Military Review

Ukrainian crisis: not only Putin is to blame (The Nation, USA)

76
Ukrainian crisis: not only Putin is to blame (The Nation, USA)



The four directions of American politics that most insult Russia.

I am glad to be with you here in San Francisco. The farther away from Washington and from leading media, the better they represent you!

Perhaps one of you knows that our small group has been protesting against American politics from the moment the crisis began in Ukraine two years ago. What only harsh and degrading nicknames we did not give us in connection with this: “Putin’s advocates”, and “Putin's useful idiots”, and “Putin’s best friends in America”.

Paris events should have changed everything, but for these people nothing has changed. This morning I went online and saw everything again. So let me say a few words about myself.

My answer to these accusations is: "Not you, but I am a true patriot of American national security." I really am such a man for almost 50 years, since I was studying Russia. I started in Kentucky, then transferred to Indiana University, and my old friends who are now here will confirm that I have been doing this for many years. During this time, no matter how or why, I came to the conclusion that American national security passes through Moscow. This means that the US president in the Kremlin should have a partner — not a friend, but a partner. So it was during the Soviet Union, so it remains to this day.

This is true of any of the most serious threats on a world scale that you name. For some, this is climate change, for some, human rights, for someone the spread of democracy. For me, for quite a long time, the most serious danger is terrorism of a new type, which today is causing suffering to the whole of humanity. These terrorists are no longer any "non-state actors." These people are well organized, they have an army, there is a self-proclaimed state, there is a lot of money. And they have the ability to cause us serious harm in many parts of the world. It seems everyone forgot about 11 September and about Boston, but Paris should have reminded us what is at stake.

So for me, international terrorism is a global threat that should be a priority for US national security. I mean, she must be a top priority for the president of the United States, whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat. This is a threat to our existence, which is a combination of a new type of terrorism and religious-ethnic civil wars. Worse, these guys really want to get the raw materials to create weapons mass destruction. Cups of radioactive material aboard one of September's 11 aircraft would be enough to make Lower Manhattan uninhabitable - to this day.

Today, terrorists use non-nuclear weapons, bombs, mortars and assault rifles. But if they had a cup of radioactive material in Paris, the French capital would have to be completely evacuated. This is the real threat of today. It cannot be reduced, restrained, and even less eliminated if we do not have a partner in the Kremlin. That's the whole point, and again, notice, I said “partner,” not “friend.” Nixon and Clinton vied with each other about their dear friend Brezhnev and their dear friend Yeltsin, but it was all window dressing. I don't give a damn whether we like the Kremlin leader or not; What we need for a partnership is recognition of our common interests. So two people in business make a contract. They have the same interests, and they have to trust each other, because if one person violates the agreement, the interests of the other person will suffer.

We do not have such a partnership with Russia, even after the Paris events, and I have been saying this for several years now, proving its necessity. In response, people say that I have a “pro-Putin” and unpatriotic point of view, to which I reply: “No, this is the highest form of patriotism regarding American national security.”

Today I will try to clearly and briefly highlight a few points instead of giving a lecture. It is much more interesting for me not to lecture, but to find out what others think about it.

The moment the first. The chance to establish a strong strategic partnership between Washington and Moscow was lost in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, everything started earlier, because Reagan and Gorbachev gave us a chance to establish a strategic partnership during the 1985-1989 period. But it all ended under the Clinton administration, although nothing ended in Moscow. It all ended in Washington. Washington squandered recklessly and lost opportunities. I lost so much that today, and at least the past few years (I would say that after the Georgian war in 2008), we are literally in a state of new cold war with Russia. Many people from politics and from the media do not want to use this term. After all, if they admit that there is a cold war between us, they will have to explain what they have been doing for the last 20 years. Therefore, they say: "No, this is not a cold war."

Next moment. This new cold war has every opportunity to become more dangerous than the 40 summer cold war that preceded it. There are several reasons for this. First of all, let's think about this. The epicenter of the former Cold War was in Berlin, rather far from Russia. In Eastern Europe, there was an extensive buffer zone between Russia and the West. Today, the epicenter is in Ukraine, literally on the Russian border. It all started because of the Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine politically remains a time bomb. The current confrontation is not only on the Russian borders, it is in the heart of the Russian-Ukrainian “Slavic civilization”. This is a civil war, as intricate and complex as the American Civil War.

Many Ukrainian antagonists were brought up in the same faith, speak the same language, are bound by marriage. Does anyone know how many mixed Russian-Ukrainian marriages are today? Millions. Almost all families there are mixed. This is also a ticking time bomb that can cause even more damage and even more danger. It happens right on the Russian borders, in fact, right in the center of the Russian / Ukrainian soul ... or at least in half of the Ukrainian soul ... since half of Ukraine wants to be in Western Europe. And this makes everything even more dangerous.

My next moment is even worse. You remember that after the Caribbean crisis, Washington and Moscow developed some general rules of behavior. They saw how close they were to the brink of a nuclear abyss, and therefore adopted a number of prohibitions, both in the framework of treaties and in the framework of informal agreements. Each side knew where its red line was. From time to time they stepped on them, but immediately retreated, because they had mutual understanding about these red lines. Today there are no such red lines. Putin and his predecessor, Dmitry Medvedev, constantly say Washington: “You cross our red line!” And Washington said and continues to say: “You have no red lines. We have red lines. We can build military bases around your borders as long as you wish, but you cannot have bases in Canada and Mexico. Your red lines don't exist. ” This clearly shows that today there are no general rules of behavior.

For example, in recent years, the United States and Russia have waged three mediated wars among themselves. This is Georgia in 2008, Ukraine, starting from 2014, and until Paris, it seemed that Syria would be the third. We do not yet know what position Washington will take on Syria. Hollande made his decision; He announced the creation of a coalition with Russia. Washington, in Russia's opinion, "remains silent or opposes a coalition with Moscow."

Another important point. Today, there are absolutely no political forces and movements in the US opposing the Cold War and for defusing tensions - neither in our political parties, nor in the White House, nor in the State Department, nor in the leading mainstream media, nor in universities, nor in analytical centers . I see one of my colleagues here nods his head, because we remember how in the 1970 and 1980 years we had allies even in the White House, among the presidential aides. We had allies in the State Department, there were senators and members of the House of Representatives who supported detente and supported us, expressed their own opinions and listened carefully to our point of view. Today, nothing like this. What can we do in a democratic society without such openness and support? We can not throw bombs, attracting attention to ourselves, we can not publish in the leading media, we can not make so that we heard the whole country. Such a lack of debate in society is extremely dangerous.

