NATO Expansion: Threat to World Peace

[happy]

This review offers quite an insight and I hope it will be good for a general discussion on the various actions, policies and strategies of NATO and the USA.

*****************$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*****************

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is undertaking a dangerous and provocative global expansion that threatens the peace of the world, a distinguished Canadian geopolitical analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes in a new book.

By the time Nato started its war on Libya in March, 2011, it was conducting operations in the Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans, the Mediterranean and Red seas, and the Gulf of Aden, as well as in countries on four continents that included Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia, Nazemroaya says.

As part of these adventures, the US and its Nato allies have lowered "a new iron curtain" from the Baltic to the Aegean "to castrate and contain the European core of Russia and its allies in Eastern Europe," Nazemroaya writes. He points out that Sergey Markov, co-chair of the National Strategic Council of Russia, described the 2008 war between Georgia and South Ossetia as being, in effect, "a US attack on Russia."

However, "Nato expansion is not just limited to Europe, but is in pursuit of a worldwide capability to expand Washington's empire under a global confederacy," writes distinguished Canadian sociologist Nazemroaya in The Globalization of Nato (Clarity Press). He warns the expansion will eventually lead "to East Asia and the borders of the Chinese where the US has been waging a shadow war to box China in and checkmate it."

"The US and Nato have literally authorized themselves to go to war anywhere in the world," Nazemroaya continues. The 2010 Strategic Concept of Nato, which was drafted by a committee chaired by Madeleine Albright and vice-chaired by former Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer, "also asserts the legitimacy of whatever actions Nato members take to secure energy sources as the US and Nato look towards securing all the world's energy hubs."

Besides expanding its area of operations, since the end of the Cold War, Nato's nuclear strike posture has become more aggressive. "Within Nato and among US allies a consensus has long been established to legitimise and normalize the idea of using nuclear weapons in conventional wars," Nazemroaya says. "This consensus also aims to pave the way for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against targets like Russia, China, and Iran."

Most of the world's countries, he points out, argue the US and its Nato allies have violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), because the Pentagon has a Nato nuclear weapons sharing program. In addition, "Through its continued construction of nuclear weapons the US is the chief violator of the NPT and the chief cause for the development of Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons," Nazemroaya writes.

He observes that Russia, too, is re-arming itself with nuclear weapons and has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world because Moscow strongly believes its nukes "are what have stood in the way of US attempts to pummel Russia." What's more, Russia has copied the adoption of the US/ Nato pre-emptive nuclear attack doctrine.

He goes on to say, "Washington has made it categorically clear that it could attack Iran and North Korea with nukes." Nazemroaya notes the Obama administration says it will not honor NPT's provisions barring a nuclear attack on certain non-nuclear states, "meaning Iran and North Korea." Obama says those two countries aren't complying with the NPT.

"This was a fallacious claim," Nazemroaya continues, as in the case of the Iranians, the IAEA "has repeatedly reported that it has not found any evidence that Tehran has a nuclear weapons program and is in breach of NPT." And North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-expansion-threat-to-world-peace/5304493

 

[happy]

The Debate - Simmering Tensions in Ukraine | Global Research TV

The Debate - Simmering Tensions in Ukraine
by grtv


The Debate featured as guests Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, author and geopolitical analyst, and Richard Weitz, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, on February 28, 2014.

Both experts discussed the crisis in Ukraine and the roles that the West and Russia have played.

Nazemroaya said that Western powers have orchestrated a coup in Ukraine after Kiev refused to become an Eastern European colony.

"This coup took place because Ukraine refused to sign an agreement with the European Union that would essentially change it into an Eastern European colony," Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya said on Saturday.

The analyst pointed to a deal signed between Ukraine's opposition and ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, before his ouster, saying that "the EU-brokered agreement, was made just to give legal cover to the coup."

"The strategy was this, you had members of the opposition talking with the Ukrainian government while another faction was pushing for violence in the streets and continued to work to oust the government," he added.

