Russia has annexed Crimea, will it stop there or go further?

[Horza]

Stephen Cohen on how media distorts Putin and Russia. Even before this crisis with Ukraine. There are some bits that are foolish but he does make some good points.

Boy are there some foolish parts:

Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

...what a swell guy, amnestying the young mothers he had thrown in jail for political protest.

For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared the newly built complex a “Soviet-style dystopia” and warned in a headline, Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a record $51 billion “squandered” by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were “corrupt.” But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as $44 billion may have been spent “to develop the infrastructure of the entire region,” investment “the entire country needs.”

Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the Olympics into “a contest of wills” between the despised Putin’s “thugocracy” and terrorist “insurgents.” The “two warring parties” were so equated that readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting “Putin’s Games” and frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the athletes.

It was abundantly clear that the Sochi games were a massive boondoggle for contractors, and some of the best evidence for that came from the Russian opposition itself. As for the terrorism story, which other Winter Olympics has had a terrorist campaign including mass-casualty attacks in the lead-up with a correspondingly massive security response? You think if that was the case in any other host country the coverage wouldn't be focusing on that instead of the thrill that is your average Winter Olympics? There's a point there about how media loves scary angles and US media reports on terrorism and security in other countries but it's buried under a pile of special pleading for Russia.

This bit is great as well:

§ ”On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship.” In fact, the “paper” legislation he’s referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych, the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.

So because Yanukovych couldn't exercise the powers to censor the internet and effectively criminalise protest he was trying to claim (I'm sure Cohen would be totally sanguine about such legislation being passed in his home jurisdiction) that was just fine. And political chaos is a apparently the opposite of dictatorship now, no flaw in that reasoning.

He's right that Snyder has been trying to downplay the role of the far right in the protests, what's funny is it's coming from someone who can't spot the hefty beam in his own eye. There's been far too many duelling apologias throughout this crisis, so I've got very little patience for this one.

[williamjm]

The Onion has something to say about this.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/thanks-for-being-so-cool-about-everything,35584/

It's always worrying when The Onion's satire is virtually indistinguishable from reality.

[snake]

Boy are there some foolish parts:

...what a swell guy, amnestying the young mothers he had thrown in jail for political protest.

It was abundantly clear that the Sochi games were a massive boondoggle for contractors, and some of the best evidence for that came from the Russian opposition itself. As for the terrorism story, which other Winter Olympics has had a terrorist campaign including mass-casualty attacks in the lead-up with a correspondingly massive security response? You think if that was the case in any other host country the coverage wouldn't be focusing on that instead of the thrill that is your average Winter Olympics? There's a point there about how media loves scary angles and US media reports on terrorism and security in other countries but it's buried under a pile of special pleading for Russia.

This bit is great as well:

So because Yanukovych couldn't exercise the powers to censor the internet and effectively criminalise protest he was trying to claim (I'm sure Cohen would be totally sanguine about such legislation being passed in his home jurisdiction) that was just fine. And political chaos is a apparently the opposite of dictatorship now, no flaw in that reasoning.

He's right that Snyder has been trying to downplay the role of the far right in the protests, what's funny is it's coming from someone who can't spot the hefty beam in his own eye. There's been far too many duelling apologias throughout this crisis, so I've got very little patience for this one.

I knew there was a lot of fluff in this, but there are some valid observations and I just wanted to post a dissenting view. Some of it was funny I thought. lol

[snake]

I know a lot of people and countries look to the US in times like these to take command and resolve things and while no fan of President Obama, I find the following commentary over the top.

Link

[Mad Monkey]

I think some people are still stuck with the old notion of the mandate of heaven, that if our king were righteous enough we would get more rainfall and a better harvest except it's being used in serious conversations now. The idea that Russia's expansionism has anything to do with their respect for Obama is obviously silly (who was President when he went into South Ossetia and Abkhazia??) The sad thing is I get the distinct impression that people who make that argument think that they are cynical analysts of realpolitik too instead of starry-eyed dreamers praying for some god-king to save the world through nothing but righteousness.