My next point is the question. Who is responsible for this new cold war? I ask it, not because I want to point a finger at someone. I want only the White House to make changes in American politics, although Congress can also help here. But we need to know what went wrong in Russian-American relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and why ... otherwise there will be no new thinking. There will be no new policy. At the moment, there is no new thinking in the US political and media establishment. Such new thinking is actively present in the European Parliament. There is great anxiety and concern in the French media, in Germany and in the Netherlands. Even Cameron in London rethinks his views.

The position of the current US political and media establishment is that at the beginning of the new cold war, Putin is the only one to blame, only he, from beginning to end. And we in America did nothing wrong. At all stages we were virtuous and wise, and Putin was aggressive, and he is a bad person. And so what is here to revise? That Putin should review everything, but not us.

I disagree with that. Because of this, I am under outrageous attacks, I and my colleagues. In Kentucky, in childhood, I was taught one saying: “In each stories there are two sides. ” And these people say: “No, in this story, in the history of Russian-American relations, there is only one side. And there is no need to look at it through the eyes of the other side. You just have to tirelessly repeat the generally accepted interpretation of the dominant establishment. ” If we continue to do so without solving the existing problems, we will get a second "Paris", and not only here in the USA.

That is why I say that we must be patriots of the national security of America, and that we need to rethink everything. For some reason, the Clinton administration proclaimed the “winner takes all” policy towards Russia. She said: "We won the cold war." It is not true. Jack Matlock, who in the era of Reagan-Gorbachev worked as ambassador to Moscow, explains in his book what happened at each stage of Reagan’s talks with Gorbachev, at which he was present. In fact, the Clinton administration has taken an unwise position, based on the principle that the winner takes all. What are the consequences of such a policy? The consequences are vast. The worst thing is that the US has not used its chance to establish a strategic partnership with Russia at a turning point in history.

Obviously, there are four areas of American policy that most offended Russia. They are as follows.

1. The decision to move NATO directly to the Russian borders. We are talking nonsense, stating that it is Putin who has disturbed the order in Europe that has taken shape after the Cold War. Russia was excluded from this European order in the process of NATO expansion. Russia was pushed "far away" (outside the security zone). Russia constantly repeated: “Let us sign the pan-European security agreement proposed by Gorbachev and Reagan.” But supporters of the NATO expansion said: “There is nothing military here, it is about democracy and free trade. This is useful for Russia. Swallow your poison and smile. ” When Russians had no choice in the 1990s, they did; but when they became stronger, they had a choice, and they decided that it was enough to be silent.

Russia began to fight back, as any sensible Russian leader who enjoys support in his country would do. This is no joke. In the end, Yeltsin had difficulty walking. He was pushed out of the presidency; he did not leave voluntarily. The important thing here is that. Anyone could have predicted such a situation in 1990's — and some of us did it, talking about it as often and as loudly as we were allowed to.

2. US refusal of negotiations on missile defense. Now the missile defense is a NATO project. This means that anti-missile defense installations, land and sea (maritime more dangerous) are now part of the NATO expansion, part of the strategy of encircling Russia. Missile defense is part of the same military system. The Russians are absolutely sure that the missile defense is aimed at their nuclear systems of retaliation. We say: "Oh, no, it's all about Iran, not about you." But talk to Ted Postol from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He will explain to you that the missile defense system is today an offensive weapon capable of striking at Russian targets. It is also a violation of the INF Treaty, because cruise missiles are used in this system. Meanwhile, we ourselves blame Russia for the fact that it is again creating cruise missiles. Yes, she began to do it, because for the first time in many years we returned to an unnecessary arms race.

3. Intervention in the internal affairs of Russia in the name of promoting democracy. We not only financed the programs of “opposition policy” in Russia and Ukraine, which were implemented by the National Endowment for Democracy. You hardly know this, but when Medvedev was the president of Russia, and Clinton and Michael McFaul were conducting their wonderful “reset” (if you look at its conditions, it becomes clear that it was a diplomatic game with fraud), Vice President Biden arrived in Moscow State University and said that Putin should not return to the presidency. Then he said it directly to Putin. Imagine: Putin is coming to us soon and telling Rubio or Clinton that they need to get out of the presidential race!

Are there any red lines in our actions towards Russia? Do we have the right to say and do whatever we want? This applies to everything, and certainly to politics. The White House simply cannot keep its mouth closed, it is constantly pushed by the anti-Russian lobby with its own self-interest and leading media. We all believe in democracy. But whether we like it or not, we will not be able to impose it on Russia. And if we could, we would hardly have liked the consequences.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves: should we carefully think over our positions with regard to Russia after the Paris attacks? And does Russia even have any legitimate interests in the world? And if so, what are they? What about their boundaries? Does she have any legitimate interests in Syria?

4. The last moment is hope and recommendation. (Before Paris, I thought there was no hope at all.) We still have a chance to restore the lost partnership with Russia, in at least three areas.

Ukraine. You know the essence of the Minsk Agreement. It was developed by Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and President Putin. It provides for the termination of the civil war in Ukraine through negotiations. It recognizes that this conflict is mainly a civil war and only secondarily by Russian aggression. I don’t care what the leading American media say - in fact, it’s Ukrainian civil war. Putting an end to civil war means strengthening security.


Syria. Before Paris, I thought that there was almost no chance of creating an American-Russian coalition. Partly ... I am not strong at psychoanalysis, but at least partly the reason is because Obama is simply fixating himself on Putin. He is indignant, he is offended at him, and he says things about him that do not help build relationships. But after the Paris events, when Hollande said that there is now a Russian-French coalition, when Germany agreed with him, and I would say, all of Western Europe joined them, a chance appeared. But it will be realized only if the White House takes this opportunity. Soon we will understand.

False confidence that the nuclear threat disappeared along with the Soviet Union. In fact, this threat has become more complex and diverse. But the political elite forgets about it. This is another disservice to the Clinton administration (and to a certain extent Bush’s elder during the re-election campaign) - she said that after 1991, the nuclear dangers of the Cold War era no longer exist. But in reality, this threat has intensified, by chance or by neglect, and now the situation is more dangerous than ever.

