised!
So in essence your claim is that if not for this US generosity these countries would have recognized Crimea as Russian. Well that just equates that they prefer the US world order, as there would be no foreign aid without it – so we are back to square one – these countries did not recognize Crimea as Russian because that was not in their best interest.
Twisted logic. Since the leaders in many countries are on the take, those countries prefer American hegemony??? Moot point anyway since American hegemonic dominance is ending now.
Is Russia at war with Ukraine or not? If yes, then how/why should Ukraine be constrained in hitting whatever target is of value to them? I don’t get why Russia thinks there’s limits on Ukraine when they don’t observe limits themselves.
That said, our continued idiocy of enabling a wider war continues … Russia will do what it takes to achieve their aims here, even if they have to utterly destroy Ukraine to do it. We are enabling this.
This is what I’ve said before and now is what Zel boy dreams Every Night…!
Given that Ukraine does not have a navy worth mentioning, I would have thought this was not necessary to say.
Meaning what? What is the strongest response to date, this protest?
This sort of talk is dangerous for both sides. They say things the US disregards. Then they may do something that they think they’d warned about, but which the US never “heard.”
Clarity is vital. I understand about not saying incendiary speculative things, but this is quite the opposite. It almost invites misunderstanding.
One thing we can be sure of is that the neocon cabal that has captured US policy only heard that they are getting away with this, no price for it.
Since I do not trust either sides’ public utterances, I wonder what he’s really going there for?
I’m sure Crimea will be mentioned but in what context?
I believed talks would start soon after the offensive if it isn’t a success but isn’t this talking between the US and Russia right now?
They’ve issued arrest warrant for Lindsey Gram as well.
i was under the impression that US had pulled all of it’s diplomats out of Russia last year
What response? Thankfully, Russia has not launched nukes, but outside of total war, Russia has no means to respond.