Yes you did misunderstand, by follow the money it means to look at who will profit from any transaction, alas follow the money. Those with the most to gain will always present a biased view.

In the case of the Ukraine, the International Monetary Fund is trying to debit the Ukraine into a financial deal that will result in Europe and US corporations stealing their resources to be able to repay that debt. Or to put it more bluntly, they are going to trade worthless fiat currency in a situation impossible to recover from into solid assets, Ukraine's resources.

maybe those countries are using NATO as a scare-screw to Russia. I am disappointed at the way America operates and I opened up more when I read it's foreign policy. hahahaha! look at the unrest in Venezuela...US is busy supporting the opposition and brainwashing the students through NGO and the Media and when people fight they say, "humanitarian crisis and need intervention?" Come on folks isn't it the oil that it's eyeing on Venezuela? why make profit out of your neighbour's downfall? May God curse those who cause death. even if they will everything, they shall have no peace because the conscious will eat them up. If I were Snowden I would have done just exactly like what he did. hahaha! I am just watching!

Here is a great little interview on the situation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us2yUn30Xm8

US and Russia clash over Ukraine

You will have to cut and paste because WordPress has an issue with secure links.

thanks Sir. I just checked your profile I don't mean any arm but just a caution because you may receive drons in your neighbourhood soon searching for you. LOL

Are you saying that Palin was wrong back in '08 when she said it on 10/22/08?

Here is her statement in context; seems that she was spot on.
http://youtu.be/2oqEKotAGe4

simple,let Russia have it!
It always owned it,ever since it got rid of the Tatars!
Crimea was a playground for the "Elite" under the Czars,and afterwards for the Red "Elite"!
Russia controlled the Crimea since the early 1800s.


Crimea, a rugged strategic peninsula jutting into the Black Sea that was gifted to Ukraine by a Soviet leader 60 years ago is now the epicentre of a dangerous crisis pitting Russia against the West.

The popular vacation spot is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet and is mostly populated by ethnic Russians extremely wary of the new pro-Western leaders in the country's capital Kiev some 400 miles (650 kilometres) to the north.

sixty years ago,everything was USSR,so the gesture of a Sovietleader "gifting" Crimea to Ukraine means little!

Russia's stealth takeover of the Crimea has reopened centuries-old divisions. What is the Crimea, and why does it matter?

Crimea, a rugged strategic peninsula jutting into the Black Sea that was gifted to Ukraine by a Soviet leader 60 years ago is now the epicentre of a dangerous crisis pitting Russia against the West.

The popular vacation spot is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet and is mostly populated by ethnic Russians extremely wary of the new pro-Western leaders in the country's capital Kiev some 400 miles (650 kilometres) to the north.

Tensions have simmered in Crimea since Ukraine's Russian-leaning president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted a week ago, with calls for the autonomous republic to secede from the rest of the country.

The territory, about the size of Belgium, is an important agricultural and wine-producing region with rich tobacco plantations. Crimea has also become a popular tourist region because of its subtropical climate and numerous seaside resorts.

But its history is chequered by invasion and occupation, with everyone from the Huns to Venetians, Byzantine Greeks and Ottoman Turks lording over its seaside cliffs and rich agricultural land over the centuries.

Moscow began its reign in the 18th century, establishing its Black Sea Fleet in 1783 on the southern tip of the peninsula in what is today the city of Sevastopol, and continued its rule into the Soviet era uninterrupted except for the German occupation during World War II.

Toward the end of the war, in May 1944, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin deported the entire Muslim Tatar population of Crimea, where they had lived for centuries, to Central Asia on charges of having collaborated with the Nazis. Nearly half died of disease on the journey.

It was in Crimea that leaders of the winning sides of the war, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Josef Stalin, huddled in the Livadia palace in the seaside resort of Yalta in February 1945 to decide what Europe would look like after the war.

The Soviet leader who took over from Stalin after his death, Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea as a "gift" to Ukraine in a surprise move in 1954.

The move was largely meaningless during Soviet times, as both Ukraine and Russia were republics in the Soviet Union.

But it took on major significance when the USSR imploded in 1991 and Moscow found itself with one of its major fleets in a newly independent country.

That year, the exiled Tatars began trickling back and today make up just over 12 percent of the population. Wary of Moscow influence, they had tended to back the anti-Yanukovych demonstrations which erupted in Kiev after the former president abandoned an EU integration pact in favour of closer relations with the Kremlin.

Ethnic Russians today account for 59 percent of Crimea's population, with ethnic Ukrainians 24 percent.

The issue of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol has been a thorn in the side of relations between Ukraine and Russia ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.

The port has been crucial for Russia's navy over the years - providing quick access to the eastern Mediterranean, Balkans and Middle East.

In 2010, after years of tortuous negotiations, Ukraine agreed to extend Moscow's lease on Sevastopol port until 2042 in exchange for a 30-percent reduction in the price of Russian gas on which Ukraine depends for much of its energy needs.

But Russia remained wary about its reliance on Ukraine, and disliked some of the conditions imposed by the deal - including the need for Ukrainian consent every time it wanted to upgrade or replace ships at Sevastopol.

