Featured ISIS creates strange bedfellows

The annexation of Crimea., that's what. Euromaiden. The Ukranian revolution and its aftermath. Now, I don't know if you consider those acts of provocation or not but once a KBG man, always a KGB man.

I haven't mentioned China into this equation but now they're mad at ISIS, too. Even more disturbing, ISIS claims it had a deal to smuggle Paki nukes into the US via Mexico:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ISIS-smuggle-nuclear-weapon/2015/06/03/id/648560/

But, then, ISIS claims a lot of things. Nukes are bad for them to have because they will use them even if it will annihilate everything, including themselves, to fulfill their prophecy (in Syria).

 

The problem is the "Ukrainian revolution" was a western backed coup. Initiated by the likes of George Soros, Victoira Nuland and the State Department.

Had nothing to do with any Russian expansionism. The Crimean annexation was the result of Russia moving to protect it's own interests in the region from EU/NATO expansion.

How many foreign military bases does Russia have? How many does the US and NATO have? What direction has NATO been expanding? Has Russia been expanding up to our borders? Has Russia been placing missile batteries on our borders?

Where is all this Russian imperialist expansion been taking place? Come on. You must know if you are claiming it has been taking place. Show us when and where.

 

Putin intervened in the Ukraine and annexed Crimea, period. That is viewed as expansionism by sane people. This isn't even what the topic is. Here, I'll try one more time:

The ME - all of it - is devolving into a dangerous crisis. Syria is ground zero. Soros and his allies were behind the Arab Spring, but even where it worked, all it did was to destabilize the regions even more. Quaddafi and Mubarak were argubly "better" and Putin thinks the same of Assad. So that puts an American ("us") position of supporting ISIS against Assad or supporting Putin against ISIS. Hence the title of Time's thread.

 

You're mistaken. Sane people ask questions, look at all the evidence. Weigh all the evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. That's what sane people do.

You aren't doing that though are you? You're only looking at the evidence that supports your claim. And even that is thin.

C'mon where's all these examples of Russian imperial expansion? You can show more than one half an example. Right? I mean you made the claim.

Burden of proof is on you. Insinuating that I'm crazy for questioning your claim and asking you to support that claim with evidence doesn't relieve you of that burden.

Show me all the examples of Russian imperial expansion. There has to be more than one half an example.

Where's all Russia's foreign military bases? Where have they been expanding to? How many foreign military bases have they built in the last 20 years? Where do they have troops stationed now that weren't there 20 years ago? Show me.

 

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too.

Continue . . . https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault