Angrepet på UA mener du… ikke bruk UK.
djeezez 
Norge har jo stort sett hatt et ok samarbeid med Russland, men det er ikke så lett å samarbeide med et land med den mengden korrupsjon og byråkrati.
Ser hva du mener, men jeg tror hvis Vesten hadde vært mer inkluderende vis a vis Russland på begynnelsen av 1990 tallet når landet begynte å eksperimentere med demokrati og det var muligheter så tror jeg Russland kunne blitt et mer «Vestlig» land.
Nå er det toget kjørt langt østover.
Edit: med inkluderende mener jeg ikke drive NGOs på bakken eller plassere egen «kandidat» i systemet
Ja, vesten har mange synder i historien (Den som er uten synd kan starte å kaste den første steinen…). Dårlig behandling av RU er en av dem.
Jeg tror ikke det som skjer nå er det russiske folks sanne ansikt. Men det er regimets sanne ansikt, og folket har blitt kuet til å innfinne seg.
Absolutt enig.
Og legger ikke skylden på Vestne mtp min forrige kommentar. Mente bare at det åpnet seg et vindu med mulighet til å også få med Russland inn i varmen på 1990 tallet. Denne muligheten ble ikke godt nok benyttet for Russlands del, men endel andre østblokk land kom inn i varmen.
Shit dette dette kommer til å bli skikkelig stygt…
Bare for å etablere en felles forståelse. Russland var et vilkårlig diktatur for eksempelets skyld.
Poenget mitt, som jeg ikke vet om du er enig i er at folket kan kaste et regime selv om det innebærer lovbrudd (mot regimets lover) og voldsbruk (volden er som oftest gjensidig, ofte initiert av regimet), og sitte igjen som et legitimt demokrati.
Hvis ikke er demokratiet ikke robust mot et «soft coup».
Slik jeg forstår deg er f.eks. Navalny illegitim opposisjon fordi han har en form for støtte fra vesten?
Ja, blir uansett mye spekulasjon fra oss begge og av lite verdi siden historien ble som den ble.
Jeg har tenkt at hvis Russland/dets befolkingen, på 1990 tallet etter Sovjets fall, kunne få velge så hadde de heller gått mot Vesten og føler seg mer endel av Europa enn Asia. Bildet jeg sitter med er at flere av de andre Østblokk landene fikk en varmere mottakelse og aksept enn Russland. Vesten hadde vunnet og det lå litt revansjisme mot den gamle fienden i politikken opp mot Russland. Nå klarte Russland seg greit økonomisk vha sine naturressurser, men landet kunne vært mye mer enn hva den nå er.
Men igjen, blir bare løse formeninger uten noen praktisk verdi 
Mange av de andre østblokk landene har en demokratisk fortid. Det kan ikke sies om Russland. De har liten demokratisk tradisjon. Stort sett styrt av sterke enkeltpersoner. Motsetningen til feks Polen er stor.
Historically, the most significant Polish legal act is the Constitution of 3 May 1791. Instituted to redress long-standing political defects of the federative Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and its Golden Liberty, it was the first modern constitution in Europe and influenced many later democratic movements across the globe.[257][258][259] In 1918, the Second Polish Republic became one of the first countries to introduce universal women’s suffrage.[260]
Bud, la oss parkere dette. Jeg enser du er mer etter å kartlegge min forståelse og ståsted heller enn konflikten, krigen og politikken.
For å svare deg kort.
- Ja, enig, diktatorregimer kan/må veltes av befolkningen. Naturlig nok og dessverre kan/vil dette ofte bli blodig.
Min forståelse av Euromaidan var ikke en slik type revolusjon.
- Nei, jeg anser ikke Navalny som illegitim.
Mitt eksempel var mer rettet mot feks hvordan USAs intervensjoner ala Hamid Karzai som hadde ganske lite støtte i lokalbefolkningen i Afghanistan eller kuppet i Iran i 1953 hvor demokratisk valgt Mohammad Mosaddegh ble erstattet med Shahen som også var upopulær.
Håper dette var avklarende. La oss heller fortsette over på privat melding hvis du har behov for mer privat klargjøring 
Altså Russland kutter av Vesten og deres østlige allierte, bremser EUs distansering fra USA, kollapser økonomien sin, risikerer intern uro, og gjør seg fullstendig avhengig av Kina som alternativ til å akseptere nok et vestlig-orientert naboland.
At han da “vet hva han driver med” er for meg vanskelig å kjøpe.
Hans Petter treffer klokkerent idag.
Russia crossed the Ukrainian red line in 2014. Russia has declared its red lines, which some interprets as “the eastward expansion of NATO”, “Ukrainian NATO membership”, “NATOs military involvement in Ukraine” or even “the West’s delivery of defensive weapons to Ukraine”. There are several variants to the Russian red lines, all equally inaccurate.