[Commodore]

any country in Eastern Europe that doesn't have nukes (or allies with nukes) is fucked

[MerenthaClone]

It's always worrying when The Onion's satire is virtually indistinguishable from reality.

So the last five years then? :P

[Clueless Northman]

So because Yanukovych couldn't exercise the powers to censor the internet and effectively criminalise protest he was trying to claim (I'm sure Cohen would be totally sanguine about such legislation being passed in his home jurisdiction) that was just fine.

Meanwhile, that scumbag Erdogan is banning Facebook, Youtube and Twitter in Turkey, and the West is totally blind about it - the few media who mention it treat it almost like a joke. Heck, we've even had congressmen in several Western democracies actually praising China's management of the internet, and stating this was a model to emulate.

Nothing new or surprising, though. Western media and governments were absolutely aghast when Putin put some utterly despicable laws against gay people, but are criminally quiet, by comparison, when Uganda ponders death penalty against this same community.

[Tears of Lys]

There's way too many atrocities and human rights violations going on in the world. I swear, it's like you have to play "Whack-a-Mole" to get them in hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4y1hHvj4E

[Horza]

Meanwhile, that scumbag Erdogan is banning Facebook, Youtube and Twitter in Turkey, and the West is totally blind about it - the few media who mention it treat it almost like a joke. Heck, we've even had congressmen in several Western democracies actually praising China's management of the internet, and stating this was a model to emulate.

Nothing new or surprising, though. Western media and governments were absolutely aghast when Putin put some utterly despicable laws against gay people, but are criminally quiet, by comparison, when Uganda ponders death penalty against this same community.

Huh? I'm aware of both of those things (being a Twitter user it's hard to miss the Erdogan news) and I read about them in English through Western media reports that weren't in the slightest bit humorous so 1) that's false and 2) what does any of that has to do with Cohen being disingenuous about Yanukovych's January 16 legislation? You appear to be lumping together Western publics, media organisations and officials with no rhyme and reason just to try and come up with a tu quoque argument (of which there's been no shortage in these threads the last few weeks).

[Miodrag]

(I'm posting here only because the Ukraine thread was locked before I could reply to a legitimate question from a civilized post)

Maithanet, you asked:

Moidrag,

You have mentioned the talks between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, several times. Are you referring to this interview, likely taped and released by the Russians? Because while it does make the US look bad (diplomats generally try and avoid saying things like "Fuck the EU"), nothing about this is a smoking gun of...anything that I can see. What I learned is that the US is monitoring what is happening in the Ukraine, and trying to get various coalitions together to get a result that benefits the US. That's what diplomacy is. And to act like this is unprecedented is...strange.

If this is indeed as incriminating as you have claimed, could you quote the relevant passage, and say why you think it indicates that the US is acting illegally (or even inethically)? Because to me, there's nothing there.

The F-word is not the problem at all. Nor is the fact that diplomats talk about plans that are hidden from the public. After all, diplomats are people, which means they curse in unofficial conversations, like anyone else. Also, for discussing hidden agendas, a phone conversation is as suitable as anything. If those were the problems, nobody would leak the tape probably. But, it doesn't mean any hidden agenda is acceptable. And there lays the biggest reason why the Nuland tape is scandalous: she was instructing Pyatt how should the new government of Ukraine look like, and, according to international law (UN Charter, for example), that is a big no-no for foreign diplomats.

A sovereignty of a country means, among other things, that the formation of its government is on its subjects, and them alone. That was the case in Ukraine before the coup: citizens of Ukraine elected their President and their Parliament (which, according to parliamentary systems of Europe that differ from presidential one of USA, further elected the government, e.g. the Prime Minister and his cabinet). In the case of Yanukovych, all indicates that he was a very poor choice (though probably no worse than his biggest rivals, from what I know), but he was elected by Ukrainian citizens, which guarantees his legality and legitimacy. Was he to be removed from power or not, and in what way, is also on Ukrainian subjects, and them alone. Even if he's removed illegally and illegitimately, but by Ukrainian subjects and them alone, the sovereignty of Ukraine isn't violated. A sovereignty of any independent nation, Ukraine included, may be violated only by a foreign involvement.

