And why did that happen? Nothing to do with the western-backed color revolutions or burning people alive? I'm not pro Russia, sillies. I'm noticing the erosion of US standing in the world.
You mean countries can't have revolutions unless they are approved by Russia? Which types of revolutions by which backers would be acceptable to Russia so they don't burn the country down?
This is an absurd argument. Whether or not a CIA puppet government is installed in a neighboring country, and the Russian language is banned or whatever Russia feels is "provoking": that kind of provocation isn't handled by tanks rolling across the borders of sovereign nations. Russia isn't where Russian is spoken, it's where the 1991 borders are.
> Nothing to do with the western-backed color revolutions or burning people alive
Again, who cares? Are you saying Russia was "provoked"? By Ukraine? To the point where millions must be displaced and hundreds of thousands killed?
No one cares whether anything "provokes" Russia in Russia's view. There are borders, those borders are between Russia and Sovereign nations. There is nothing that could go on in the area that could even begin to motivate rolling tanks across borders. Nothing.
> Russia isn't where Russian is spoken, it's where the 1991 borders are.
There are ethnic Russians who lost family in the Euromaidan incident who may disagree with that. They also didn't appreciate having a Georgian installed by the west. But what do they know? Clearly you and Victoria Nuland know better!
> Again, who cares? Are you saying Russia was "provoked"? By Ukraine?
The fighting went on after the western-backed color revolutions, with many Russians dying inside of that 1991 Russian border. So provoked by Ukraine? Not exactly. More poignantly, Russia was provoked by PNAC heavyweights like Nuland. If you don't know about this I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously, whether you support that Bush/Wolfowitz doctrine or not. Clearly you do, whether you know it or not. That is yes, by definition, antagonistic toward Russia, regardless of what Russian speaking Russians on whatever side of the border want.
You mean countries can't have revolutions unless they are approved by Russia? Which types of revolutions by which backers would be acceptable to Russia so they don't burn the country down? This is an absurd argument. Whether or not a CIA puppet government is installed in a neighboring country, and the Russian language is banned or whatever Russia feels is "provoking": that kind of provocation isn't handled by tanks rolling across the borders of sovereign nations. Russia isn't where Russian is spoken, it's where the 1991 borders are.
> Nothing to do with the western-backed color revolutions or burning people alive
Again, who cares? Are you saying Russia was "provoked"? By Ukraine? To the point where millions must be displaced and hundreds of thousands killed?
No one cares whether anything "provokes" Russia in Russia's view. There are borders, those borders are between Russia and Sovereign nations. There is nothing that could go on in the area that could even begin to motivate rolling tanks across borders. Nothing.