The analyst also noted that the European Union and the US have been actively interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs to change the government in Kiev "to target Moscow and to get the Russians."

"I mean you had Victoria Nuland from the [US] State Department; you had the EU Commissioner for foreign and security affairs, Catherine Ashton, you had [US Senator] John regime change McCain, you had various people from the European Union, all going there supporting the opposition forces, the protesters and the people who are behind the regime change there," he said.

Unrest erupted in Ukraine in November 2013, when the ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, refrained from signing an Association Agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.

Russia has repeatedly accused the West of meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine and fueling the crisis in the country.

On February 23, the Ukrainian parliament ousted Yanukovych and named Oleksandr Turchynov, the legislature's newly-elected speaker, as interim president

What follows is a transcript of a portion of the program:

The Debate: Well, when he (Viktor Yanukovych) spoke, do you think that it was him talking or actually the Russian president? For example when he said that the southern region of Crimea should remain part of Ukraine but also enjoy autonomy?

Nazemroaya: No, I think that he is talking for the constituents in the Crimean Peninsula and the eastern part of Ukraine as well as the southern part of the country.

I want to make something very clear from the get-go about the ousted president of Ukraine, who is presently in Russia. This is not a pro-Russian man, the party he is from is not a pro-Russian party and the thing that portrays the Party of Regions as a pro-Russian party or a Russian satellite is misleading or grossly misinformed information.

In fact it was this current president while he was prime minister, that was working for cooperation with NATO. So this president is actually speaking on behalf of himself and as well as a significant amount of the Ukrainian population.

We cannot think that the entire population of Ukraine is against this man because a significant amount of population in the east and the south is against the people who have taken over in Kiev, the opposition parties.

The Debate: There is a confusion there Mr. Nazemroaya about the ex-president, Yanukovych, when he, time and again during his statements today in the press conference, time and again he said that the power was stolen by what he called a bunch of radicals and also pro-fascist mobs, these are the adjectives he used, and he called on the conflicting sides in Ukraine to dump the new authorities before it is too late.

Now, if you remember before the latest protests broke out that led to him leaving the country, he had entered an agreement with them. So why would he call them this now when back then he had entered an agreement with them? Of course Russia as a mediator in there was present along with EU officials.

Nazemroaya:Well, that agreement, I think, was made to legitimize a coup. Essentially the opposition, what they have done; whether you agree with them or not, whether they have popular support or not, what they have done is unconstitutional; what they have done in the Ukrainian Rada -- like for instance they appointed an acting president before the president was even impeached in the Rada -- is unconstitutional and it can very properly be described as a coup.

I mean he was trying to consolidate the situation and to bring the temperatures down in Ukraine and that is why he made the agreement but what he is saying now obviously there is a political motivation behind it. But that does not mean that it is not true; that does not mean that there are not militias on the opposition side that have taken over the government buildings, that have used violence, that have threatened ethnic Russians or Jews in the country.

I would like to point out that one of the opposition parties there [in the Rada] is tied to Nazi views, supports the people in western Ukraine who supported the Nazis during World War II, and it is very accurate what he is saying, even though there is a political motivation behind these statements.

The Debate: How much popularity do you think they have? How much the Ukrainians actually are composed who actually follow them?

Nazemroaya: Are you talking about the neo-Nazis in Ukraine or the main opposition?

The Debate: Yes, I am talking about the neo-Nazis.

Nazemroaya: Well, in parliament the neo-Nazis in the opposition have a significant amount of seats. There are also other ultra-nationalist parties [such as the Right Sector] that have leanings and sympathy towards Nazi thoughts; they are outside of parliament as well.

So I would say that you can look at the parliamentary amount of seats as well as supporters within the protests -- and I will not say that all of the protesters are neo-Nazis --- I would say that at least 15 percent of population supports these groups.