Last year, due to an unreasonable outburst of irritation and anger, Russia withdrew from the Nunn-Lugar initiative, which, if you remember, was one of the wisest legislative acts adopted by Congress. In the 1990s, we gave Russia money for which it provided security and reliable storage of its materials for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, we paid salaries to its scientists who knew how to make and use these materials, and who otherwise could have gone to Syria, Yemen or the Caucasus to work there and sell their knowledge. Russia withdrew from this initiative, but said that it wanted to revise the conditions of the Nunn-Lugar initiative. The White House refused. After Paris, there is hope that Obama will pick up the phone and say: "I send people to you, let's negotiate."

Unfortunately, the information coming in today indicates that the White House and the State Department are primarily and mostly thinking about opposing Russian actions in Syria. They are alarmed by the fact that Russia is weakening the American leadership in the world.

But there is one extremely important point. The United States can no longer lead the world alone, and indeed hardly ever could. Long before Paris, globalization began, other events occurred that marked the end of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. This world is no more. A multipolar world appears before our eyes, and this is not only Russia, but also five or six more countries. Washington’s stubborn reluctance to recognize this new reality has become part of the problem, not its solution. That's where we got today ... even after Paris.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-crisis-its-not-all-putins-fault/
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 18 December 2015 09: 45 New
    24
    the American president in the Kremlin should have a partner - not a friend, but a partner. So it was in the days of the Soviet Union, so it remains to this day.


    I do not affirm the thesis of the professor ..... in the grave of such partners I saw ... they wanted to withdraw from the ABM Treaty violating the security of RUSSIA and the whole world .... what kind of partner is this am
    Wanted this partner drove NATO troops to our borders, breaking his promise not to do this .... what and you can’t win back ...

    so this partner went in three letters .... a conversation with US officials can only be conducted by holding a heavy club.
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 18 December 2015 09: 57 New
      33
      The article is correct. The thesis - there must be a responsible partner and clear rules of behavior for everyone. And not fables about the losers and the "exceptional".
      1. Vend
        Vend 18 December 2015 10: 01 New
        14
        There are, of course, questions, but on the whole I’m glad that there are adequate people in the United States.
        1. Mahmut
          Mahmut 18 December 2015 11: 16 New
          +1
          The United States acts on the principle of "power is - you don’t need a mind," or "I’m the boss - all idiots."
        2. Altona
          Altona 18 December 2015 11: 47 New
          +8
          Quote: Wend
          There are, of course, questions, but on the whole I’m glad that there are adequate people in the United States.

          -----------------------
          Of course there are, in the southern states there are many Christians, traditionalist sentiments are strong. They don’t like the whole mess with the “rights of homosexuals”, the policy of supporting the Islamists, the attack on the rights of the white population, on the rights of a traditional family. And most of all, they are enraged by the presence of a Negro in the White House, and the Negro is touchy and conducts "communist programs" such as Obamacare. Now imagine the full extent of the indignation of the white population in the South of the USA. There, many sympathize with Putin.
        3. Pirogov
          Pirogov 18 December 2015 18: 46 New
          -6
          Well there are five people
      2. WKS
        WKS 18 December 2015 12: 33 New
        13
        But we must know what went wrong in Russian-American relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and why ...

        The answer is very simple. Any monkey in the jungle knows him. The opponent must be finished to the end and at that very moment when he is defeated and cannot defend. The United States did not do this in 1991, and not because they did not understand, but because they could not. What was needed was the same ground operation for the military occupation of vast territories of the USSR. But the Pentagon could not carry out such an operation then and now, and cannot when, since this structure can conduct ground operations only for short periods and in small territories with a weak enemy. Since the use of the pentagon in the pursuit of the Soviet Union was impossible, the United States used a different strategy: inciting and fanning internal conflicts throughout the territory of the former USSR. With the simultaneous absorption of the entire territory of the former Soviet satellites. But this strategy was defeated because of its protracted nature. During this time, Russia recovered from severe wounds and again fell into a fighting stance. Now the United States has only two options, either to recognize the Russian right to life, or to sort things out in a nuclear conflict. But to admit the first - for the American "winners of the Cold War" is an unbearably difficult task, and the second option is fraught with its own death. That's for this reason there is a "bazaar" in the media, but as you know, you have to answer for the "bazaar" too.
        1. vik14025
          vik14025 20 December 2015 07: 56 New
          +1
          Concerning the "answer for the bazaar".
          Women and n + dorsa are not responsible for the bazaar. Who the states belong to is not a question, is it?
      3. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 18 December 2015 13: 24 New
        +9
        Quote: oleg-gr
        The thesis - there must be a responsible partner and clear rules of behavior for everyone.

        First there were articles “Putin is to blame”, Now - “It is not only Putin who is to blame”, two years later - “Putin is not to blame”. yes
      4. iouris
        iouris 18 December 2015 14: 19 New
        +5
        The thesis "not only Putin is to blame" means that the Russian Federation participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych? Obama says everywhere that the US controls everything, because it is the USA that is the superpower.
        Blame Obama (and Chubais).
        1. ivan48857
          ivan48857 19 December 2015 05: 38 New
          +3
          plus for Chubais!
        2. delvin-fil
          delvin-fil 19 December 2015 14: 46 New
          0
          I liked about Chubais. good
    2. Haettenschweiler
      Haettenschweiler 18 December 2015 10: 01 New
      15
      Quote: The same Lech
      so this partner went in three letters .... a conversation with US officials can only be conducted by holding a heavy club.