In the intercepted conversation, Nuland shows no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty at all. She speaks as if its up to her (and Pyatt) to form the new government of Ukraine. She obviously thinks and acts as if she's to decide who should rule Ukraine and in what capacity. It has to mean one of these two options: 1) she's delusional, or 2) she actually has some level of control over the forming of next Ukrainian government. If she's delusional, that is a big problem in its own right, but she broke no international law and she didn't violate Ukrainian sovereignty (therefore, she's an internal issue of USA, with which I definitely have no business at all). If she's not delusional, as in, if she partially or entirely controlled the forming of next government, then she violated Ukrainian sovereignty. And when I say she, I obviously don't think Victoria Nuland as an individual, but Victoria Nuland as a high-ranking official of the US State Department. Considering the entity she represents, I'm positive she's not delusional, and that she knew what was she talking about when she was instructing Pyatt.

There is no reason to believe that that kind of talk isn't unusual in international diplomacy. Diplomats aren't delusional people, they don't daydream. When they instruct their subordinates, they have no reason to talk about things they can't control. Theoretically, a Spanish diplomat can instruct his colleague how to form a Norwegian government, but practically there's no point to it, because Spain possesses neither that kind of power over nor that kind of influence on Norway (and vice versa). Actually, very few countries in the world possess that kind of power. If they abuse it for a violation of another nation's sovereignty, they're breaking international law. That's not what diplomacy is, that's what breaking the law is. Some usage of that power may be a grey area ("soft power", as it's usually called), but this Nuland incident is obviously something else entirely, because no "soft power" allows you to dictate who's going to enter the next government of a sovereign nation and in what capacity.

The fact that everything turned out as Nuland instructed Pyatt (and after dozens of deaths in a coup headed by guys she talks about with Pyatt) only strengthens the case against her, especially if we consider that Klitschko (boxing superstar, unsullied, energetic) was the most popular among Majdan leaders at the time of the conversation, but now he's "doing his political homework". On the other hand, we can see very practical reasons why nobody but its subjects should influence the forming of a government: Tyagnibok's "Svoboda" party, to which Ukrainian people most probably would never give any authority whatsoever, is now running (along with even nastier specimens from The Right Sector) Ministry of defense.

As for relevant passages, the whole conversation is incriminating, but these parts are probably most flagrant:

Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

-----

Nuland: [breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Not a bit less troubling, for BBC admirers at least, are comments by Jonathan Marcus in the piece you linked, which I see for the very first time. Not only that he doesn't address any of the obvious issues, he makes 'judgments' that look like fabrications. For example, he says "Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition", even though Nulan obviously speaks of the government: oppositions, Ukrainian included, don't have 'the government'. Not a single comment on detailed Nuland's instructions to Pyatt ("he needs to be talking to them four times a week") about how to form the government - all Marcus says about that entire segment is: "An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels" + "marshaling" the opposition.

[Shryke]

Huh? I'm aware of both of those things (being a Twitter user it's hard to miss the Erdogan news) and I read about them in English through Western media reports that weren't in the slightest bit humorous so 1) that's false and 2) what does any of that has to do with Cohen being disingenuous about Yanukovych's January 16 legislation? You appear to be lumping together Western publics, media organisations and officials with no rhyme and reason just to try and come up with a tu quoque argument (of which there's been no shortage in these threads the last few weeks).

Hadn't heard about the Turkey one, but there's only so up-to-date one can be on despotic government actions considering just how fucking many of them there are. Doesn't mean, of course, that we're all not also against that shit.

And, as mentioned above, the Uganda stuff is big news in alot of LGTB circles I've seen. And US politics ones since it's US evangelicals supporting alot of the bullshit going on down there.

But this is just another attempt at the same shitty argument. "But OMG, this other person also did something bad, so .... "

[Solmyr]

Solmyr,

Indeed, hence my question. Will he push further? If he takes Eastern Ukraine or the rest of Ukraine his logistic issues are not so serious.