The Debate: Does not it seem kind of odd Mr. Nazemroaya that you have NATO, you have the EU, you have the US immediately coming into Ukraine's affairs, telling them for example that we are going to support you as you go through this democratic process all within a span of the past week, as we see the developments there unfold? And I would like to point out the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 of which there are certain restraints that are cited in this non-legal binding document. For example one of them is the fact that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine needs to be kept and therefore there should not be an intervention if there was a conflict to breakout.

Nazemroaya: Alright, I want to point out number one that, like the other gentleman said, the Western powers have been actively involved in what has been going on in Ukraine, I think that this agreement that was brokered by the EU, namely by Poland, Germany and France with the presence of Russia, but this was an EU-brokered agreement, was made just to give legal cover to the coup.

The strategy was this, you had members of the opposition talking with the Ukrainian government while another faction was pushing for violence in the streets and continued to work to oust the government. This is the same thing that actually has been going on in Venezuela as well. While these protests in Ukraine have been taking place, and these riots, in Venezuela the exact same thing is taking place with the support of the United States.

You have one faction of the opposition pushing for regime change in the streets and then you have one faction that is negotiating and that is what has happened in Europe. I mean you had Victoria Nuland from the State Department, you had the EU Commissioner for foreign security affairs Catherine Ashton, you had John 'regime change' McCain, you had various people from the European Union, all going there supporting the opposition forces, the protesters, and the people who are behind the regime change there.

John McCain asked for the government to be ousted in Kiev. These same people, if we had people from Ukraine coming to their countries and capitals, asking for the people there to overthrow their governments they would not accept this. We have double standards here.

This coup took place because Ukraine refused to sign an agreement with the European Union that would essentially change it into an Eastern European colony.

The Debate: Let us go back to this Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and I would like to find out from you Mr. Nazemroaya; it says that there should not be any type of sway coming from the countries involved, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, regarding any type of economic assistance to be given to Ukraine.

Do you think that this document, this memorandum, is something that either countries are going to abide by or can we, at this point, say that it is out the door?

Nazemroaya: I mean any rational person with logical reasoning and elementary understanding knows that this agreement is not worth the paper it is written on, in regards to it being respected.

The European Union and the United States like to sign a lot of things, as do the other countries in the world, but they do not respect any of these agreements.

I mean you have had [Ukrainian] opposition videos being professionally produced with propaganda, saying that we are fighting for democracy. This was not a protest movement that started because of democracy, albeit the Ukrainian government is corrupt; it was a protest movement that started simply because the Ukrainian government refused to sign an agreement with the European Union, an economic association agreement with the EU. And the EU does not respect nonintervention. Why would it send all of its officials to promote protests in the streets there?

If that happened in Brussels or in Berlin or in Paris or in Washington, which is not part of the EU, all of these governments would be outraged that this is happening. They have supported a coup and they have given it legal cover, they have tried, they have worked to justify and legitimize this coup and they have just called it a democratic revolution when it is not a democratic revolution; it does not represent all Ukrainians; it has overthrown the legitimate government of the country that was democratically elected... this shows how democratic these opposition groups are. They want to outlaw the Party of Regions which represents almost 40 percent of the seats in Parliament, that is the biggest party. All the opposition parties put together only have one extra seat compared to it.

I mean they have acted unconstitutionally; they have changed the Ukrainian Rada or Parliament into a rubber stamp organization and the EU and the United States have given their blessings to this and they have used Poland. Poland has been used like Turkey has been used against Syria.

There should be no mistake about it that just like Syria has been used as a bridge to attack Iran in the future or to instigate something against Iran, the EU and the United States are using Ukraine to target Moscow and to get the Russians. So the road to Moscow goes through Kiev.

Read Nazemroaya's background article on the simmering crisis in Ukraine:
The Road to Moscow Goes Through Kiev: A Coup d'Etat That Threatens Russia.

To read more of Nazemroaya's work click here or purchase The Globalization of NATO.

