Agreed.
Apparently posting the full list was necessary because it made it easier and clear for a response to be made to this question:
“Could you find one or two’ maybe three on this list from that link where Putin would be motivated to protect the assassins or killers?”
You did not mention any. I was hoping to see a response from Malthus on that question.
It was not rhetorical and financial when in 2008 Sakaashvilli initiated and launched a full scale military assault on South Ossetia. That assault caused the deaths of Russian Federation soldiers’ legally in South Ossetia as peace keepers by signed treaty. they were there to protect Russian citizens who lived in disputed territory that did not want to be under the soveriegnty of Georgia.
Any nation would do what it takes to protect its soldiers and citizens from a full scall heavy artillery assault on their lives and property.
Kerry WARNS Russia to say out of Ukraine. Putin responds by sending in 150,000 troops and putting combat jets on ALERT!
As ever… the Americans half way around the world causing trouble as usual !:rolleyes:
Can you honestly, with a straight face, claim that Putin is not involved with organised crime? Do you think for one second that a man like Putin, with the power he has is not doling out indulgences and favours left right and centre?
If so, you stand pretty much alone. He is mob through and through, as are his cronies. Nothing gets done in Russia without tribute right to the top in one form or another and stepping out of line is punishable in a variety of ways. Not least of which is the addition of interesting toppings to your sushi.
If you want irrefutable evidence of the above you are out of luck. The majority of the world works under the assumption that that is exactly the way Russia works. All experiences indicate this to be a fair assumption.
Do you honestly think that troop movement wouldn’t have happened if Kerry hadn’t “warned” them? Maybe the U.S. isn’t choosing the best language but Russia wasn’t going to simply sit back and enjoying the show regardless.
"He’s the guy ! "
said US State Dept Victoria Nuland in THAT leaked telephone call, and then lo and behold… Arseneye Yatsenyuk appointed as the new Ukrainian Prime Minister.
What a surprise!
SO!
EU and the USA got the ouster of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED (just incase anyone forgot 
) Yanukovych it wanted! and extra bonus points having caused more friction with Russia
The US and EU got the IMF loan file it wanted
The IMF will demand massive austerity measures on the Ukrainian people who will revolt across the entire country now not just in Kiev. Maidan protests will be nothing compared to the full scale revolts when the austerity measures are revealed.
Jihadists will start moving into the new fertile ground prepared for them by the US State Dept and EU foreign interference in another countries affairs because there is nothing they love better than chaos and instability as well the US knows.
It’s just the beginning…
God help the Ukrainian people because they have no idea what lies ahead 
no
it’s all part of the plan
The rest of the world knows exactly what has just happened in Ukraine. Kerry and Nuland and Obama are just part of it.
Welcome to another engineered disaster, and quite possibly if the US is not stopped, a world war because it seems that the US is determined to trigger massive war by one way or another, and they don’t care how, and they couldn’t care less about democratically elected or democracy and all the rest of the BS.
It was a popular uprising against a corrupt and incompetent ruler. Sound familiar?
That principle is a staple of international law, and telling Russia that they are “not getting Crimea” - which happens to be at this time a part of another sovereign state - is perfectly reasonable. Since when is telling one state not to invade and seize part of another a “provocation” to the potential invader?
This type of stance, which certainly appears reflective of Russia’s, is exactly the sort of thing that causes others to dislike and distrust Russia.
Yes, it is true, in this particular situation. The notion that the West is about to invade Russia - or bomb them - is clearly nonsense. However, the notion that Russia might invade Ukraine is not nonsense, and that is exactly the difference between the “carrots and sticks” offered in this circumstance by the West and by Russia.
He made an assumption - one which is perfectly reasonable given the undoubted evidence, and one widely believed both inside and outside of Russia.
Aside, perhaps, from you, very few doubt that Putin works hand-in-glove with organized crime, and that any investigation into the links between organized crime and government in Russia - and hence Putin’s involvement in the same - is very, very dangerous and likely to lead to murder.
None of which is provable - not least, because those seeking to examine and publish such “proof” end up dead. It is a reasonable supposition that they end up dead exactly because Putin wants such proof not to be found! Or, at least, publicized.
Either that, or it is all just a series of remarkable coincidences. I suppose that is, at least theoretically, possible. But one would have to be remarkably gullable to believe it is at all likely.
yes that’s what they said about Gaddafi and Assad but no one actually believes that now do they?
It’s on an iPhone, so it must be true.
I can think of another one. Begins with “M”.
What is the “or else” you see implied there?
I see it as a matter of fact. If Russia militarily intervenes, or provides supplies and support that enables a civil war for Crimean independence, the consequences in relations, diplomatically and economically, between Russia and Europe, will be dramatic. I see no indication that NATO would get involved militiarily, no threat of such.
Do you not think that such would be the result?
Accepted that many in Russia believe in a Greater Russia that includes the Ukraine and that sitting idly by while Western sympathizers kick out an elected leader that was moving to closer ties with Russia and threaten to potentially oppress ethnic Russians in the region will not sell well with the Russian view of themselves that Putin tries to sell.
So Russian leaders “need” to do something. And they need to have a result that their public will not percieve as impotant. A fair amount of international consequence will be accepted for that end.
If Russian military intervention (either direct or by armed proxy) is to be avoided Russia must be given some face saving option, something that allows them to say that by flexing their biceps they were able protect ethnic Russians and their interests.
How does that result get to occur? What is the result that looks like that?
… Which is routinely brushed aside, by both Western countries and by Russia.
The West didn’t exactly protest when a whole lot of Soviet territories broke off in the early 90’s, to become independent countries. It didn’t protest when Slovakia and the Czech Republic decided to part ways. It didn’t protest when South Sudan broke out on its own, or when Kosovo did.
But now, when at least some portion of the Crimean population - I do not know the exact percentage; perhaps it’s a majority, and perhaps it’s a minority - wishes to break off from the rest of Ukraine, and cozy up with Russia, suddenly NATO and the U.S. threatens war. It is hypocritical, and no more hypocritical than when Russia does it.
True, but only because the Russia is better-equipped, militarily, than countries such as Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, etc., etc., etc. Their muscle, and their constant readiness - their “paranoia,” as you call it - keeps them safe.
OK, so what? Everyone knows that Russia can’t just be pushed around militarily. Thus any thinking person knows that the warning, even though unfortunately coming through NATO, means economic and diplomatic retribution.
First, they aren’t threatening war.
Second, the break-up of a country due to internal causes is something quite different from the break-up of a country because a neigbouring country would like a piece of it, thank you very much.
Third, the history of Europe in the last century is filled with examples of one nation “intervening” to “protect” an ethnic minority in another, with the real purpose being to bite off a chunk of territory for itself. It is not “hypocricy” for the West, and specifically the US, to agitate against that. The receint history of the US is not exactly replete with examples of the US invading and annexing terriory to protect ethnic US persons - you have to go back to wars with Mexico in the 19th century for that.
Is it your opinion that the difficulty of invasion is the only thing that prevents a US invasion of countries? If so, Canada would be pretty easy meat for the US - something like 90% of its population lives within 100 miles of an indefensible border.
Plus, if the Russians are in favor of secessionists, then someone should tell the Chechnyans.