Its real red line is “NATO should not start defending itself”.
The realities are that Russia has been constantly crossing what should have been NATO red lines for years already, triggering an extremely limited response only. The West has been subject to a Russian hybrid war since at least 2014. This includes multiple cyber-attacks against the NATO and EU members, restrictions on freedom of navigation, jamming of GPS signals, liquidation of individuals on European soil, attempt to meddle in referendums and elections across the West, and not at least, influence operations and an intense disinformation campaign. The list is long.
On top of this, NATO has been told to withdraw its forces and weapons from parts of its area of responsibility. Russia has in principle told NATO to refrain from operating in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea and the Arctic, as well as the airspace over Northern, Central and Eastern Europe. The USA has been told to withdraw its nuclear weapons and eliminate all existing infrastructure on the continent. Additionally, the alliance has been designated as an existential threat and has recently been threatened with the use of nuclear weapons.
We are in a remarkable situation. Russia sees NATO as an existential threat. NATO and the EU have been actively exposed to its hybrid war for more than 8 years. Russia believes it is exposed to an economic and information war by the West. It sees our defence aid to Ukraine as a hostile act.
Despite all of this, we are holding back in the fear that Russia might believe we are a party to the conflict and stubbornly rejecting the notion that the democratic world is under assault by Russia. We are avoiding engaging to stop the “war in Ukraine” from becoming a wider conflict even though the war has been just that for years: A wider conflict. This has been the reality since 2014 already. Russia knows it. Ukraine knows it. And NATO might just be coming to grips with this reality.
Passer enda bedre her;)
Consortium News, 29 September 2017. Russia-gate’s Shaky Foundation. Special Report: The Russia-gate hysteria now routinely includes rhetoric about the U.S. being at “war” with nuclear-armed Russia, but the shaky factual foundation continues to show more cracks, as historian Daniel Herman describes.
By Daniel Herman
Anyone who watches the news knows that Russian hackers gave Democratic National Committee documents to WikiLeaks and hacked voter databases in 21 states. Prominent Democrats call these shenanigans “a political Pearl Harbor.” On the blog Daily Kos, one contributor cries “we were robbed!” (arguing that somehow Russian meddling gave Trump a victory in North Carolina, where his margin was 180,000, and where no evidence whatsoever indicates a successful hack of voter databases). In a new video propamentary, er, docuganda, or something like that, Morgan Freeman declares “we have been attacked. We are at war. This is no movie script.” Before we hop on the Morgan Freeman train, we might want to consider some history. In 1898, the American press — taking the word of naval investigators — reported that a Spanish mine had destroyed the battleship, U.S.S. Maine. Leading newspapers promptly called for war, and the U.S. government obliged. Finally, the U.S. became an imperial power with the acquisition of Cuba and the Philippines and a few other odds and ends, at the bargain cost of 2,500 American soldiers dead, plus another 4,000 lost in the Filipino rebellion that followed, not to mention the lives of tens of thousands of Filipino opposition fighters. Only later did it come to light that the Maine was destroyed by a boiler explosion. In 1915, leading newspapers again whipped up the American public by announcing that a German submarine had sunk the unarmed passenger ship, Lusitania. Two years later — and in part due to lingering outrage over the Lusitania — the U.S. went to war, this time…
Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship | Daily Mail Online
The Foreign Office files released by the National Archives at Kew on Thursday [1 May 2014] show that news of the imminent salvage operation in 1982 sparked alarm across Whitehall. “Successive British governments have always maintained that there was no munitions on board the Lusitania (and that the Germans were therefore in the wrong to claim to the contrary as an excuse for sinking the ship),” wrote Noel Marshall, the head of the Foreign Office’s North America department, on 30 July 1982. “The facts are that there is a large amount of ammunition in the wreck, some of which is highly dangerous. The Treasury have decided that they must inform the salvage company of this fact in the interests of the safety of all concerned. Although there have been rumours in the press that the previous denial of the presence of munitions was untrue, this would be the first acknowledgement of the facts by HMG.” Lusitania divers warned of danger from war munitions in 1982, papers reveal | First world war | The Guardian
Rubelen ser ut til å ha styrket seg en del siden det kraftige fallet, kanskje en sammenheng med dette
Spørsmålet er: Vil Scholz gå med på dette?
Spørsmålet er: Har han noe valg?
Ganske innlysende at det ikke finnes noen alternativer enn å betale i Rubler. Man kan vel tenke seg ingen Rubler blir det heller ingen gass og vi vil igjen se en heftig prisoppgang.
Smart trekk for å styrke egen valuta?