Russia's "Dirty Policy Of Occupation" Of Crimea And Ronald Reagan

Authored by Vladislav Sotirovic via Oriental Review,

On March 18th, 2014 following a popular self-determination referendum of the people of Crimea the Russian Federation declared reunification with the Crimean Peninsula which was illegitimately transfered to the Soviet Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Nevertheless, the western global corporative media, politicians and statesmen classified the act as a matter of “aggression, violation of international law and unlawful occupation of a part of territory of an internationally recognized independent state and the UN’s member”.

Russia’s authorities on this occasion issued an official statement that Crimea’s re-annexation by Russia is based on the same self-determination rights as of the people (the Albanians) of Kosovo in 2008 which self-proclaimed independence from Serbia (by Kosovo parliament without any popular referendum) is already recognized by almost all western liberal governments.

The following text is a personal contribution to better understanding of the case of Russia’s “dirty policy of occupation and annexation” of Crimea in March 2014.

Grenada is an independent state, a member of the UN, located in the southern portion of the Caribbean Sea very close to the mainland of the South America (Venezuela). The state is composed by southernmost of the Windward Islands combined with several small islands which belong to the Grenadines Archipelago, populated by almost 110,000 people of whom 82% are the blacks (2012 estimations). The state of Grenada is physically mostly forested mountains’ area (of volcanic origin) with some crater lakes and springs. In the valleys are bananas, spices and sugar cane grown. The country is out of any natural wealth significance but has relatively high geostrategic importance. Economy was and is primarily agricultural with some very limited small-scale industry of the food production nature with developing tourism sector as growing source of the national GDP. The state budget is constantly under a high level of foreign debt (a “debt slavery” phenomenon).

Grenada map

As the island, Grenada was discovered by the Europeans (Ch. Columbus) in 1498 and colonized by the French in 1650 becoming a possession of the French royal crown in 1674. During the Seven Years War (1756−1763) between all major European states, Grenada was occupied by the British and according to the Peace Treaty of Paris in 1763 was given to the United Kingdom being a British possession for almost two hundred years with preservation of slavery. The process of democratization of the island started in 1950 when the universal adult suffrage is granted by the United Labor Party. Being shortly a member of the West Indian Federation (1958−1962) and seeking internationally recognized independence, Grenada was granted such separate independence only in 1974 with Matthew Gairy (a leader of the United Labor Party) as the first Grenada’s PM. However, only three years later in 1979 Gairy was deposed from the post in a coup d’état lead by Maurice Bishop (1944−1983) as a leader of a Marxist political group under the official title of the New Jewel Movement. M. Bishop proclaimed a new Government under the name of the People’s Revolutionary Government that became not welcomed by the US administration like the Socialist (Marxist-democrat) Government in Chile after the 1970 elections formed by Salvador Allende (1908−1973).

The issue is in this case that Allende was the first Marxist in the world’s history who became elected by the popular vote as the President of one sovereign and independent state.

A new President of Chile was a head of the Unidad Popular that was a coalition of the Marxists (Communists) and the Socialists and therefore faced by hostility of the USA whose administration supported Chili Congress against Allende. The Congress backed by the USA heavily opposed Allende’s radical program of nationalization and agrarian reform – a program voted by the electorate in 1970. Due to such obstruction, there were inflation, capital flight and balance-payments deficit which heavily contributed to an economic crisis in Chile in 1973: exactly what the US administration wanted and needed. The crisis became the main excuse for the military coup organized and accomplished by the Chili army Commander-in-Chief general Augusto Pinochet (born in 1915) – a typical local exponent of the US global politics.

As a consequence, there were around 15,000 killed people together with President Allende and about 10% of the Chileans who left the country during the new military dictatorship (1973−1990) which replaced Chili democracy elected by the people and brutally abolished all labor unions and any opposition organizations and groups. The capitalism was fully restored with the economy and social order very depended on the US financial support as a price for transformation of the country into a classic (US) colony. Nevertheless, the 1973 military suppression of democracy in Chile was a clear message to the whole Latin America that the Monroe Doctrine of “America to the Americans” (read in fact as “Americas to the US”) is still leading framework of the US foreign policy in this part of the globe. The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe’s seventh annual message to the Congress on December 2nd, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest. Following later such doctrine, for the matter of illustration, there was the US direct military invasion of Panama causing the fall of General Noriega in December 1989: “Operation Just Cause”.

