@Darth:
Source? The original neutrality of Ukraine came from the 1990 declaration in independence, supported further by 1996 Ukraine constitution, and 2010 confirmation of earlier politics. None of those years corespond with major trade sanctions against Ukraine.
Ummm…as you stated they were "neutral" and due to proximity still a lot closer to Russia in politics and economics. The trade pact with the EU would have been a historical deal bringing Ukraine the closest its ever been to the west and would have definitely allowed them to eventually join NATO. It's one thing to lose a country in "neutral" independence and another to have it develop important ties with your economic rivals and join their little social club.
Here's a quote from an article.
@Sergey:
Glazyev, 53, the Kremlin’s top economic adviser, also advises Putin on Ukraine. He was quoted by Radio Free Europe as saying Russia could reduce its economic dependency on the United States “to zero” if sanctions were imposed. He also said Moscow might be forced to drop the dollar as a reserve currency and refuse to pay off loans to U.S. banks.
As the Ukranian crisis unfolded, Glazyev accused the United States of funding and arming protesters in Kiev and seemed to threaten Russian intervention.
Glazyev also led the charge against Ukrainian ties to the EU. He said Russian trade sanctions on Ukraine last summer were a warning against the “suicidal step” of an agreement with the EU, the Economist reported.
Putin: "You want to start a trade deal with EU!? Hell no, you won't go!"
Perhaps I have misinterpreted american politics. Because I seem to remember John McCain, whom I believe to be republican, being bordeline agreesive in his support of Ukraine.
John McCain has a tendency for aggressive war mongering and the likes but the point is they put more blame on American hesitancy than Russia itself for its action in Ukraine. In other words Putin isn't really the bad guy here but our own president! Or the much beloved argument of the lesser of 2 evils~
And since when political extremes are equal to impartiality?
They're not. I'm just showing you the media is not bias in 1 direction as you stated.
True, but my statement was about political and media side of things, not this thread. Which seem pretty intend on ignoring any misconduct on Ukrainian side of things or outright painting it as Russian schemes. Again, if you have things that show to the contrary, I will be happy to see it.
Probably because this whole thing has escalated massively because of Russian schemes (see very first source). You seem more interested in taking an impartial stance than any conclusive one because it's logical/sensible thing to do or some other nonsense. I'm not saying you have to take a stance but coming in here and arguing "impartiality" and saying everyone else is being counterproductive because they're not being logical enough doesn't further the discussion.
I was being slightly sarcastic. Nevertheless, I don't actually see solution to that problem, and shaking my fist at evil Russians seems counterproductive.
Saying there's 2 sides to every argument and not moving on from there is counterproductive.
Not going to go into details, since it would be seen as provocative by some people and make them completly miss my point. Regardless, I don't think military intervetion was a right move from him from rational point of view.
Oh yes. The 'I have an awesome plan but it'd be too upsetting for your little ears for me to explain it' argument.
I believe that blackmarket military hardware can only take you so far.
Nevertheless, I considered it either sign of immense incompetence, or something being amiss that all of the observers, and military personal on the scene have yet to present even one concrete proof of it being so. Especially in the light of conflicting reports on part of Ukrainian goverment in the pass.
Making claims for months just make you look silly.
Unless you are absolutely correct in making those claims…
@Darth:
I fully believe that Russia supports separatist with weapons.
Well, duh.