      - And so that the "heavy club" does not rot and does not turn into a skinny twig, we need, if not the strongest, but strong, confident in the "tomorrow" economy. And for the economy to develop rapidly, you need a hellish mixture of state planning and private initiative. And also it should be not only and not so much raw as technological. Selling gasoline and petroleum products would be hundreds of times more profitable than crude oil, and a collapse in prices for the latter would not lead to such catastrophic consequences ... but you need to invest in all this, and here and now, and net profit will begin only through several years when the company pays for itself. This runs counter to the philosophy of our oligarchs and officials (or rather, oligarch officials), for whom money is an end in itself. Not a single one will invest a dime in a powerful refinery system, because there are already pipelines for refining crude oil and instant (albeit less) profit. The same thing with high-tech production: you need to invest in the construction of at least experimental workshops, in development, in scientists and engineers, and finally, without 100% guarantee that these things will pay off in the near future. Thus, we can conclude that in modern Russia there will never be a strong economy. And if raw material prices continue to be undermined, the “strong club” will gradually shrink to frivolous values: soldiers are people too, they also want to eat. Equipment requires care, maintenance, modernization. Cannons need ammunition. Etc.
      1. lukewarm
        lukewarm 18 December 2015 10: 45 New
        +1
        All right. Another thing is that the system in which we live and in which our economy works is just the product of our "defeat", in the words of the professor, "the winner took everything." Laws have been written to us, the constitution, the financial system have been set up in such a way that it is difficult, troublesome, on the verge of profitability, or even behind it, to do something other than selling raw materials. No support, expensive credit. And despite the successes of our weapons (at least on TV), there is nothing about life inside the country. For there remained the 90s. Well, unless shaved guys in leather jackets. The common people got crumbs from fatty oil prices. Now comes the hangover. Others thumped, and everyone had a hangover. Oh, in short ...
      2. veksha50
        veksha50 18 December 2015 10: 47 New
        +9
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        The same thing with high-tech production: you need to invest in the construction of at least experimental workshops, in development, in scientists and engineers, and finally, without 100% guarantee that these things will pay off in the near future.



        Hmm ... We, or rather, in the Western economy, which we are intensively introducing at our place, have such a concept - venture financing ... That is, financing projects that will yield profits soon ... or maybe will not .. .

        However, there is such a concept - but something about real venture financing in Russia, specific projects is inaudible ... No, I'm wrong: we have Skolkovo and the red-haired NANO as venture projects, but they exist in a perverted Russian form, as a form-mechanism of theft of budget money ...
        1. Altona
          Altona 18 December 2015 11: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: veksha50
          Hmm ... We, or rather, in the Western economy, which we are intensively introducing at our place, have such a concept - venture financing ... That is, financing projects that will yield profits soon ... or maybe will not .. .

          ------------------
          Of course, even such “sensible” official assholes will never dare to accept such risky projects.
          1. veksha50
            veksha50 18 December 2015 20: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: Altona
            Of course, even such “sensible” official assholes will never dare to accept such risky projects.



            But you see crazy money in Skolkovo and NANO !!!
            Only from there always some rumors about investigations of various theft-cuts ...

            Everything is twisted, everything is zipped ... Risk projects must exist and be funded, however, with a serious, balanced approach ... Without them, the now beloved expression - innovative development - will not receive either science or industry ...
            1. Altona
              Altona 18 December 2015 22: 06 New
              +1
              Quote: veksha50
              But you see crazy money in Skolkovo and NANO !!!
              Only from there always some rumors about investigations of various theft-cuts ...

              --------------------
              I honestly don’t know there are any such risky projects. What Chubais voiced is some kind of replicas of technologies developed in the West and China (pure quartz powder, solar panels and other such garbage), exercises and start-ups in technology parks are not expensive now, there is computer modeling and prototyping, there are all sorts of robots , nanoelements, mini-devices, 3D-printers for industry. The prototype of a mechanical-electronic device is now inexpensive, or optical-electronic. The missing is bought in China and mounted on a sample. I don’t say it myself, I watch programs, the participants themselves say that a prototype can be created.
    3. corn
      corn 18 December 2015 10: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: The same Lech
      in the coffin of such partners I saw

      Fool, albeit a marshal. I don’t put a minus, because for the opinion (which I do not see, only a set of slogans) I do not put minuses in principle.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 18 December 2015 10: 18 New
        13
        Fool, albeit a marshal. I don’t put a minus, because for the opinion (which I do not see, only a set of slogans) I do not put minuses in principle.


        And I don’t put it ... but I spread my opinion as I can.

        You can express your thoughts specially for you in a different way longer and more sophisticated ... without a fuss. (The meaning does not change from this)

        For example:

        Mr. Stephen Cohen, a professor at Princeton and New York Universities, is unfortunately wrong.
        For the history of relations between RUSSIA and the USA was constantly distinguished by the violation of WASHINGTON's obligations to the USSR and subsequently RUSSIA.

        Here are the facts dear forumchanin
        corn
        I do not specifically affect your rank so that you do not inadvertently offend your vanity:

        So without the fuss ....
        On December 13, 2001, US President George W. Bush notified the President of Russia of the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty, after which, according to the provisions of the treaty, he remained in force for another 6 months, until June 12, 2002.

        Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, Igor Sergeyevich noted (2002): “With regard to the ABM treaty, this is a unilateral exit from the United States. Russia over the past years has done and has done a lot to prevent the collapse of the ABM treaty. I’ll give the last example: last year, just shortly before the Bush administration decided to quit, we managed to get a resolution at the UN General Assembly in support of the ABM treaty, it was supported in more than 80 states. Only the USA spoke out against


        What ... the whole world is against and only the US is cynically against.
        Further...
        Back in 1990, the West made a promise to the USSR that NATO would not advance to the East. But since then, 10 East European countries have joined the alliance. Today, NATO’s actions in Eastern Europe are accompanied by new promises. But the credit of confidence in NATO has been exhausted.


        Author Svetlana Kalmykova

        NATO eastward expansion: trust cannot be restored

        Experts call the expansion of NATO to the East one of the most treacherous acts in recent history. In February 1990, during negotiations on the reunification of Germany, the West made a promise to the USSR that the alliance "would not move an inch eastward." However, all obligations were violated. Which is not surprising, because they were given only in words.



        RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/radio/20141002/1026564022.html#ixzz3ufMiYHqS

        The word gave the word took like real macho ... what.
        Maybe we’ll go some further hi
        1. corn
          corn 18 December 2015 10: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: The same Lech
          And I don’t put it ... but I spread my opinion as I can.