Similarly to the Allende Case in Chile, Grenada governed by the President M. Bishop turned to the left in both inner and external policy of the state. Therefore, he encouraged very closer relations with F. Castro’s Cuba and potentially to the USSR. As a result, at the island there were some Cuban military presence composed by the engineers who were repairing and expanding the local airport. This fact became the main reason that political situation in Grenada became of interest of the U.S. administration. However, due to the internal quarrel within the People’s Revolutionary Government, Bishop was overthrown from the post and murdered by another Marxist, Bernard Coard, in 1983 who took control over the Government. There were the clashes of protesters with the governmental troops and soon violence escalated. However, the army troops under the command of General Hudson Austin soon took power and established a new military regime.

This new Grenada coup was immediately followed by direct US military intervention in the island on October 23rd, under the order by the US President Ronald Reagan (the “Operation Urgent Fury”), for the very real reason to prevent a Marxist revolutionary council to take power. The US military troops left Grenada in December 1983 after the re-establishment of “democratic” (pre-revolutionary) regime and of course pro-American one transforming Grenada into one more Washington’s client state.

It is of very high concern to see what was de jure explanation by the US President Reagan for such military intervention and de facto the US military occupation of one sovereign and independent state. The President, based on the CIA reports on the threat posed to the US citizens in Grenada (the students) by the Communist regime, issued the order to the US Marines to invade the island in order to secure their lives. Here we have to remember a very fact of issue how much the CIA reports have been (and are) really accurate and reliable by only two fresh examples:

  • In 1999 Serbia and Montenegro were bombed by the NATO troops (the “Operation Merciful Angel”) exactly based on the CIA information about the organized (the “Operation Horse Shoe”) and well done massive ethnic cleansing of the local Kosovo Albanians (100,000 killed) committed by the Serbian regular army and police forces.
  • In 2003 the US and the UK troops invaded Iraq based also on the CIA reports about possession of the ABC weapon of mass destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein (1937−2006) (the “Operation Desert Storm 2”).

However, in both mentioned cases the reports are “proved to be unproved”, i.e. very false.

Leaflet air-dropped during the US invasion of Grenada

Leaflet air-dropped during the US invasion of Grenada in 1983

The fact was that in the 1983 Grenada Case, there were really about 1,000 US citizens in the island, majority of them studying at the local medical school. Citing the alleged danger to the US citizens in Grenada, the President ordered around 2,000 US troops, combined by some international forces from the Regional Security System based in Barbados. The White House claimed that it received a formal request for military intervention by the PM of Barbados and Dominica (both the US clients). If it is a true, and probably it is, then any state receiving such invitation by the foreign Governments (second states) has right to invade other state (third state) in order to restore the “democratic” order (in the sense of bringing justice) or at least to protect its own citizens. For instance, following the White House logic from 1983, overthrown legal President of Ukraine V. Yanukovych by the street-mob in 2014 could call the Russian President V. Putin to restore a legal order in whole Ukraine by the Russian army. In regard to the 2014 Kyiv Coup, according to Paul Craig Roberts, Washington used its funded NGOs ($5 billion according to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at the National Press Club in December 2013) to begin street protests when the elected Ukrainian Government turned down the offer to join the European Union.

Similarly to the Ukrainian coup in 2014, the Guatemala coup in 1954, when democratically elected Government of Jacobo Arbenz became overthrown, was also carried out by the CIA. Following also Reagan’s logic for the military invasion of Grenada in 1983, the Russian President could send a regular army of the Russian Federation to occupy Ukraine for the security reasons of Russia’s citizens who were studying at the universities in Kyiv, Odessa or Lvov. Nevertheless, similar Reagan’s argument was used (among others) and by Adolf Hitler in April 1941 to invade and occupy the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as, according to the German intelligence service, the German minority in Yugoslavia (the Volksdeutschers) were oppressed and terrorized by the new (pro-British) Government of General Dušan Simović after the coup in Belgrade committed on March 27th, 1941.

