NATO and Russia trade "hybrid warfare" accusations

NATO officials "habitually cite precisely this set of assets of a hybrid war when they accuse Russia of inventing a new kind of military operation and applying it in Ukraine," the news agency said.

No, hybrid war is something else. What is it? The things that russia does in Ukraine: Invading a neighboring country not with the regular army, but with 'soldiers on holidays' or 'little green men' in Russian military uniforms and Russian military vehicles and tanks who speak perfect Russian, but who don't have state insignia on their uniforms and number plates on their vehicles, and of course don't have Russian passports or military identifications.
(Comm. Parrisson, 6 March 2015 14:54)


Bob do you ever doubt cnn? You were for the bombing of Serbia, you were for the bombing of Afghanistan, you were for the bombing of Iraq, you were for the bombing of Libya, you are for the bombing of Syria. All those countries were invaded by countries that have absolutely NOTHING to do with them and you are totally ok with that (even though all those countries are now disaster zones). But when Ukrainians are killing Russians in Ukraine, you are totally against Russia to step in? How come? Is it because cnn has told you for many years that Russians are the bad guys? Russia cant defend its own people but usa can go across the world and attack other countries?

Russia is a toddler compared to NATO armed forces, and we all know that. I really wanna see this happen just so Russians can be shut for good.
(Russia stands no chance!, 6 March 2015 12:25)

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia. The Russians are not so foolish as to underestimate NATO. Hopefully the people at NATO are not as foolish as you.

Hitler was destroyed only from USA. Otherwise Russia had no leg to stand on against Hitler

NATO has atleast three nuclear powers in the US, GB, and France. The US was fighting across two oceans and on three continents against Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. while USSR was fighting mostly on one continent, one front against Germany on their home turf.
(LK, 6 March 2015 15:55)

Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all NATO countries and this guarantees that in a war between NATO and Russia no nuclear weapons will be used. Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations. Western Europe will also be destroyed. The only winner will be America thousands of miles away from a war which they provoked. Unless the EU leaders grow a backbone and stand up to the Americans, then it looks increasingly likely that we will have a chance to see who is the strongest military power - assuming of course we survive.

NATO officials "habitually cite precisely this set of assets of a hybrid war when they accuse Russia of inventing a new kind of military operation and applying it in Ukraine," the news agency said.

No, hybrid war is something else. What is it? The things that russia does in Ukraine: Invading a neighboring country not with the regular army, but with 'soldiers on holidays' or 'little green men' in Russian military uniforms and Russian military vehicles and tanks who speak perfect Russian, but who don't have state insignia on their uniforms and number plates on their vehicles, and of course don't have Russian passports or military identifications.

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia. The Russians are not so foolish as to underestimate NATO. Hopefully the people at NATO are not as foolish as you.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

Hitler had an army more powerful than NATO? NATO has atleast three nuclear powers in the US, GB, and France. The US was fighting across two oceans and on three continents against Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. while USSR was fighting mostly on one continent, one front against Germany on their home turf.

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

This statement alone disqualifies you from further discussion. You have embarrassed yourself enough, please change your identity if you wish to continue on B92.

Russia is a toddler compared to NATO armed forces, and we all know that. I really wanna see this happen just so Russians can be shut for good.

"Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all NATO countries and this guarantees that in a war between NATO and Russia no nuclear weapons will be used. Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations. Western Europe will also be destroyed. The only winner will be America thousands of miles away from a war which they provoked. Unless the EU leaders grow a backbone and stand up to the Americans, then it looks increasingly likely that we will have a chance to see who is the strongest military power - assuming of course we survive.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)"

There will be no war between Russia and NATO. That's just crazy talk. It would go nuclear in a matter of days and everyone in the world would lose, with Russia, Europe, and the US being the biggest losers. Perhaps you don't remember the Cold War where that was a real possibility, but not today. Putin's not that crazy.

Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)

Michael,
You are oblivious to the fact that the U.S. is years ahead of Russia in Drone and Robot technology or you are deliberately avoiding to acknowledge it. U.S. Robots will prove to be a nightmare for Russian troops. I pity them. Drones are already being used against Russian troops in Ukraine. Haven't you noticed the inorrdinate number of Russian casualties due to Drone attacks.
The U.S. will not have to put any troops on the ground to defeat Russia except for clean up operations. You are stuck in a 1990's mindset. In order to argue intelligently you must keep up with the latest technologies despite Russia not having them. After Russia is reduced to rubble, the U.S. will be selling their technology to Russia, but it will be much too late!

Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)

Don't worry mate; NATO powers achieved their objective (without firing a shot) on getting Russia waste blood and money in Ukraine for.... well, I have no idea for what :)

Slavic brother are killing each other and are doing a good job at that so there is no need for NATO to intervene. Russia is doing a great job by itself to waste its blood and money. Russia is more than welcome to continue...

I don't understand why Russia is complaining that the US is on its door step. Russia stood by since 1990 and allowed Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya to be destroyed. All 3 of these countries were allies of Russia and when they were targeted, Russia chose to distance themselves and hide behind the Kremlin wall and cry for peace.

If that's how Russia treats its allies then they shouldn't be shocked when no one comes to their aid. If they played their cards right and made a presence in the world from 1990 then maybe the US would not be on their doorstep

The "Arm-chair" warriors on this site spend too much Time watching Hollywood films that promote the invincibility of American technology. When these commentators finally get a job and begin using modern computer systems on a daily basis they will see how delicate IT system really are and how rare it is to find a true expert who can fix them when the go wrong. Military Technology without soldiers to protect it is just a target for the enemy. Think about tanks, without infantry they are quickly destroyed. Satellites can see much, but they can also be tricked. Armies need men on the ground to look and see and target. The West want to fight, but only from a safe distance from which they cannot be hurt. That won't work. If you fight the Russians then it will be hand-to-hand combat. My guess is that the Russians are better prepared, both physically and mentally for this sort of battle than are NATO forces. Of course I know that NATO have Special Forces and other elite fighting men who are tough, but they don't have very many of them. The Russians also have Special Forces, but they also have 10 million regular guys who, with a bit of training, will be very tough and formidable fighters. Better that we avoid war, but if war comes then there is more likelihood of there being Russian troops in London than British troops in Moscow.

(icj1, 7 March 2015 02:18) Slavic brother are killing each other and are doing a good job at that so there is no need for NATO to intervene.

------

You may wish to refer to the words of Victoria Nuland and the US backing the Bandera-worshiping junta for evidence of US involvement in the Ukraine tragedy.

But when Ukrainians are killing Russians in Ukraine, you are totally against Russia to step in? How come?
(???, 6 March 2015 22:16)

Hmm... when were all these Russians in Ukraine killed mate before the annexation of Crimea by Russia?! I agree that CNN failed to make up those massacres or Russians so wanted to see if somebody else succeded. Or are you referring to the dozens of people killed by Yanukovych?

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

Hitler was defated by Russians which were transported to the front on trucks mostly provided by the US... You see mate; you're stuck in 1389. It's not heroism that wins the wars these days; it's the economy. Even though Stalin did not have a problem to sacrifice millions of soviet citizens, their heroism was doomed to defeat if they or the supplies/food for them could not get to the front.

like anyone cares what America says anymore ...their days are up long ago......EU are starting one by one to turn their back to the americans....

Hitler was defated by Russians which were transported to the front on trucks mostly provided by the US... You see mate; you're stuck in 1389. It's not heroism that wins the wars these days; it's the economy. Even though Stalin did not have a problem to sacrifice millions of soviet citizens, their heroism was doomed to defeat if they or the supplies/food for them could not get to the front.
(icj1, 7 March 2015 02:25)

Once again the CTC has over analysed and slipped the runway. If they did not assist Stalin the US would have had buckley’s in defeating the Germans mate.
P.S. CTC = Chief Toilet Cleaner

"The US/NATO signed agreements with Russia back in 1990s that they would not go into the Baltic States or Ukraine."

