goes out to YOPJ: From COUNTERPUNCH, NEVER wrong and always a scold. (more sarcasm)

[Thomas Eckhardt]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:01:03 -0500
  Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is all by way of getting to a larger point. The 
>hysteria about Russian
> hacking of the US election — an action which while it 
>might have happened,
> is by no means proven — is a meaningless diversion, 
>because there is no
> evidence at all that Russia is an aggressive nation.
> 
> Right?!!?
> 
> NONE AT ALL! LOL.



George Kennan (no fan of Russia he):

"“expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of 
American policy in the entire post-cold war era”"

And:

"Such a decision may be expected to inflame the 
nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in 
Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the 
development of Russian democracy; to restore the 
atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to 
impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not 
to our liking"

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan#Osterweiterung_der_NATO

"Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasion 
chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very 
existence as an independent country helps to transform 
Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian 
empire."

Zbgniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard"

'Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to 
seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest 
summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior 
officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing 
that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a 
potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly 
to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for 
Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie 
strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and 
Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue 
could potentially split the country in two, leading to 
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force 
Russia to decide whether to intervene.'

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

It is clear as day: Russia does not want to be forced to 
decide whether to intervene. Of course, Victoria Nuland 
went ahead anyway. The result, as predicted by Russia in 
2008: Violence and civil war.

Barack Obama:

"And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and 
Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but 
essentially because he was caught off balance by the 
protests in the Maidan, and Yanukovych then fleeing after 
we'd brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/01/fzgps.01.html

Obama, too, could not have been much clearer: The US 
(along with Germany and the EU) supported a coup against 
the democratically elected President of Ukraine. Russia 
was caught off-guard and reacted.

Even those subscribers to the bipartisan War Party 
(McCain, Nuland, Clinton, Graham etc.) who think that 
sponsoring regime change in Ukraine was "the right thing 
to do", despite being a blatant breach of international 
law, may perhaps find themselves able to admit that Russia 
might not be wholly mistaken in perceiving the coup in 
Ukraine as an existential threat.

As these quotes, especially the quote from Obama, make 
clear, "Counterpunch" is obviously correct, at least as 
far as Ukraine is concerned: Russia does not act 
aggressively, it REacts against what Russia perceives and 
Obama has confirmed to have been a US- and EU-sponsored 
regime change in Ukraine. The annexation of or rather 
support for the secession of Crimea in accordance with the 
will of the majority of its population and without 
bloodshed was a defensive action. The continuing support 
for separatists/federalists in Eastern Ukraine is a 
defensive action.

But don't let this information distract you from believing 
what you want to believe.




-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l