Nonetheless, the fact was that during the intervention in Grenada, the US troops faced military opposition by the Grenadian army relying on minimal intelligence about the situation in the country. For example, the US military used in this case old tourist maps of the island. Similar “mistake” the NATO made in the 1999 Kosovo Case by bombing the Chinese embassy in the wider center of Belgrade using also outdated tourist map on which a new Chinese embassy did not exist (here we will not comment or argue on credentials of such army and its headquarters to intervene outside of its own home courtyard). In order to break the Grenadian resistance the “Hollywood” President R. Reagan sent additional 4,000 troops to the island. Finally, an “international coalition” lead by the US troops succeeded to replace the Government of Grenada by one acceptable to the USA.

US Invades Grenada San Francisco Chronicle October 1983

Regardless to the fact that a great part of the Americans did not support the 1983 Grenada Case that it took place only several days after a very disastrous terror act on the US military post in Lebanon when over 240 US troops were killed, calling into very question the use of the US military force in order to achieve the political goals, Reagan’s administration officially proclaimed the case to be the first “rollback” of the Communist influence since the beginning of the Cold War in 1949 (as the US military interventions against the “Communist infection” in Korea and Vietnam have been unsuccessful). A justification of the military invasion was mainly framed within the idea that the US citizens (students) in Grenada could be taken  hostages similar to the 1979 Teheran Hostage Crisis. However, several US Congressmen, like Louis Stoks (Ohio), denied any real danger for any American in Grenada prior to the invasion (that was confirmed and by the students themselves) followed by unsuccessful attempt by seven Democrats in the Congress, led by Ted Weiss, to introduce a resolution to impeach R. Reagan. Finally, the UN General Assembly with majority votes (108, with only 9 against and 27 abstentions) adopted Resolution 38/7 on October 28th, 1983 which clearly accused the USA for violation of international law (“deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State”).

The 1983 Grenada Case is not for sure either the first or the last “Hollywood-style” violation of the international law and territorial sovereignty of some independent state by the US (or other) administration. But it is sure that it was done by the order of up today the only “Hollywood” cowboy-actor star in the office of White House in Washington as according to the US Constitution, Arnold Schwarzenegger does not have right to run for the post of the US President as he was not born on the US territory.

Finally, if you think that the 1983 Grenada Case has nothing common with the 2014 Crimean Case, you are absolutely right.

Comments

TheGardener Déjà view Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:00 Permalink

Slippery slope here,  I was fully on board when it came to overthrow communist regimes.

Pinochet was on of my childhood heroes. But those overthrow imperialistic machinations have a nasty life of their own and nations are put into the grinder just to keep the machine running.

 

As an aside, the Brits used the Caribbean Islands and coast like formerly British Honduras

as dumping grounds for too uppity and useless slaves.  Anarchy like and niggardly so rules haunted those territories ever since.

In reply to by Déjà view

css1971 TheGardener Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:36 Permalink

They call Pinochet a fascist, but in reality he didn't believe in or implement any of the ideas of fascism.

Reality he was just a nationalist, who saw how many people socialism had killed and would kill in Chile. So it came down to a few thousand communists or millions of ordinary people.

Any reasonable person would give helicopter rides to socialists under those circumstances.

Think I'll get a t-shirt made up.... and also McCarthy...

In reply to by TheGardener

All Risk No Reward css1971 Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:53 Permalink

Soros and the Banksters overthrew the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw

The Ukraine's government REJECTED THE EURO. They were then overthrow.

Once overthrown, THE COUP GOVERNMENT THEN SIGNED UP FOR THE EURO.

The rejection of the Euro to the coup, to the signing up for the Euro took about one year worth of time.

Crimea wanted their government back from the Bankster financed coup government. This wasn't going to happen, so they aligned with Russia. I have no doubt that ordinary people are being screwed by both big sides - so there are no winners for ordinary people.

Anything different from the truth is Bankster propaganda.

In reply to by css1971

Teja All Risk No Reward Fri, 02/09/2018 - 04:56 Permalink

Propaganda bullshit. The article is the most blatant case of WHATABOUTISM I ever read. What has Crimea / Ukraine to do with Grenada?