          Do not be discouraged, in the second comment you set out thoughts with which you can agree or not.
          And about who is right and who is wrong. I will give an example of the Crimea. The vast majority of countries did not recognize the return or accession (as you like), even our supposedly allies. But I personally put their recognition from a large bell tower. Therefore, your evidence, in this context, is at least inappropriate. There is such a thing as interests. And all these international organizations are just a platform for protecting interests. There is power - you will protect, no - you will not protect.
          I can speak about treachery. What treachery?
          These are all propaganda categories. I did not warn my opponent that I would dump him a lyuley - ha ha ha. Winners are not judged. Actually, I'm not such a cynic.
          Regarding my rank. There is a present. Wife laughs: MO pension for general epaulettes will also be added.
          "the West promised" - talk for the poor. Suit on the table (I know that it is not). And after the joke:
          She: Love? (Often breathing)
          He: Love. (Often breathing)
          She: Will you buy a fur coat? (breathing often)
          He: Buy. (Often breathing)
          After the act.
          He: (Deep exhale) And why do you need a fur coat?
          If I hurt your EGO, I apologize.
          1. Lelek
            Lelek 18 December 2015 19: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: corn
            If I hurt your EGO, I apologize.


            Yes, you throw your curtsy.
        2. Gormenghast
          Gormenghast 18 December 2015 11: 40 New
          +1
          Ага.

          NPT violate; Amer atomic bombs in Europe and Turkey should not be.
          We left the ABM Treaty.
          INFs violate their HERA, LRALT and MRT target missiles and GBI anti-ballistic missiles.
          CFE limits were violated, which led to its cancellation by Russia; countries that have not adhered to the CFE Treaty have been admitted to NATO.
          NATO expanded, contrary to a clear promise not to do so.

          Amerans are liars.
      2. Letun
        Letun 18 December 2015 10: 24 New
        0
        Quote: corn
        Quote: The same Lech
        in the coffin of such partners I saw

        Fool, albeit a marshal. I don’t put a minus, because for the opinion (which I do not see, only a set of slogans) I do not put minuses in principle.

        And I slapped. Oh, a couple of years ago on this site it was nice to read comments from smart people. Now, 3/4 of the comments under each article are empty idleness and mutual kissing of sofa strategists with each other. There, right now, colleagues in the dodging coalition will put on a comrade for anyone.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 18 December 2015 10: 35 New
          +2
          А
          I slapped
          .

          I will not be offended smile it encourages me to more sophisticatedly post comments ... adrenaline all the same.
      3. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 18 December 2015 11: 15 New
        0
        For corn
        I’m not at all scamming up. And here the "Marshal" is not at all clear. Only one thing is clear that you have your own principles for evaluating comments.
        1. corn
          corn 18 December 2015 11: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: rotmistr60
          you have your principles in

          Do you have strangers? Do you use the principle of "What is allowed to Jupiter, not allowed to the bull"? Due to the specifics of my life, I have a certain attitude towards epaulets and uniforms in general. And believe me, this is not a ranking of society by the color of their pants. For me, the shoulder strap is primarily the degree of duties and competence, and not the degree of rights: What I want is what I turn around.
          1. rotmistr60
            rotmistr60 18 December 2015 11: 41 New
            +2
            I have a certain attitude towards epaulettes

            Well epaulets on the site are symbolic. In life, everyone has had their own epaulettes.
            "What is allowed to Jupiter, is not allowed to the bull"

            That you are completely at the wrong place, I dare to assure you.
        2. vovanpain
          vovanpain 18 December 2015 11: 49 New
          +8
          Quote: rotmistr60
          Only one thing is clear that you have your own principles for evaluating comments.

          And all members of the forum should have these principles. A step to the right, a step to the left is an escape, a jump in place is a provocation.
    4. Letun
      Letun 18 December 2015 10: 20 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      the American president in the Kremlin should have a partner - not a friend, but a partner. So it was in the days of the Soviet Union, so it remains to this day.


      I do not affirm the thesis of the professor ..... in the grave of such partners I saw ... they wanted to withdraw from the ABM Treaty violating the security of RUSSIA and the whole world .... what kind of partner is this am
      Wanted this partner drove NATO troops to our borders, breaking his promise not to do this .... what and you can’t win back ...

      so this partner went in three letters .... a conversation with US officials can only be conducted by holding a heavy club.

      You would read the article to the end chtoli before writing your OBM. I understand that I wanted to slap the first post under a powerful article, but not to the same extent.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 18 December 2015 10: 32 New
        +3
        I understand that I wanted to slap the first post under a powerful article, but not to the same extent.


        Do not understand correctly smile I just read very quickly ... first I grab the entire paragraph, then I read each sentence in detail, especially where there is evidence for the facts in other primary sources.
        This saves time and does not stretch the study of each letter of the article until the evening.
        The American professor of Cohen is not an authority for me ... although I agree that the article is powerful but nothing more.
        Regardless of the soothing opinion of this COENA, WASHINGTON will continue the policy of strangling RUSSIA ... the so-called ANACONDA loop .... this strategic plan, which began many years against the USSR, also acts against RUSSIA.
        1. Letun
          Letun 18 December 2015 11: 29 New
          0
          Quote: The same Lech
          I understand that I wanted to slap the first post under a powerful article, but not to the same extent.


          Do not understand correctly smile.

          Dear Marshal, let's not be cunning, I understand everything correctly. When I opened this article, it already had one single, short comment. Your. When I read the article, the comment became much more voluminous. Here it is now. Those. You saw in the text that very paragraph about partnership, without delving into the essence of the article, you "staked out" a place for yourself in the comments, and then you started editing your post, counting on the likes of the same idiots. As you can see, the calculation was correct. Congratulations.
    5. Simon
      Simon 18 December 2015 10: 21 New
      +4
      It’s quite “LEKHA” I support you! The American president already had such "partners" in the Kremlin. One Union began to break up, applying its "perestroika", and the other in a drunken stupor altogether destroyed it and arranged a circus on the stage that the whole world laughed at him, that is, disgraced our Russia. request
    6. lukewarm
      lukewarm 18 December 2015 10: 40 New
      +2
      So it is precisely for this same that the professor scolds the White House and the State Department. So I do not see a contradiction. Another question is how sincere he is. So he is not talking about friendship, but about partnership.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 18 December 2015 10: 44 New
        +4
        Another question is how sincere he is. So he is not talking about friendship, but about partnership.