Please provide a link for this

(Kosovo_Polje1389, 7 March 2015 11:51)

After 1989, Russia was technically broke. In fact if Russia obstructed the US in attacking Yugoslavia, the US would have stopped IMF/World Bank funds to Moscow and since the Russians were in such a bad situation, it would have led to enormous deprivation there. Boris Yeltsin had no choice. The US had Strobe Talbott in Moscow to ensure the Russians complied. Russia could do nothing for Iraq as its situation had not changed.
My guess is that Russia was not ready and had to let Libya go, but now it’s ready.
The US/NATO signed agreements with Russia back in 1990s that they would not go into the Baltic States or Ukraine. As you can see they reneged on that agreement and that is why we have this business in Ukraine. However, the real prize was the Crimean peninsula – it’s the key to it all. Russia has won the war in Ukraine and the EU has all but capitulated.
The Baltic states? Well all Russia has to do is cut the energy and they die. One more thing China is backing Russia in these efforts.

You may wish to refer to the words of Victoria Nuland and the US backing the Bandera-worshiping junta for evidence of US involvement in the Ukraine tragedy.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 March 2015 10:58)

Of course - whatever! But it's Russia's killed soldiers (while in vacation in Ukraine) who are returning home in coffins, not the US ones :)

Russia could do nothing for Iraq as its situation had not changed.
My guess is that Russia was not ready and had to let Libya go, but now it’s ready.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Well, Russia was in a much better position with Iraq and Libya than today. It had the support of a significant part of the world in 2003 in regards to Iraq and its economy was much stronger during Libya's war. Today's Russia has almost no support for what's doing in Ukraine and Russia's economy is in ruins.
----------

Russia has won the war in Ukraine and the EU has all but capitulated.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Russia has won the war in Ukraine?!!!! But according to the Kremlin Russia is not involved in any war in Ukraine! What are you talking about mate?! You don't believe the Kremlin?!
----------

One more thing China is backing Russia in these efforts.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Well, in regards to one "effort". i.e. Ukraine, China made it sure to officially state that China supports the OPPOSITE of what Russia is doing. That's not a suprise, since China borders Russia and may suffer Ukraine's fate in the future. Russia and China have already fought a war for territories 46 years ago.

If they did not assist Stalin the US would have had buckley’s in defeating the Germans mate.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:11)

Of course; I did not say that the US assisted Stalin because they liked Stalin. It was out of cold calculation. Stalin was a lesser evil than Hitler. The US (fortunately for them) is pragmatic; not like the Serbs who take a romantic view of international relations :)

(icj1, 10 March 2015 04:50) Of course - whatever! But it's Russia's killed soldiers (while in vacation in Ukraine) who are returning home in coffins, not the US ones :)

----

Most of the dead soldiers are blind zealots and fanatics of the Kiev junta. There certainly are thousands of dead Russian speakers, but most are non-combatant citizens of the Ukrainian Donbass region and include women and children who've been shelled indiscriminately by US-backed war criminals.

(icj1, 10 March 2015 05:00)Today's Russia has almost no support for what's doing in Ukraine and Russia's economy is in ruins.
----------

A commonly used indicator of economic health is GDP to debt ratio. icj1, do you even know the Russian GDP to debt ratio?

We can all agree that in this instance the economy and country that has undoubtedly collapsed is ... Ukraine. Just like the Soviet Union allowed self determination for its diverse constituent people and regions, when it collapsed, the diverse regions and people of Ukraine should be permitted the same peaceful option.

Russia is a toddler compared to NATO armed forces, and we all know that. I really wanna see this happen just so Russians can be shut for good.

Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)

Michael,
You are oblivious to the fact that the U.S. is years ahead of Russia in Drone and Robot technology or you are deliberately avoiding to acknowledge it. U.S. Robots will prove to be a nightmare for Russian troops. I pity them. Drones are already being used against Russian troops in Ukraine. Haven't you noticed the inorrdinate number of Russian casualties due to Drone attacks.
The U.S. will not have to put any troops on the ground to defeat Russia except for clean up operations. You are stuck in a 1990's mindset. In order to argue intelligently you must keep up with the latest technologies despite Russia not having them. After Russia is reduced to rubble, the U.S. will be selling their technology to Russia, but it will be much too late!

Hitler was destroyed only from USA. Otherwise Russia had no leg to stand on against Hitler

But when Ukrainians are killing Russians in Ukraine, you are totally against Russia to step in? How come?
(???, 6 March 2015 22:16)

Hmm... when were all these Russians in Ukraine killed mate before the annexation of Crimea by Russia?! I agree that CNN failed to make up those massacres or Russians so wanted to see if somebody else succeded. Or are you referring to the dozens of people killed by Yanukovych?

Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)

Don't worry mate; NATO powers achieved their objective (without firing a shot) on getting Russia waste blood and money in Ukraine for.... well, I have no idea for what :)

Slavic brother are killing each other and are doing a good job at that so there is no need for NATO to intervene. Russia is doing a great job by itself to waste its blood and money. Russia is more than welcome to continue...

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

Hitler was defated by Russians which were transported to the front on trucks mostly provided by the US... You see mate; you're stuck in 1389. It's not heroism that wins the wars these days; it's the economy. Even though Stalin did not have a problem to sacrifice millions of soviet citizens, their heroism was doomed to defeat if they or the supplies/food for them could not get to the front.

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

This statement alone disqualifies you from further discussion. You have embarrassed yourself enough, please change your identity if you wish to continue on B92.

I don't understand why Russia is complaining that the US is on its door step. Russia stood by since 1990 and allowed Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya to be destroyed. All 3 of these countries were allies of Russia and when they were targeted, Russia chose to distance themselves and hide behind the Kremlin wall and cry for peace.

If that's how Russia treats its allies then they shouldn't be shocked when no one comes to their aid. If they played their cards right and made a presence in the world from 1990 then maybe the US would not be on their doorstep

NATO officials "habitually cite precisely this set of assets of a hybrid war when they accuse Russia of inventing a new kind of military operation and applying it in Ukraine," the news agency said.

No, hybrid war is something else. What is it? The things that russia does in Ukraine: Invading a neighboring country not with the regular army, but with 'soldiers on holidays' or 'little green men' in Russian military uniforms and Russian military vehicles and tanks who speak perfect Russian, but who don't have state insignia on their uniforms and number plates on their vehicles, and of course don't have Russian passports or military identifications.

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia. The Russians are not so foolish as to underestimate NATO. Hopefully the people at NATO are not as foolish as you.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 14:01)

Hitler had an army more powerful than NATO? NATO has atleast three nuclear powers in the US, GB, and France. The US was fighting across two oceans and on three continents against Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. while USSR was fighting mostly on one continent, one front against Germany on their home turf.

Russia is a toddler compared to NATO armed forces, and we all know that. I really wanna see this happen just so Russians can be shut for good.
(Russia stands no chance!, 6 March 2015 12:25)

Hitler had an army many times more powerful that NATO and yet that mighty force was destroyed by the Soviet Union, most of which was Russia. The Russians are not so foolish as to underestimate NATO. Hopefully the people at NATO are not as foolish as you.

NATO has atleast three nuclear powers in the US, GB, and France. The US was fighting across two oceans and on three continents against Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. while USSR was fighting mostly on one continent, one front against Germany on their home turf.
(LK, 6 March 2015 15:55)

Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all NATO countries and this guarantees that in a war between NATO and Russia no nuclear weapons will be used. Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations. Western Europe will also be destroyed. The only winner will be America thousands of miles away from a war which they provoked. Unless the EU leaders grow a backbone and stand up to the Americans, then it looks increasingly likely that we will have a chance to see who is the strongest military power - assuming of course we survive.

"Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all NATO countries and this guarantees that in a war between NATO and Russia no nuclear weapons will be used. Instead of nuclear the NATO powers will need to put millions of men on the Eastern front and fight for their lives. My money is on the Russians destroying NATO ground forces but not without horrendous losses to their military and civilian populations. Western Europe will also be destroyed. The only winner will be America thousands of miles away from a war which they provoked. Unless the EU leaders grow a backbone and stand up to the Americans, then it looks increasingly likely that we will have a chance to see who is the strongest military power - assuming of course we survive.
(Michael Thomas, 6 March 2015 17:47)"

There will be no war between Russia and NATO. That's just crazy talk. It would go nuclear in a matter of days and everyone in the world would lose, with Russia, Europe, and the US being the biggest losers. Perhaps you don't remember the Cold War where that was a real possibility, but not today. Putin's not that crazy.

NATO officials "habitually cite precisely this set of assets of a hybrid war when they accuse Russia of inventing a new kind of military operation and applying it in Ukraine," the news agency said.

No, hybrid war is something else. What is it? The things that russia does in Ukraine: Invading a neighboring country not with the regular army, but with 'soldiers on holidays' or 'little green men' in Russian military uniforms and Russian military vehicles and tanks who speak perfect Russian, but who don't have state insignia on their uniforms and number plates on their vehicles, and of course don't have Russian passports or military identifications.
(Comm. Parrisson, 6 March 2015 14:54)


Bob do you ever doubt cnn? You were for the bombing of Serbia, you were for the bombing of Afghanistan, you were for the bombing of Iraq, you were for the bombing of Libya, you are for the bombing of Syria. All those countries were invaded by countries that have absolutely NOTHING to do with them and you are totally ok with that (even though all those countries are now disaster zones). But when Ukrainians are killing Russians in Ukraine, you are totally against Russia to step in? How come? Is it because cnn has told you for many years that Russians are the bad guys? Russia cant defend its own people but usa can go across the world and attack other countries?

(icj1, 7 March 2015 02:18) Slavic brother are killing each other and are doing a good job at that so there is no need for NATO to intervene.

------

You may wish to refer to the words of Victoria Nuland and the US backing the Bandera-worshiping junta for evidence of US involvement in the Ukraine tragedy.

"The US/NATO signed agreements with Russia back in 1990s that they would not go into the Baltic States or Ukraine."

Please provide a link for this

The "Arm-chair" warriors on this site spend too much Time watching Hollywood films that promote the invincibility of American technology. When these commentators finally get a job and begin using modern computer systems on a daily basis they will see how delicate IT system really are and how rare it is to find a true expert who can fix them when the go wrong. Military Technology without soldiers to protect it is just a target for the enemy. Think about tanks, without infantry they are quickly destroyed. Satellites can see much, but they can also be tricked. Armies need men on the ground to look and see and target. The West want to fight, but only from a safe distance from which they cannot be hurt. That won't work. If you fight the Russians then it will be hand-to-hand combat. My guess is that the Russians are better prepared, both physically and mentally for this sort of battle than are NATO forces. Of course I know that NATO have Special Forces and other elite fighting men who are tough, but they don't have very many of them. The Russians also have Special Forces, but they also have 10 million regular guys who, with a bit of training, will be very tough and formidable fighters. Better that we avoid war, but if war comes then there is more likelihood of there being Russian troops in London than British troops in Moscow.

like anyone cares what America says anymore ...their days are up long ago......EU are starting one by one to turn their back to the americans....