 

[happy]

The Backstory to the Russia-Ukraine Confrontation: The US-NATO Encirclement of Russia

The Big Picture: The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle Russia Militarily Since 1991

The American press portrays Putin as being the bad guy and the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis.

Putin is certainly no saint. A former KGB agent, Putin's net worth is estimated at some $40 billion dollars "¦ as he has squeezed money out of the Russian economy by treating the country as his own personal fiefdom. And all sides appear to have dirt on their hands in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

But we can only see the bigger picture if we take a step back and gain a little understanding of the history underlying the current tensions.

Indeed, the fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine – and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president – has to be seen in context.

Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. [Background here, here and here.] It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia's borders.

"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies."

Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia – explained this weekend on CNN:

We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it's right on Russia's borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It's a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.

***

I don't know if you your listeners or views remember George Kennan. He was considered [a] great strategic thinker about Russia among American diplomats but he warned when we expanded NATO [under Bill Clinton], that this was the most fateful mistake of American foreign policy and that it would lead to a new Cold War. George lived to his hundreds, died a few years ago, but his truth goes marching on. The decision to move NATO beginning in the 90"²s continuing under Bush and continuing under Obama, is right now on Russia's borders.

And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.

Jonathan Steele writes at the Guardian

Both John Kerry's threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government's plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, "We are on the brink of disaster" as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea.

Were he talking about the country's economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month's insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials.

Kerry's rush to punish Russia and Nato's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called "post-Soviet space", led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.

***

Vladimir Putin's troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. [Indeed, top American leaders admit that the Iraq war was for reasons different than publicly stated. And the U.S. military sticks its nose in other countries' business all over the world. And see this.] And Russia's troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there.

Again, we don't believe that there are angels on any side. But we do believe that everyone has to take a step back, look at the bigger picture, calm down and reach a negotiated diplomatic resolution.

And see this, this, this and this (interview with a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ba...on-the-us-nato-encirclement-of-russia/5371776

 

[rock127]

NATO is nothing unless US pushes it.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I thought this after seeing hysterical anti-NATO rants here and in other threads.

You will never see in India the kind of popular uprising we have seen in Ukraine. People in Ukraine threw out a corrupt leader who was stealing from the people. Indians will complain about corruption, but they are too passive to ever do anything about it. In fact, I would say Indians enjoy indulging in impotent outrage.

India should worry about China, not NATO. Look at what Russia is doing and observe that China supports Russian aggression in Crimea. Ask yourselves, why?

I think happy is Chinese, and he probably is not the only Chinese on DFI flying Indian flag.

 

[SajeevJino]

.

What I think about NATO in this Event .

The same Chinese made their Vacation inside our Territory ..makes some Aggression against us ..We pushed the Diplomatic options sending our Salman to their land and ordered spoke as a Pro Chinese ..then they leaves

Here in that case some of them predict a War .Some says They started the Land Grab ..Some Stated they testing our Combat Readiness


I feel the same here in Ukraine too ..They Invade a Country for No Matter


Joining to EU or CSTO is their Option ..It's about their Peoples Decision ..Some Loves Russians and the same Some love Europeans that's their Decision .How a Country can send their forces and Surround their Bases asks to Surrender them

Even Here I didn't see any threat from NATO or the CSTO ..they didn't interferer our territory or something



Speaking about DK case ..How many of them Concerned when Dr.APJ disrespected in US

how many of them feeled about Hundereds of Indian Citizens hurt by the Lankans ..See that No one

My Final word is " I strongly Condemn Russian action against the Ukraine "

 

[W.G.Ewald]

happy

 

[happy]

I thought this after seeing hysterical anti-NATO rants here and in other threads.

You will never see in India the kind of popular uprising we have seen in Ukraine. People in Ukraine threw out a corrupt leader who was stealing from the people. Indians will complain about corruption, but they are too passive to ever do anything about it. In fact, I would say Indians enjoy indulging in impotent outrage.