        Exactly ... the behavior of officials of the US State Department and NATO is amazing ..... as soon as they retire or leave their posts in government agencies, they instantly become fighters for peace.
        1. Sid.74
          18 December 2015 11: 07 New
          +2
          What is gratifying, in the US, the voices of such political scientists are still there. But ... they are somewhat nervous reaction to recent events ... somehow very alarming. The tip of the United States has finally gone crazy and degraded. And things are really very bad ... these political analysts probably even felt the hellish chill of the third and last world war.

          I generally keep quiet about the EU and the NATO countries, those like sheep go to the slaughter, without any reproaches and kicks from CA, Qatar and Turkey. In other words, entropy and degradation in all spheres of life of large Western countries is growing like an avalanche.
          And the United States of Democracy number one, turned into a terrorist number one.
          And the problem is not even capitalism, the problem is in the irrepressible greed of the ruling elites of the United States and the countries of BV and the West.
    7. maiman61
      maiman61 18 December 2015 10: 49 New
      +3
      a conversation with US officials can only be carried out by waving a heavy club in front of their nose.
    8. marlin1203
      marlin1203 18 December 2015 12: 01 New
      +3
      With such "partners" and enemies it is not necessary.
  2. vorobey
    vorobey 18 December 2015 09: 49 New
    +2
    the drying brought down on that day added piquancy to Cohen's words
  3. Barakuda
    Barakuda 18 December 2015 09: 49 New
    0
    I started in Kentucky, then transferred to Indiana University

    So what ? Was it enough to write such an article, well done, send a medal?
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 18 December 2015 09: 52 New
      +4
      Was it enough to write such an article, well done, send a medal?


      The question is how he was still allowed to publish it .... and did not get fired and did not give a term and did not get rotten at all .... strange.
      And as for the medal, the idea is good for such articles, you really need to give medals or money hehe equivalent ... what incidentally are the Americans in our country doing and rewarding all sorts of ALEXEI and BULK.
      1. lukewarm
        lukewarm 18 December 2015 10: 52 New
        +1
        I agree completely. Maybe the Russian Federation would be engaged, if not:
        1. Lack of finance (they print dollars and not us) to interest our supporters there.
        2. The sale and Westernization of our "elite", which until recently looked at Amers mouth (and looks mostly still). For her, such actions are impossible in principle. Akin to sacrilege and mortal sin. Do something against the cartridge!
      2. Extraneous
        Extraneous 18 December 2015 10: 53 New
        +1
        You can publish a lot on your blogs or thematic sites. the audience is scanty and has no real power. So - the release of steam for a certain group of the population.
        the same as ours: we hang around on our fields, liberals on our own, and the audience both with us and with them is limited by interests.
        So - the talker. Just to talk.
      3. vovanpain
        vovanpain 18 December 2015 11: 28 New
        +8
        Quote: The same Lech
        And as for the medal, the idea is good for such articles, you really need to give medals or money hehe equivalent ... what incidentally are the Americans in our country doing and rewarding all sorts of ALEXEI and BULK.

        I agree, but there are few such professors there, unfortunately, and this one is already old, and as he himself says
        We had allies in the Department of State, there were senators and members of the House of Representatives who spoke in favor of detente and supported us, who themselves expressed their opinions and listened carefully to our point of view. There is nothing like it today
  4. venaya
    venaya 18 December 2015 09: 53 New
    +5
    The professor’s position speaks of a mess in the head of even quite smart people in the USA. What then can be said about the state of mind of ordinary US citizens?
  5. Gor-1974
    Gor-1974 18 December 2015 09: 56 New
    +1
    It seems to me that in all crises the people are indirectly to blame, by their action or inaction.
    1. Black
      Black 18 December 2015 10: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Gor-1974
      It seems to me that in all crises the people are indirectly to blame, by their action or inaction.


      You, apparently, are still a young man ..... Do you still believe in the high destiny of the PEOPLE ....
      Alas, history and sound observation show that people never decide anything.
      Neither in peacetime, nor in wartime. As they tell him how to lead him, so IT moves.
    2. shuhartred
      shuhartred 18 December 2015 10: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: Gor-1974
      It seems to me that in all crises the people are indirectly to blame, by their action or inaction.

      Damn! Twenty-five again, bad people went. Yes, we have 90% of the people concerned about the problems of their own survival and nothing else (for obvious reasons) people are not interested in. Those who do not have the question of survival and so are happy with everything. Well, show me the "people" which are different! People (the vast majority) are what they are and there is nothing to be done about it. If the authorities of Banderokin really improved the well-being of the people, they would be worn there and sneeze at all at the SS parades and other fascism. Exactly the same thing happened in Germany in the 30s, and we will have it if the government begins to "share" and all do not care about ideology and politics.
  6. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 18 December 2015 10: 03 New
    +5
    Good article, just screaming. This article, but in the ears and brains (if any) of the White House.
  7. Samoyed
    Samoyed 18 December 2015 10: 11 New
    +3
    Quote: venaya
    The professor’s position speaks of a mess in the head of even quite smart people in the USA. What then can be said about the state of mind of ordinary US citizens?

    Very agree! Something dipped intelligence in the USA! Although, the professor - respect for his own point of view, well done.
  8. DobryAAH
    DobryAAH 18 December 2015 10: 18 New
    +2
    Americans, like the Censor, mention Putin in every post. GDP has probably been stunned by this. laughing
  9. meriem1
    meriem1 18 December 2015 10: 24 New
    +4
    Stephen Cohen is a wise man! The analysis of Russian-American relations given above is simply impeccable! As long as there are such People, there remains the hope that the businessmen who think of themselves as gods from politics and are completely stupefied by the authorities will finally go down to the earth and develop their blind eyes!
  10. Alekseits
    Alekseits 18 December 2015 10: 30 New
    +2
    [quote = The same LEKH] [quote]

    so this partner went in three letters .... a conversation with US officials can only be conducted by holding a heavy club. [/ quote]
    There is a Russian expression: "Hand on heart ...", which in the west corresponds to the expression: "Hand on hilt sword ..."
    They just don’t understand how to talk differently, and we all try to talk to them humanly.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 18 December 2015 10: 53 New
      0
      There is a Russian expression: "Hand on heart ...", which in the west corresponds to the expression: "Hand on hilt sword ..."


