[WAR] US government set on complete destruction of Ukraine

Sean Lynch seanl at literati.org
Mon Sep 26 17:38:30 PDT 2016


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <xorcist at sigaint.org> wrote:

> > No, this is Putin's baby. He's set it up so that if he can't have
> Ukraine,
> > nobody will.
>
> No, it is quite likely that the coup in Ukraine was instigated and
> organized by U.S. interests.
>
> There are a lot of interests that would have good reason to do so.
>
> Economic: Soros, Geithner, and pals have been looking to depress the
> Russian currency for years. At least back to 2008, that I am aware of. One
> can speculate why, the simplest reason is to make money themselves.
>
> NATO: Yanukovych's government was Russian-leaning, while there were
> "Orange Revolution" leaning politicians, activists, and so on in Western
> Ukraine. Having Ukraine be Russian-leaning, and theoretically independent
> puts NATO in a difficult position. Poland and Romania are NATO members,
> with Ukraine right between them. For supply-line and airspace reasons, it
> is strongly desirable to NATO interests to bring Ukraine under the
> umbrella. This also provides another, angle of attack on Moscow.
>
> Understand the situation: NATO is encircling Moscow. Estonia and Lativa to
> it's NW, Lithuania due-West, with Belarus as a buffer. Both countries are
> positioned to place rockets within 800km of Moscow. If Ukraine were to go
> NATO, it also would be able to position rockets or troops within 800km of
> Moscow from the SW, with no buffer. Assuming Russia is unconcerned about
> Lithuania, trusting Belarus to be able to intercept any aerial attacks,
> that still leaves the possibility for simultaneous attacks from two
> directions.
>
> It is entirely unacceptable, from a purely strategic of view. These
> nations going to NATO represents an existential threat to Russia.
>
> Putin's response, of "taking" Crimea, was quite measured, in my opinion.
> The Black Sea is of vital national interest. Were  NATO able to get a
> carrier group into the to Black Sea, along with the other listed
> positions, it would be impossible to stop the capital from getting
> captured in an invasion.
>
> Finally, your suggestion that Putin is somehow not letting the "poor
> Ukrainians" from exercising their rights is blinded. The fact is, there
> are BOTH strong pro-Western, and pro-Russian sides to Ukraine. This is not
> a recent development. The tensions have been there for several
> generations.
>
> Whether you like it or not, it is Putin's job to protect his country and
> to prevent the very ABILITY for foreign nations to have that potential,
> regardless of whether or not you believe NATO has the will to do so.
> Regardless of the will, it should not be POSSIBLE from Russia's
> perspective.
>
> That said, it is also arguably NATO's job to expand, and to position
> itself so that Russia joining NATO, becomes the only strategy left to the
> Russians.
>
> This, of course, is called Empire


I staked out a stronger position than I actually hold, a hopefully
forgivable mistake in response to Zenaan's black-and-white "Russia good, US
evil" propagandizing. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160926/d036e34b/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list