India should worry about China, not NATO. Look at what Russia is doing and observe that China supports Russian aggression in Crimea. Ask yourselves, why?

I think happy is Chinese, and he probably is not the only Chinese on DFI flying Indian flag.

You know what, in your rage, sometimes you speak the truth. I love it. See the red part...totally agree with it. You know why ?? Becoz we are not and will never become the puppets of USA and it's cronies.

About me being an Indian or not, I invite you to come over to Hyd and I will meet you. Then you will know whether I am or I am not. You can never refrain from personal attacks, eh ?? Intelligence of ex-service men my foot.

 

[happy]

@ladder @Razor @pmaitra would like to hear your views.

 

[happy]

.



My Final word is " I strongly Condemn Russian action against the Ukraine "

Sir, this is not about Russia and Ukraine alone. Pls enlarge the scope of your replies. Thank you.

 

[ubuntu]

Sir, this is not about Russia and Ukraine alone. Pls enlarge the scope of your replies. Thank you.

These Nato guys are going for personnel insults when they cant argue.mr yousuf is supporting them

 

[Jagdish58]

I thought this after seeing hysterical anti-NATO rants here and in other threads.

You will never see in India the kind of popular uprising we have seen in Ukraine. People in Ukraine threw out a corrupt leader who was stealing from the people. Indians will complain about corruption, but they are too passive to ever do anything about it. In fact, I would say Indians enjoy indulging in impotent outrage.

India should worry about China, not NATO. Look at what Russia is doing and observe that China supports Russian aggression in Crimea. Ask yourselves, why?

I think happy is Chinese, and he probably is not the only Chinese on DFI flying Indian flag.

Comedy , With China we have border dispute and we don't neew wolves ( NATO & US) help or advise to sort our issue with China

We would better be chinese friends , because being US friends means one has to end up with fate of saddam hussian , Taliban & pakistan:taunt1:

You people worry about this better

R-36 = SS-18 Satan heaviest ICBM in world :thumb:

 

[happy]

These Nato guys are going for personnel insults when they cant argue.mr yousuf is supporting them

Arguments without the backing of facts is futile.

Btw, would love to see your POVs also

 

[ubuntu]

Arguments without the backing of facts is futile.

Btw, would love to see your POVs also

These guys motto is your either with us or against us.

These guys should know that for democracy to work there should be opposition,critics,observers etc.

single mindedness is not good in modern world.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

I thought this after seeing hysterical anti-NATO rants here and in other threads.

You will never see in India the kind of popular uprising we have seen in Ukraine. People in Ukraine threw out a corrupt leader who was stealing from the people. Indians will complain about corruption, but they are too passive to ever do anything about it. In fact, I would say Indians enjoy indulging in impotent outrage.

India should worry about China, not NATO. Look at what Russia is doing and observe that China supports Russian aggression in Crimea. Ask yourselves, why?

I think happy is Chinese, and he probably is not the only Chinese on DFI flying Indian flag.

first of all you know nothing about anti corruption movement in india.india has seeen many scams under the present upa government.but anti-corruption movements in india have always followed gandhian non violent philosophy of protest which has strengthened the people's faith in democracy.what happened in ukraine was that a western funded protest overthrowing a democratically elected government in ukraine.there were violent clashes between the protestors and police.apparently these so called protestors became so restless with a policy decision of goverment(not joining the eu) that they couldn't wait till the next elections and vote out the incumbent government and instead bringing the country to a civil war.and talk about intervening in other countries internal matters i think america holds the world record in that.as far as eastern europe and cis countries are concerned russia considers them their own backyard and is understandably opposing it's joining eu or nato just as america opposed to soviet union's setting up a base in cuba way back in 1962.the fact of the matter is nato is nothing but america's attempt to hold on a power of global policeman ever since world war 2 neglecting the fact that in the 21st century the world is turning into a multipolar organizaion and everyone may not agree with washington's point of view.the other western countries have lost the prestige it had economically and miliatrily in the last century and is desperately trying to hold onto that prestige by clinging to nato.