As a result, since 2008 Russia has been pumping money into building a new base further along the Crimean coast on its own territory at Novorossiysk, with plans to move the region's new and flagship vessels there.

"There are certainly political and ethno-cultural reasons for Moscow to desire continued influence in the Crimea, but the purely military-strategic importance of Sevastopol... has in fact weakened in recent years," Christian Le Miere of London's International Institute for Strategic Studies wrote this week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671066/What-is-the-Crimea-and-why-does-it-matter.html


so,I can't see the need for any longwinded Debate on an Internet-Forum!

Novorossiysk is an old Naval training centre, it's been there as long as Sebastopol (sevastopol).
They moved back there by '98 anyway. Russia gave Sebastopol back over to Ukraine back when they gave them a small fleet of obsolete missile-frigates.
The lease is about the fact Russian ships are in missile range of the NATO bases in Bulgaria and weapons dumps in Romania without having to leave the port, otherwise it makes no difference to the Black Sea Fleet if it's based at Sebastopol or the Kuban peninsula (Novorossiysk). Most of the front line interceptor squadrons in that region have always been based on the Kuban anyway, it's perfect. And air defence network is far more effective on the Kuban, the Fleet is much more invulnerable there from attacks of any kind. The training base is huge, with massive air field and now with newer facilities, they wouldn't care except for firing missiles at NATO ships without leaving port when they try to enter the Black Sea, which isn't very likely anyway but it's a thought.

Crimea has been vying for independence from Ukraine since '91.

The main thing the Russians/Kremlin wanted back from Ukraine for the gas pipeline was their nuclear bombers back, which has been the real nature of gas pipeline negotiations between the two countries for the last 20 years. They did get their Blackjacks back (heavy supersonic strategic bombers), but not their Backfires (medium supersonic strategic bombers). Of course they just lost a Flanker, Fulcrum and Foxbat fleet wholesale, but thankfully (for them) they never stationed Foxhounds in Ukraine. Negotiations are all about cold war surplus materiel that makes an average industrial nation into an almost-superpower in one hit. Russia wants it all back, the Ukrainian government wants a bigger economy.

This is all nobody else's business. It's like Texas and Washington having a problem and the EU thinking it can intervene.

Obozo is just pi$$ed that Putin was invited in without having to invade.

In Obozos' world there are only 2 kings, him and the one in Egypt! We know which one rules the roost.

Putin doesn't need to invade. If he wants the Crimean occupied, he just has to back off, go have some tea and let the Kremlin do what it did with Georgia back in the 90s.

It wasn't the Russians which attacked the Tblisi government using missile cruisers of the Black Sea Fleet. It was a "rogue Admiral."
It wasn't the Russians which attacked the Tblisi government all down the coastline with Russian tanks. It was "rogue Abkhazian insurgents" and nobody knew where they got the tanks from.

He'd just do that. If that was what he wanted. This is about an argument over money/materiel.

From PBS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiaGiTRF3I&feature=youtu.be

There are ethical investigative journalists based in the Crimean and Kuban peninsulas whose webpages you can look up for a little more direct source-reporting.


I'd characterise the situation kind of like this:
Texas has a national air guard unit and some local bases of the USAF, imagine they just decided one day they own all the planes in the state. But Washington wants at least the ones stationed at local USAF bases returned if it's going to secede, but they can keep the air national guard vipers.
So texas says, nah we'll keep the lot, and we're not paying for other resources imports either. Washington says oh no you're not and oh yes you are, so texas just stops talking to them.

That's Ukraine and Russia.

All the NATO nations media centres are heavily badmouthing Russia over this purely because they took the oppositional stand to NATO intervention in the most recent complete fabrication of politics in the middle east.

Mostly the issue between NATO at the CIS is at present, the Russian's Caspian Sea oil table. It's the only other big one after the Persian Gulf. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran encircle it. NATO has a hard on for Iran.
It's pretty obvious the oil wars are still running hot.

Pretty straight up video on the issues. But if you want a real thrill, try the MoxNews channel, the Unfair and Biased news. Warning though, have a barf bag at hand as the CNN segments may make one use it.

But here is a good one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN9qf9SlPEc

US & UK Ambassadors At United Nations Security Council Meeting On Russian Troops In Ukraine

The US actually had the audacity to want the coup government of the Ukraine recognized.

Maybe Putin could annex the part of Baltimore and DC that is full of illegal russians..

Why would he have any desire to even acknowledge either Maryland or DC much less annex them.

If he is concerned with the plight of ethnic russians in the crimea then why not in baltimore or dc?

If he would take Maryland and DC along with all the people there, especially DC, then I would support it. Good riddance. Hey maybe we could chip in California and Connecticut to sweeten the deal.

I am with you on that.. O'malley is a socialist anyway so I am sure he would love being part of the russian federation.. he can be like lukashenko in belarus..

This Is The Gas Pipeline Map That Shows Why The Crisis In Ukraine Affects All Of Europe

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-one-economic-reason-russias-invasion-of-crimea-pulls-in-europe-2014-3