I see no logical reason for him to push further. Politically he's already won. Economically, he's lost, but pushing further would only increase his economic losses. And in terms of political gains he's just about at the plateau, if he continues escalating he risks losing the political game as well.

Not only that, there's some discussion over whether or not Ukraine now should have to pay back the money Russian loaned the country when Yanukovych was President (basically as a bribe to pull out of the EU deal).

Exactly. This is the reason Russia has been pushing this hard to keep Ukraine. Politics are all well and good, but hard currency on the table in large amounts still trumps most ideological motives.

Ukraine is broke, the West knows this. The West would loan it money, cuz it's in its camp now, but they want those money back. If there's a mountain of debt to be paid to Russia as well, this is not a good situation for the lenders. Putin knows full well that one of the first things the IMF will start doing in Ukraine is try to mitigate or even completely write off Ukraine's debt towards Russia. And this will, of course, have the support of the Western world - what better way to 'sanction' Russia for its annexation or Crimea, than through proxy debt write off by Ukraine, under the rationale that the debt was accumulated during the corrupt reign of Yanukovitch.

People dread apocalyptic doomsday scenarios with nukes, but what's really going to happen is a full-scale economic war between the West and Russia with Ukraine in the middle. Russia will take a heavy blow, but they are used to self-imposed austerities in order to remain the political and moral victor. Ukraine will take a much heavier blow - if it follows the course that the West will suggest and writes off any of Russia's debt it will lose Russia as a partner for good. No more cheap gas (perhaps no gas at all), no more fresh injections of money. IMF will probably provide money, but the ultimate price for this debt will be even more painful than what Russia would exact for its.

The author of this article really needs to look at a map. Bulgaria is supposed to be a buffer country between Germany and Russia? LOL.

In terms of geography the statement is baffling, but historically Bulgaria has been a sort of a proxy buffer between Germany and Russia, at least in the context of the Balkans. The country was allied with Germany in both world wars, then became a Soviet satellite after the Great Stalin-Churchil Europesplit. But it is nowhere near as literal a buffer as Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

[Dicer]

Snip

Miodrag,

I think you are wasting your time. It's pretty clear why Nuland's and the US ambassador's attempts to 'midwife' the Ukraninian government is wrong on many levels. It's been explained clearly several times in the previous threads by several posters along with links to interviews where experts on Russia and Ukraine discuss those tapes. No matter how many times you explain it, people here are not going to accept it. Not here. You are beating a dead horse. They have been making jokes at your expense. I suggest you spend your time doing something more useful then have this discussion with people here.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

I'm not so sure the Estonian Russian speaking minority are that eager to try out the famous Russian conscription system. Also, they are better off economically than the Ukrainian Russians - roughly the same GDP per capita for Estonia as Russia. But we'll see, ethnic nationalism does strange things to people.

Estonia is a NATO member. Russia will attempt to annex any part of that country if and only if Putin decides that the end of industrial civilization sounds like a good time.

[Shryke]

(I'm posting here only because the Ukraine thread was locked before I could reply to a legitimate question from a civilized post)

Maithanet, you asked:

Moidrag,

You have mentioned the talks between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, several times. Are you referring to this interview, likely taped and released by the Russians? Because while it does make the US look bad (diplomats generally try and avoid saying things like "Fuck the EU"), nothing about this is a smoking gun of...anything that I can see. What I learned is that the US is monitoring what is happening in the Ukraine, and trying to get various coalitions together to get a result that benefits the US. That's what diplomacy is. And to act like this is unprecedented is...strange.

If this is indeed as incriminating as you have claimed, could you quote the relevant passage, and say why you think it indicates that the US is acting illegally (or even inethically)? Because to me, there's nothing there.

The F-word is not the problem at all. Nor is the fact that diplomats talk about plans that are hidden from the public. After all, diplomats are people, which means they curse in unofficial conversations, like anyone else. Also, for discussing hidden agendas, a phone conversation is as suitable as anything. If those were the problems, nobody would leak the tape probably. But, it doesn't mean any hidden agenda is acceptable. And there lays the biggest reason why the Nuland tape is scandalous: she was instructing Pyatt how should the new government of Ukraine look like, and, according to international law (UN Charter, for example), that is a big no-no for foreign diplomats.