 

[Mad Indian]

Becoz we are not and will never become the puppets of USA and it's cronies.
.

Yeah, except when supporting a US puppet like Kejriwal

 

[no smoking]

I thought this after seeing hysterical anti-NATO rants here and in other threads.

So, you are now the speaker of NATO? What is your concern of this so called "anti-NATO" rants?

You will never see in India the kind of popular uprising we have seen in Ukraine. People in Ukraine threw out a corrupt leader who was stealing from the people. Indians will complain about corruption, but they are too passive to ever do anything about it. In fact, I would say Indians enjoy indulging in impotent outrage.

Are you sure they were threw out because of corruption? The fact that those to replace them are the richest in Ukraine, almost everyone of them was accused of or convicted of "corruption" before. To me, it is more likely that they were threw out as the result of their political stance which was not so "friendly" to west.

India should worry about China, not NATO. Look at what Russia is doing and observe that China supports Russian aggression in Crimea. Ask yourselves, why?

Before you ask why, maybe you should show us when Chinese issue the statement that they are supporting Russian in Crimea.

I think happy is Chinese, and he probably is not the only Chinese on DFI flying Indian flag.

It seems to be your habit to label anyone expressing the opinion you don't like: Spy, Idiot, etc. Now you start question people's nationality. Or maybe we should ask if you are working for NSA as a loyal American since you are against an activity of Russia which happens to be one of the best friends of India for quite long time.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

So, you are now the speaker of NATO? What is your concern of this so called "anti-NATO" rants?



Are you sure they were threw out because of corruption? The fact that those to replace them are the richest in Ukraine, almost everyone of them was accused of or convicted of "corruption" before. To me, it is more likely that they were threw out as the result of their political stance which was not so "friendly" to west.



Before you ask why, maybe you should show us when Chinese issue the statement that they are supporting Russian in Crimea.




It seems to be your habit to label anyone expressing the opinion you don't like: Spy, Idiot, etc. Now you start question people's nationality. Or maybe we should ask if you are working for NSA as a loyal American since you are against an activity of Russia which happens to be one of the best friends of India for quite long time.

It seems you don't like my opinions. My thought is: Don't read them. Especially since you really can't produce a credible rebuttal.

I already posted a link to an article about China supporting Russia, and I say again, Russia is acting in Crimea quite like China in Tibet.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

first of all you know nothing about anti corruption movement in india.india has seeen many scams under the present upa government.but anti-corruption movements in india have always followed gandhian non violent philosophy of protest which has strengthened the people's faith in democracy.what happened in ukraine was that a western funded protest overthrowing a democratically elected government in ukraine.there were violent clashes between the protestors and police.apparently these so called protestors became so restless with a policy decision of goverment(not joining the eu) that they couldn't wait till the next elections and vote out the incumbent government and instead bringing the country to a civil war.and talk about intervening in other countries internal matters i think america holds the world record in that.as far as eastern europe and cis countries are concerned russia considers them their own backyard and is understandably opposing it's joining eu or nato just as america opposed to soviet union's setting up a base in cuba way back in 1962.the fact of the matter is nato is nothing but america's attempt to hold on a power of global policeman ever since world war 2 neglecting the fact that in the 21st century the world is turning into a multipolar organizaion and everyone may not agree with washington's point of view.the other western countries have lost the prestige it had economically and miliatrily in the last century and is desperately trying to hold onto that prestige by clinging to nato.

I guess I must continue to personify USA here since Uncle Sam himself is not a DFI member.

Were I Total Dictator of the World, mush would be different.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

We would better be chinese friends , because being US friends means one has to end up with fate of saddam hussian , Taliban & pakistan

Now Indians want to be friends with Chinese? OK, good luck with that.