| >Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine. I don't worry about taxpayers money. I'm saying that taxpayers money are never simply gifted to people, there is always certain rationale in how that money is spent, and it must be spent in interest of taxpayers. If it's in interests of taxpayers to support unconstitutional coups through "democratic" NGOs, than fine. But financing brutal dictators also could be in interests of the US in minds of the elite. (Like Bahrain) The crucial part is that it should be in interest of the US not in interests of democracy or other country's peoples. >There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia How do you know? You have all the information? You are certain that there were no attempts to initiate recruitment of people who would eventually perform an unconstitutional coup? You can't be serious. There is circumstantial evidence that it's not just about common humanistic notions, or why would they need to hide it in a rock? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-23-russia-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_range_agent_communication... (UK is well known cooperator of US in all things anti-Russian state) > when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams American security and defense agencies are a huge machine that works constantly. There is no need for Obama to show particular willingness for such actions. What is required from him is to just approve, or not cancel policies and programs that were in the place for years. He's pretty willing to kill people with drones. Don't see problem why he would say no to "promote coups in Russia" >but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR. these "elections" were with one candidate. And there is infinitely more freedom in Russia today. People generally don't go to prison for saying something against Putin. Similar thing could be said about the US, everybody knows who would win in the presidential elections - it would be either a democrat or a republican. No expectations of significant changes to foreign policy either. It was pretty continuous throughout last few presidents. It would be pretty stupid to compare level of freedoms in the US and Russia, but comparison of USSR with Russia doesn't pass the smell test either. >ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian Stereotyping proves nothing. After he was a KGB agent, he was an assistant to pro-democracy mayor of St Petersburg. Who the fuck knows what was really going on in his mind. But, of course personally I believe you are correct in this particular case. But it's just an opinion, proves nothing. It doesn't mean that generally foreign involvement in politics and coups does not teach lessons to other (semi)authoritarian states, where elites might entertain a thought of going more democratic. >But you know about it right now. The facts that Saakashvili had US State department funded education and Yushchenko hand Reagan staffer wife are pretty glaring. I am a mere non-spy mortal and can't know all the details(like you), nor I'm payed to research details about said revolutions. In fact I didn't discuss this issue in years. There a lot of circumstantial and direct evidence of foreign involvement in past revolutions. In english wikipedia and newspapers. I believe that there is at least some US involvement in this second Ukrainian revolution, considering directness and one sidedness of their support, and considering history. Probably through recruiting and financing media, thinktank people who frequent pro western tv channels. >The coup is plenty democratic. Elections are democratic. Coups by the political minority are not. If they are truly democratic they should have waited 1 year for elections. Media is pretty free, diverse and independent in Ukraine compared to Russia, so no worries about government propaganda. If elections are rigged THEN you can legitimize the revolution as democratic. >especially in pro-Russian regions, "Pro-Russian" (if there is such a thing beside city near Russian military base in Crimea) regions have majority of Ukraine's population btw. That's how Yanukovitch won. That "Not everybody" is pretty significant one. >It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for. Liberty is not the same thing as democracy. I consider democracy as one of the tools needed for maintaining liberty. >There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there. How could you make such a statement? Do you work for State Department or CIA? US Media is not US State. >but you certainly sound a lot like one. Where did I condone Russian aggression? I said I am against it. I'm generally against strong states and military or covert actions of states against each other. Russian or American. Speaking of insults, you sound like a FoxNews viewer. (Talking about how Obama is weak leader and so on) >and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation I didn't say that US is responsible for Russian aggression. I said that US has history of meddling. >president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly If there are people with molotovs(and some with guns, I saw the pictures) who are trying oust you, and are very persistent, willing to die, have at least some support among population, it's pretty hard to not mess up very badly if you want to keep power for the rest of your term. It will end badly for you one way or another. >dictators are to blame for their dictatorship You don't understand sovereignty. There are peoples who value independence more than democracy. I'm not saying it should be like that, but it just is. |