And even on Grenada, the article is factually incorrect. Grenada is far from being an American satellite state. Member of the Commonwealth and fiercely independent - its Independence Day being the most important holiday (maybe except Christmas) on the island, everything decorated with red-yellow-green flags and murals celebrating both Gairy and Bishop - both among the list of Grenadan national heros. Just been there, saw those with my own eyes. Actually, lots of people dressing in the national colours for this festivity! As Bishop, who was supported by the people in their majority, was killed by his own comrades, those are despised and the Americans basically thanked for their action. Poor country, but proud, and the capital St Georges one of the better kept capital towns in the Caribbean.

Anyway, regarding Crimea - to simply claim that Chrushchevs transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was illegal is also bullshit. What does illegal/legal mean in a dictatorship like the USSR? Also, it is history, and if you go back in history only some 200 years more, you will find that Russia annexed Crimea illegaly from the Osmanic Empire. Russia has recognized Ukraine including Crimea after the breakup of the USSR and even signed the Budapest accord guaranteeing the borders of Ukraine in exchange for giving up Ukraine's nuclear weapons.

What "All Risk.." is writing about Ukraine rejecting the EURO and then accepting it, of course just shows how uninformed he is... no one is even offering the Euro to Ukraine. Association with the EU was the thing which was rejected or accepted. But for some, that probably is all the same.

No WHATABOUTISM at all will restore any faith in the signatures of Russian politicians (and neither in their doping tests). Also, no country with any brains, having developed nuclear weapons, will EVER be so stupid again to give them up. Thank you Putin!

Fascinating how Zerohedge is maintaining its side business spreading Russian propaganda. Wonder if it earns some rubles at least.

In reply to by All Risk No Reward

Teja East Indian Fri, 02/09/2018 - 10:33 Permalink

Absolutely. By the way, what would you think about a referendum in the Indian state of Kashmir, ask them if they want to join Pakistan? Wouldn't it be really democratic?

See I can do WHATABOUTISM too.

But at least those cases have something in common - there might be a majority in both regions wanting to join another state. This is called "irredentism" and is a highly dangerous way of thinking, because it creates enmity between states which are neighbours, and of course will remain neighbours. Result is war, more often than not. Ukraine/Russia are now de facto at war, and if you look at both WW I and II, you will find lots of irredentism kindling those wars.

 

In reply to by East Indian

All Risk No Reward Teja Sat, 02/10/2018 - 02:01 Permalink

Teja, my fault for not being more concise...

1. Ukraine protests after Yanukovych EU deal rejection
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25162563

2. Bankster (Darth Soros and his Money Power Sith Lord Masters) criminal coup.

3. Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Associatio…

The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.[11] This ousting was sparked by Yanukovych's last-minute[12] refusal to sign the agreement.

My apologies for not quite being detailed enough to be clear to you, but don't act there is nothing there. There is.

Also, since you seem to have a problem with your ideological programming impacting your reading comprehension, let me bring your attention to the part you must not have comprehended...

>>Crimea wanted their government back from the Bankster financed coup government. This wasn't going to happen, so they aligned with Russia. I have no doubt that ordinary people are being screwed by both big sides - so there are no winners for ordinary people.<<

You think that's Russian propaganda? Or do you not think before you make false claims?

In reply to by Teja

Ace006 css1971 Fri, 02/09/2018 - 19:41 Permalink

My up vote, along with those of two other sensible people as of this writing, cancel out the down votes that several benighted individuals cast on your excellent comment.

Pinochet frowned on being ambushed by communist swine and the Cuban's smuggling arms into Chile. The communists took it hard when what the had in mind for Chileans was instead visited on them.

Pinochet, God rest his soul, is a good example of how not to let the worst kind of liberal sappiness keep one from dealing effectively with existential threats. The Israelis, Singaporeans and Burmese are similarly realistic. Do people want to preserve their freedom and their nation or not?

In reply to by css1971

Yippie21 Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:08 Permalink

Uh.... that was during the cold war.  The real one... with the USSR.   No comparison to now., IMO.  Then,..  NOBODY knew the USSR was a shell.. a mere few years from imploding.  And if anyone tells you they knew the wall was going to come down and the USSR was going to fall apart from within, kick 'em in the balls.  They're lying.

giovanni_f Shue Fri, 02/09/2018 - 05:36 Permalink

Actually he is spot on. Although it is unbelievable that some people need a '/s' for even the most obvious sarcasm - what he points at is the unbearable combination of brutality, cynicism and self-righteousness when the US kills innocents by the millions and/or destroys entire countries in name of "democracy".