A sovereignty of a country means, among other things, that the formation of its government is on its subjects, and them alone. That was the case in Ukraine before the coup: citizens of Ukraine elected their President and their Parliament (which, according to parliamentary systems of Europe that differ from presidential one of USA, further elected the government, e.g. the Prime Minister and his cabinet). In the case of Yanukovych, all indicates that he was a very poor choice (though probably no worse than his biggest rivals, from what I know), but he was elected by Ukrainian citizens, which guarantees his legality and legitimacy. Was he to be removed from power or not, and in what way, is also on Ukrainian subjects, and them alone. Even if he's removed illegally and illegitimately, but by Ukrainian subjects and them alone, the sovereignty of Ukraine isn't violated. A sovereignty of any independent nation, Ukraine included, may be violated only by a foreign involvement.

In the intercepted conversation, Nuland shows no respect for Ukrainian sovereignty at all. She speaks as if its up to her (and Pyatt) to form the new government of Ukraine. She obviously thinks and acts as if she's to decide who should rule Ukraine and in what capacity. It has to mean one of these two options: 1) she's delusional, or 2) she actually has some level of control over the forming of next Ukrainian government. If she's delusional, that is a big problem in its own right, but she broke no international law and she didn't violate Ukrainian sovereignty (therefore, she's an internal issue of USA, with which I definitely have no business at all). If she's not delusional, as in, if she partially or entirely controlled the forming of next government, then she violated Ukrainian sovereignty. And when I say she, I obviously don't think Victoria Nuland as an individual, but Victoria Nuland as a high-ranking official of the US State Department. Considering the entity she represents, I'm positive she's not delusional, and that she knew what was she talking about when she was instructing Pyatt.

There is no reason to believe that that kind of talk isn't unusual in international diplomacy. Diplomats aren't delusional people, they don't daydream. When they instruct their subordinates, they have no reason to talk about things they can't control. Theoretically, a Spanish diplomat can instruct his colleague how to form a Norwegian government, but practically there's no point to it, because Spain possesses neither that kind of power over nor that kind of influence on Norway (and vice versa). Actually, very few countries in the world possess that kind of power. If they abuse it for a violation of another nation's sovereignty, they're breaking international law. That's not what diplomacy is, that's what breaking the law is. Some usage of that power may be a grey area ("soft power", as it's usually called), but this Nuland incident is obviously something else entirely, because no "soft power" allows you to dictate who's going to enter the next government of a sovereign nation and in what capacity.

The fact that everything turned out as Nuland instructed Pyatt (and after dozens of deaths in a coup headed by guys she talks about with Pyatt) only strengthens the case against her, especially if we consider that Klitschko (boxing superstar, unsullied, energetic) was the most popular among Majdan leaders at the time of the conversation, but now he's "doing his political homework". On the other hand, we can see very practical reasons why nobody but its subjects should influence the forming of a government: Tyagnibok's "Svoboda" party, to which Ukrainian people most probably would never give any authority whatsoever, is now running (along with even nastier specimens from The Right Sector) Ministry of defense.

As for relevant passages, the whole conversation is incriminating, but these parts are probably most flagrant:

Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

-----

Nuland: [breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Not a bit less troubling, for BBC admirers at least, are comments by Jonathan Marcus in the piece you linked, which I see for the very first time. Not only that he doesn't address any of the obvious issues, he makes 'judgments' that look like fabrications. For example, he says "Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition", even though Nulan obviously speaks of the government: oppositions, Ukrainian included, don't have 'the government'. Not a single comment on detailed Nuland's instructions to Pyatt ("he needs to be talking to them four times a week") about how to form the government - all Marcus says about that entire segment is: "An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels" + "marshaling" the opposition.

You got this sentence right except for the badly placed "un".

There is no reason to believe that that kind of talk isn't usual in international diplomacy. This is a pretty standard frank discussion on a diplomatic issue they are dealing with.