      I'll take it into service smile and then the people begin to get nervous ... will have to refine themselves in the verbiage of ornate ... I'm afraid some forum users will not master the EZOPOV language.
  11. zekaze1980
    zekaze1980 18 December 2015 10: 38 New
    +5
    Of course, it’s hard now for the United States, after the collapse of the USSR, the “god” regime automatically turned on. And all gamers know that after this, playing by the rules is no longer interesting. winked
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 18 December 2015 14: 31 New
      +1
      ... "god" mode automatically turned on


      The USA has such a tummer - "Head" - "J.op." At the time of the existence of the USSR, the United States had to work with their head, thinking over options for the decomposition of the Union and finding flaws in the socialist system and economy. The toggle switch was turned on in the "Head" position.
      As soon as the USSR collapsed, this toggle switch turned off in its constant position and closed ...
      what
  12. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 18 December 2015 11: 07 New
    +3
    At least, our country behaves peacefully towards all countries, does not try to press anyone, to buy, because our policy is directed in the interests of all peoples. Well, we will not regret those from Erdogans with Isil, and we already understood this in the USA and the vile depraved litter of the geyrope. The only thing. that we, the Russians, should now rally: - It is faster to bring our economy to a level that would correspond to the social development of our society. An aggressive West will not perceive us without our “baton”.
  13. Vega
    Vega 18 December 2015 11: 10 New
    0
    The reasoning in the article seems to be correct, logical. But, again, we are talking about the exclusivity and initiative of the United States, the rest in the margins.
  14. Baloo
    Baloo 18 December 2015 11: 31 New
    0
    The Macington macaques want to be "big brother" for the Russian Federation. Well, d ... ... q
  15. avva2012
    avva2012 18 December 2015 11: 32 New
    +5
    I am not good at psychoanalysis, but at least partly the reason is that Obama just got stuck on Putin. He is indignant, he is offended by him, and he says things about him that do not help build relationships.
    Interestingly, does the professor pretend to be naive or is he like that? Obama, of course, may be offended, resentful, but the anatomy of power (in my Delitan view) does not provide for such things. Who is the president in a developed and democratic country? A monkey that was taught certain tricks. Behind her are serious people who say that another baboon should do. And, no, no, "remember what happened to Kennedy?". In our wild Russia, so far not so, we only go to "democracy".
    1. dauria
      dauria 18 December 2015 12: 32 New
      +2
      Who is the president in a developed and democratic country? A monkey that was taught certain tricks. Serious people are standing behind her,


      Very accurate and very ... offensive or what? After all, when our "wild
      Russia "will come to" democracy ", we won’t even know the names of these serious people. I’d like to. I wonder who actually runs the US? How many of them, how do they resolve conflicts between themselves? Where do they get personnel to replace the departed, or only everything is measured by money? And what’s funny, about Russia there are exactly the same questions, but there are no answers. smile

      No, not funny, but scary. Think about it, some dark personalities in both countries will solve the "clan" problems with nuclear weapons.
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 18 December 2015 13: 04 New
        +1
        After all, when our “wild Russia” reaches “democracy”, we won’t even know the names of these serious people.
        Dear colleague, it seems to me that we still have hope for the “savagery” of our long-suffering Motherland. Somehow not in the traditions of our democracy. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, I.V. Stalin. Even, absolutely no Tsar Nicholas II and, then, did not have "serious people" behind him. Everything was controlled by the spouse. And everyone knew about it. Maybe that's why we and the West, well, we can’t agree on anything. Just the contracting parties are different. They are all waiting for the "real" puppeteers. And, with us, if it’s completely impossible (Khrushchev with a boot), then there are no others in power. Cognitive dissonance is obtained. request
  16. Sergey Loskutov
    Sergey Loskutov 18 December 2015 11: 39 New
    +1
    Good afternoon.
    Even in our media space, the article looks "balanced." Reasonable arguments, logical reasoning. Such thoughts to express in the USA or in Ukraine is definitely not popular and possibly dangerous.
    The most important thing in the article is an appeal to equal rhetoric.
    Too much pathos and unreasonably overestimated significance, expressed in the claims to "world messianism" by the "politicians who have lost their shores".
    Probably after seeing a dozen of militants, where movie heroes subordinate the laws of physics and luck to their will, political copperfields transfer the axiom of "the United States like cool" to real life.
    Against this background, the speech of a rational person is really perceived by delusions.
  17. wow
    wow 18 December 2015 11: 40 New
    0
    "... that's where we ended up today ..."! And you were in full w ... !!!
  18. atos_kin
    atos_kin 18 December 2015 12: 25 New
    +1
    The term PARTNER means a member of any union, bloc, agreement. Only in the words and actions of the United States in relation to Russia, this term carries a sexual connotation. It would be necessary for Russia to adjust the meaning of this term to determine the participants of various "pleasures." I don’t remember something that JV Stalin would call someone in international relations a partner. An ally, an enemy - yes, and partners - only trading.
    1. atos_kin
      atos_kin 18 December 2015 20: 47 New
      +2
      Today is the birthday of I.V. Stalin, by the way.
  19. iouris
    iouris 18 December 2015 12: 51 New
    +1
    It’s just that the USA does not understand how Russia can be a partner, the economy of which is an order of magnitude smaller and the armed forces less than 20 times. At the same time, the United States retains the ability to effectively influence economic, spiritual and domestic political processes within the Russian Federation and neighboring countries.
  20. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 18 December 2015 13: 06 New
    +1
    Mattressoids, if you do not calm down, we will wipe you off the face of the earth and say that it was. Frozen striped ... am
  21. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 18 December 2015 13: 10 New
    +1
    Such long philosophical conclusions are stretched for many years. And in Russian speaking slow-witted! What does Russia have to do with it? There is nothing to blame on the mirror, since the mug is crooked.
  22. yuriy55
    yuriy55 18 December 2015 14: 16 New
    +1
    Ukrainian crisis: not only Putin is to blame (The Nation, USA)


    But what is the Ukrainian crisis, and from which side is Putin here?

    These phrases about strategic and political partnership are just water. Russia offers equal partnership in all matters relating to international politics. The United States offers partnerships on the principles of "Barin" - "Serf". Moreover, she sees herself as a "good master", and partners - as a "submissive serf". A sort of international monopoly game called "Lordship and servile submission" ...