Gabish?

In reply to by Shue

Teja francis scott … Fri, 02/09/2018 - 05:41 Permalink

Yes, Hitler at least helped his ally Francisco Franco with grabbing Granada, with Legion Condor supporting him in the Spanish Civil War. Dunno if Reagan ever tried to change that later.

Regarding Grenada, there were some German submarines around in WW II, but any grabbing would have been difficult and maybe even superfluous as the French Caribbean islands were for some time under Vichy regime control, allied with Germany.

In reply to by francis scott …

Thom Paine Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:17 Permalink

Didn't bother to read as it appears very much a Deep Stater pushing his view.

Didn't even leave up as a question - just jumped in and did McCain.

 

 

gespiri Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:22 Permalink

3 fingers are pointing back at you.  What about the US occupation of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, South Korea, and slowly into Africa?

Crimea is Russia, there's simply no question about that.

Thom Paine gespiri Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:25 Permalink

Well exactly.  I think he assumed nobody knows the history of the Crimea.

Fucking joke actually.

If he were honest he would talk about the CIA operations in Ukraine, ME, South America...basically world wide undermining democracy, installing their own govt.

Much better idea than trying to rewrite history as Crimea never being part of Russia -USSR 

In reply to by gespiri

Element gespiri Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:52 Permalink

Before Russia invaded Crimea, in 2014, why was Russia paying to lease a major naval base in Sevastopol?

Was it because Crimea was not in fact Russian Territory, at the beginning of 2014?

Was not Crimea in fact outside of Russian Territory in 2013?

If Ukraine had invaded Russian Territory, in the same way Russia has invaded Ukrainian Territory, would not Putin reserve an enduring right to use all necessary means to have that territory returned?

If you think you have a right to invade neighbours, do not any and all countries have the same right to invade Russian Territory, and annex it with whatever lies they see fit to concoct and utilise, to justify it any way they see fit?

Would that not be precisely what Putin has done?

It is an ACT OF WAR.

You are not special, acting like beligerant children will not excuse you of anything you have done.

You will suffer the same, unless Ukrainian territory is returned to Ukraine and suitable reparations made.

There is nothing you can do to excuse your actions or attitudes, a full cost will be extracted, without your condscent, your country will be held accountable for making a grave breach of the peace.

In reply to by gespiri

Déjà view Element Fri, 02/09/2018 - 04:39 Permalink

Lease...LOL!

Under a treaty signed more than a century ago, the United States technically pays Cuba a little more than $4,000 a year for the land. That's roughly the monthly cost of an apartment in Midtown Manhattan. And it's a check the Castro brothers' government rarely cashes. 

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., among those lawmakers pushing for the camp to remain open, calls it a "good deal." 

"Rent is only $4,000 a year, which Fidel Castro routinely refuses to cash ... out of protest,” the senator told FoxNews.com on Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/us-deal-with-cuba-for-rental…

In reply to by Element

Teja Element Fri, 02/09/2018 - 05:46 Permalink

/sarc/ Oh No, Russia Is Special! They are allowed to do such things.

For the Americans supporting Russia here, I have a simple explanation - America has annexed lots of territory in the same way, think of New Mexico, Texas (actually very similar with a fake independence phase) or California. Or the contracts with the American natives which were regularly broken. So it is bad conscience - "see the Russians are doing it, too".

Only strange that at the same time they do hate the "US Deep State". But people do not need to be logical.

In reply to by Element

Element Teja Fri, 02/09/2018 - 08:15 Permalink

"... For the Americans supporting Russia here, I have a simple explanation - America has annexed lots of territory ..."

So that's it, devide and conquer, that sot of BS?

You realise you're talking to a discarded subset, of an irrevevant small minority, who are all pop-corn addicted diabetics, when you're commentinv here, right? It's the intellectual outer-rim of the social toilet bowl.

"... So it is bad conscience - "see the Russians are doing it, too". ..."

You realise the Alamo, Jim Bowie and Davey Crocket, etc., have been dead for most of two centuries, right?

No one gives a shit about dippy excuses as some sort of half-arsed 'reason' to attack Ukraine, or for shooting down a civil airliner with a Russian Army buk SAM.