Hitler was defated by Russians which were transported to the front on trucks mostly provided by the US... You see mate; you're stuck in 1389. It's not heroism that wins the wars these days; it's the economy. Even though Stalin did not have a problem to sacrifice millions of soviet citizens, their heroism was doomed to defeat if they or the supplies/food for them could not get to the front.
(icj1, 7 March 2015 02:25)

Once again the CTC has over analysed and slipped the runway. If they did not assist Stalin the US would have had buckley’s in defeating the Germans mate.
P.S. CTC = Chief Toilet Cleaner

(Kosovo_Polje1389, 7 March 2015 11:51)

After 1989, Russia was technically broke. In fact if Russia obstructed the US in attacking Yugoslavia, the US would have stopped IMF/World Bank funds to Moscow and since the Russians were in such a bad situation, it would have led to enormous deprivation there. Boris Yeltsin had no choice. The US had Strobe Talbott in Moscow to ensure the Russians complied. Russia could do nothing for Iraq as its situation had not changed.
My guess is that Russia was not ready and had to let Libya go, but now it’s ready.
The US/NATO signed agreements with Russia back in 1990s that they would not go into the Baltic States or Ukraine. As you can see they reneged on that agreement and that is why we have this business in Ukraine. However, the real prize was the Crimean peninsula – it’s the key to it all. Russia has won the war in Ukraine and the EU has all but capitulated.
The Baltic states? Well all Russia has to do is cut the energy and they die. One more thing China is backing Russia in these efforts.

Russia could do nothing for Iraq as its situation had not changed.
My guess is that Russia was not ready and had to let Libya go, but now it’s ready.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Well, Russia was in a much better position with Iraq and Libya than today. It had the support of a significant part of the world in 2003 in regards to Iraq and its economy was much stronger during Libya's war. Today's Russia has almost no support for what's doing in Ukraine and Russia's economy is in ruins.
----------

Russia has won the war in Ukraine and the EU has all but capitulated.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Russia has won the war in Ukraine?!!!! But according to the Kremlin Russia is not involved in any war in Ukraine! What are you talking about mate?! You don't believe the Kremlin?!
----------

One more thing China is backing Russia in these efforts.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:33)

Well, in regards to one "effort". i.e. Ukraine, China made it sure to officially state that China supports the OPPOSITE of what Russia is doing. That's not a suprise, since China borders Russia and may suffer Ukraine's fate in the future. Russia and China have already fought a war for territories 46 years ago.

(icj1, 10 March 2015 04:50) Of course - whatever! But it's Russia's killed soldiers (while in vacation in Ukraine) who are returning home in coffins, not the US ones :)

----

Most of the dead soldiers are blind zealots and fanatics of the Kiev junta. There certainly are thousands of dead Russian speakers, but most are non-combatant citizens of the Ukrainian Donbass region and include women and children who've been shelled indiscriminately by US-backed war criminals.

(icj1, 10 March 2015 05:00)Today's Russia has almost no support for what's doing in Ukraine and Russia's economy is in ruins.
----------

A commonly used indicator of economic health is GDP to debt ratio. icj1, do you even know the Russian GDP to debt ratio?

We can all agree that in this instance the economy and country that has undoubtedly collapsed is ... Ukraine. Just like the Soviet Union allowed self determination for its diverse constituent people and regions, when it collapsed, the diverse regions and people of Ukraine should be permitted the same peaceful option.

You may wish to refer to the words of Victoria Nuland and the US backing the Bandera-worshiping junta for evidence of US involvement in the Ukraine tragedy.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 9 March 2015 10:58)

Of course - whatever! But it's Russia's killed soldiers (while in vacation in Ukraine) who are returning home in coffins, not the US ones :)

If they did not assist Stalin the US would have had buckley’s in defeating the Germans mate.
(sj, 9 March 2015 10:11)

Of course; I did not say that the US assisted Stalin because they liked Stalin. It was out of cold calculation. Stalin was a lesser evil than Hitler. The US (fortunately for them) is pragmatic; not like the Serbs who take a romantic view of international relations :)