Like, wtf did you think diplomats did? They talk to people, they make calls, they relay information back to their governments and generally try and forward their country's agenda. They aren't discussing how the government of Ukraine will look, they are discussing how they want it to look and planning to make a few phonecalls about it. Which is what diplomats do.

You seem to be confusing "having an opinion on what should happen" and "talking to people about that" with "a violation of sovereignty". Which is stretching the definition of "violation of sovereignty" so much it's starting to develop a glossy sheen and we'll be able to cut it into pieces any second now, wrap it in wax paper and sell it on the fucking New Jersey boardwalk.

[broken one]

any country in Eastern Europe that doesn't have nukes (or allies with nukes) is fucked

Agreed, + any country in Eastern Europe that has minorities of about 20% of population and more is fucked. It may sound terrible but hurray for all the deportations in late 40's :leaving:

[Clueless Northman]

But this is just another attempt at the same shitty argument. "But OMG, this other person also did something bad, so .... "

I don't excuse anything Putin did. I've always thought that dividing Ukraine would be a terrible move, first for Ukrainians, but for the rest of the world as well. And even from a purely tactical point of view, I still wonder if it was smart to go after Crimea as soon as he did - unlike South Ossetia, there was no real smoking gun that would make for some credible excuse.

What I'm pointing to is that most of the West doesn't seem to stick to core values and to apply them equally when judging other countries, Western leaders pick the ones they want to gang on and make a lot of fuss while they politically give a pass to other scumbags, some actually taking even worse measures. Of course, I'm referring to Putin's moves in internal policies, not on Crimea, which is quite a bigger breach of said "core values".

Basically, Russia is widely considered an antagonist by Western leaders and media, and is comparatively more cricitized for her ills and flaws than countries that are either supposed to be friendly or are of no importance in the Great Game. That kind of mild propaganda is fine as far as realpolitics are concerned, but the ones who do it obviously abandon all pretense at fairness and balance, and I'd have more respect and less issue with that if they openly stated that they look for their own interests and not for the greater good, and stopped with the fake excuse of selectively calling for human rights.

[Shryke]

I don't excuse anything Putin did. I've always thought that dividing Ukraine would be a terrible move, first for Ukrainians, but for the rest of the world as well. And even from a purely tactical point of view, I still wonder if it was smart to go after Crimea as soon as he did - unlike South Ossetia, there was no real smoking gun that would make for some credible excuse.

What I'm pointing to is that most of the West doesn't seem to stick to core values and to apply them equally when judging other countries, Western leaders pick the ones they want to gang on and make a lot of fuss while they politically give a pass to other scumbags, some actually taking even worse measures. Of course, I'm referring to Putin's moves in internal policies, not on Crimea, which is quite a bigger breach of said "core values".

Basically, Russia is widely considered an antagonist by Western leaders and media, and is comparatively more cricitized for her ills and flaws than countries that are either supposed to be friendly or are of no importance in the Great Game. That kind of mild propaganda is fine as far as realpolitics are concerned, but the ones who do it obviously abandon all pretense at fairness and balance, and I'd have more respect and less issue with that if they openly stated that they look for their own interests and not for the greater good, and stopped with the fake excuse of selectively calling for human rights.

I'm sorry, but what that's gone on here has been more criticized when Russia did it then when someone else did?

What the heck are you comparing this to? Your two previous examples don't even come close.

[Werthead]

any country in Eastern Europe that doesn't have nukes (or allies with nukes) is fucked

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania are all NATO members, so all of the countries bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in Eastern Europe count as having "allies with nukes". Putin can't do anything to them whatsoever without risking WWIII.

This severely limits Putin's options for any kind of further expansion or intervention. Closer ties with Belarus (possibly including future full reintegration with Russia, although that loses the useful position of Belarus as a buffer with Europe) might be the only remaining option for expansion after doing whatever he's going to do in Ukraine. I think Putin is more of an opportunist (with Crimea as with South Ossetia) and his long-term gameplan can't really go much further than preventing further NATO expansion into Ukraine and the Caucasus.