You can blame us for any BS you dream up and think matters, we just ignore it. We know about you and don't care. We will just make Russia pay a terrible price -- we won't explain why. They already know. So do fools like you.

In reply to by Teja

Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:42 Permalink

What the hell is this author's point?

That somehow Crimea, won by Russians over many centuries, is not Russian?

Gee, is TEXAS "TEXAS"?

Because the Russians have a greater right to Crimea than we have to Texas ... (just saying)

Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/09/2018 - 02:43 Permalink

The comparison to Grenada is crap ...

Please author, read a history book and a logic book - the better comparison is Texas or California ...

So maybe we should give them back to Mexico, which would include OK, KS, COL ... if you know how large TEXAS was back then.

Scanderbeg Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:08 Permalink

Silly article. A better observation would be that Crimea is vital for Russias security and they've been there since the time of Catherine the Great. (Much longer than the U.S presence in the SW for example.) It's none of our business and the majority of people there support union with Russia anyway.

As for the Communists in the Americas they are vermin and ought to be exterminated. The Cold War policy to 86 Marxist regimes was generally good.

I just wouldn't expect the Russians to behave any differently in their sphere of influence.

Without people like Pinochet Chile would be a Venezuela and Military rule in Brazil was far better as well.

Shue Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:39 Permalink

They're fuming for two main reasons, the Ukraine Regime Change Op was for denying Russia a year round accessible Naval Base, but we know what happened there. Secondly, Russia started a "real War on Terror" in Syria. In both, the Charlatans of the West and ME lost hundreds of Billions along with their genacidle plans being thawterd and they are furious. This why Russia and her Leader are attacked by Western Politicians and MSM around the clock. Sadly, the viewing sheep swollow it without question, who needs evidence? It's incredible how stupid those viewrs are, they majority don't have a clue what critical thinking is. 

Element Fri, 02/09/2018 - 03:54 Permalink

Before Russia invaded Crimea, in 2014, why was Russia paying to lease a major naval base in Sevastopol?

Was it because Crimea was not in fact Russian Territory, at the beginning of 2014?

Was not Crimea in fact outside of Russian Territory in 2013?

If Ukraine had invaded Russian Territory, in the same way Russia has invaded Ukrainian Territory, would not Putin reserve an enduring right to use all necessary means to have that territory returned?

If you think you have a right to invade neighbours, do not any and all countries have the same right to invade Russian Territory, and annex it with whatever lies they see fit to concoct and utilise, to justify it any way they see fit?

Would that not be precisely what Putin has done?

It is an ACT OF WAR.

You are not special, acting like beligerant children will not excuse you of anything you have done.

You will suffer the same, unless Ukrainian territory is returned to Ukraine and suitable reparations made.

There is nothing you can do to excuse your actions or attitudes, a full cost will be extracted, without your condscent, your country will be held accountable for making a grave breach of the peace.

. . . _ _ _ . . . Element Fri, 02/09/2018 - 14:50 Permalink

It's really not a very good argument.

It wasn't meant as an argument, it is a fact.

The US was holding Crimea at gun-point.
Despite this, they still managed to hold elections and give USA the finger.
They understand better than you what Maidan was all about.

Who is this 'we' the shills and NWO apologists have all been refering to lately?
Tell me about your organization, won't you?

In reply to by Element

. . . _ _ _ . . . Fri, 02/09/2018 - 04:11 Permalink

Reading should be informative, entertaining, and thought-provoking.
Reading should not be a painful exercise.

Finally, if you think that the 1983 Grenada Case has nothing common with the 2014 Crimean Case, you are absolutely right. [sic]

Then why bring it up in the first place?

After the Russia-bashing articles ZH has been publishing of late, is this one supposed to be taken as a more balanced approach? Is this the best article on the topic you could find, or is this your back-handed way towards appeasement? It seems that you are taking the same approach CNN had towards the first reported Syrian gas attacks at Ghouta. They had a guy come on the air to tell the Syrian side of the story. The problem was that he could not speak English, the interview was aired at 4am, and it was never shown again. It looks to me as though ZH has begun representing the MSM side of certain stories in order to grow its market. That strategy does not work; it alienates both sides. Get ready for some global warming, ZHers.

The only thing worse than a liberal is a closet liberal.