    It was said by Eugene:
    First there were articles “Putin is to blame”, Now - “It is not only Putin who is to blame”, two years later - “Putin is not to blame”.

    I can assume that at the beginning of 2016 articles may appear - "Erdogan, Poroshenko, etc. are to blame for everything", and at the end of 2016 - "Obama is to blame" ... winked

    I don’t believe anyone’s good masks hiding the animal’s grin, and therefore I can only say in the words of A.S. Griboedov:

    Ah, from the gentlemen give away;
    They have troubles for themselves every hour
    Pass us more than all sorrows
    And lordly anger, and lordly love.

    hi
  23. Luga
    Luga 18 December 2015 14: 46 New
    +2
    Yes, it’s no secret that the relations of Russia, Russia, the USSR, and later the Russian Federation with the Western world, the leader of which is now the United States, are built on the basis of one single principle - “who whom”. We have nothing in common with them, starting with the smallest details of the mentality and ending with the selfish interests of the latest marginals. And the concept of "partner" in relations with these figures can only be used as a softened version of the concept of "opponent", "opponent" or even "enemy". That’s how I personally understand our president when he talks about “Western partners.”

    This American professor says only one thing: we Americans have relaxed a lot after the collapse of the USSR, danced on bones for too long, and now we have to roll up our sleeves again and turn on our brains to keep the Slavic bear on the chain.

    "So for me, international terrorism is a global threat that should be a priority for US national security." Three haha ​​four times. If he is as smart as he is positioning himself, but I personally have no doubt that he is smart personally, then he must perfectly understand what world terrorism is and where it came from. "US National Security Priority" is ridiculous! This is a destabilizing factor that allows you to keep certain regions in suspense and, as a result, allows the United States to intervene in the political cuisine of these regions. International terrorism is one of the most important tools of US foreign and domestic policy, which the mattress is not going to lose. And the professor cannot but understand this. And according to this, his article is simply a tribute to the new political conjuncture or fashion, as you want, but in fact - a hypocritical lie. The same wolf, like those that are now in power, if not worse, because maybe smarter.

    The article put a plus, because it is interesting.
  24. am808s
    am808s 18 December 2015 14: 51 New
    0
    My minus is that the professor is just lulling us, and for fornication, his dream is to return us to the 90s and to our new EBN. We have matured and do not want to believe more.
  25. Bor
    Bor 19 December 2015 21: 35 New
    +1
    Listen only to the opinion of the strong! We are becoming stronger and more confident. This has become a decisive factor in the emergence of a multipolar world.
  26. complete zero
    complete zero 19 December 2015 23: 37 New
    0
    Quote: The same Lech
    the American president in the Kremlin should have a partner - not a friend, but a partner. So it was in the days of the Soviet Union, so it remains to this day.


    I do not affirm the thesis of the professor ..... in the grave of such partners I saw ... they wanted to withdraw from the ABM Treaty violating the security of RUSSIA and the whole world .... what kind of partner is this am
    Wanted this partner drove NATO troops to our borders, breaking his promise not to do this .... what and you can’t win back ...

    so this partner went in three letters .... a conversation with US officials can only be conducted by holding a heavy club.

    the counterbalance system that was created in Yalta 45 (its destruction is the worst result of perestroika, etc.) is destroyed ... the world cannot be unipolar, but you still have to look for contacts with the USA (and no one else)
  27. ppgt90
    ppgt90 20 December 2015 16: 38 New
    +1
    To all respected people - Hello! That sober-minded people are everywhere, no one doubts. It is a pity of course that these people are usually in the minority. Most of the average are subject to the slogans "victory will be ours." Everyone has such slogans, but not everyone understands that victories are given in blood. Only RUSSIAN PEOPLE clearly understand the whole depth of this slogan. For us, this is not a slogan, but the meaning of life. WE ARE RUSSIANS. With my expression “WE ARE RUSSIAN,” I do not want to offend multinational Russia. There, in the west, all of us living in RUSSIA are Russians. That's all. They don’t even strain their remnants of reason, just everything in Russia is Russian simple and convenient, and you don’t need to think. In their arrogance, they forgot how many times Russian soldiers marched on the conquered lands of “our partners”. But in vain! Gentlemen foreign ... Zemstvo, remember how your "heroic" ancestors hid anywhere from the Russian bayonets. Remember how your "heroic" ancestors wept on ships for war crimes and on scaffolds. Remember ... all about this and never forget. You are heroes only the first 15 seconds, and then arrogance and heroism disappear. No one will regret the West. So that you do not bother anyone, what should be done with you? That's right - erase and forget.
  28. 9lvariag
    9lvariag 20 December 2015 22: 22 New
    +1
    Hmm, in general, a normal little article.
    But talk to Ted Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He will explain to you that the missile defense system is today an offensive weapon capable of delivering strikes against Russian targets. It is also a violation of the INF Treaty, because cruise missiles are used in this system. Meanwhile, we ourselves blame Russia for creating cruise missiles again. Yes, she began to do this, because for the first time in many years, we returned to the useless arms race.
    Although this pearl? How is he to you? And who didn’t notice? That this is a violation of the INF Treaty. from which it is time to leave, partially true. The truth is, in fact, such countries. like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan. India. North Korea, and South Korea just spit on him. And Belarus and Usraina are declaring with might and main that they are designing land KR!
    But the fact that SM-3 can strike at anything! And uses KR!
    Now it’s clear what kind of porridge the Amer’s scientists have in their heads, after studying the somnas of ravings on the scabbard in the so-called the Anglo-Saxon world last for 300 years. smile
    Ted Postol they have collapsed from the oak tree. I am not special in air defense systems, missile defense and strategic missile forces, and then I have more plausible information. Yes, the US destroyers, we have seen.
  29. RussCommunist
    RussCommunist 21 December 2015 06: 19 New
    0
    Here, too, simply-GUILTY UKRAINIANS NOT DEPENDENT Ukraine, 25-30 years old (as well as the rest 15 and even Belarus) UKRAINIANS OF THIS WANTED RIDED ORALES WALKED !!!!!!!!!! Obama and the Russians are already on the sidelines here, he was in the West of Ukraine and spoke to Bandera in 2012 and 2013 in Crimea and saw everything, the country was going to disintegrate