12 Killed In Worst East Ukraine Shelling In A Week

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By Laura Mills September 29, 2014

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — Eastern Ukraine has suffered the worst violence in more than a week as fighting between pro-Russian rebels and government troops in the region killed at least 12 people and wounded 32, officials said Monday.

Col. Andriy Lysenko told journalists in a briefing in Kiev on Monday that at least nine troops had been killed in a day and 27 had been wounded.

Meanwhile, the city council of Donetsk said in a statement published online that at least three civilians were killed and five wounded in overnight shelling of a residential area in the northern part of the city, where fighting has centered on the government-held airport. Throughout the day in Donetsk, regular explosions could be heard coming from the north of the city.

Violence has continued despite a cease-fire declared on Sept. 5. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been at pains to insist to a skeptical audience at home that his peace plan is working and said last week that he believed "the most dangerous part of the war" is over.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-09-29/12-killed-in-worst-east-ukraine-shelling-in-a-week

[uhnope]

1. When the hell is Putin going to release his empire fantasy and

let Ukrainians be

[happyslug]

2. When the Ukraine accept that the Russian Speakers what closer ties with Russia NOT NATO.

In many ways that is what the problem is, where does the Ukraine look to for help? The Eastern Russian Speaking areas want a strong relationship with their main trading partner the Russians. The Western Ukrainian speaking part want closer ties with the EU and NATO.

The best compromise would be neutrality, i.e. no alliance with NATO or Russia but trade with both. Thus Putin's plan for a Federation for the Ukraine actually may be the best choice. The East can entertain their idea of better relations with NATO and the EU, and the Western parts could continue their close trading relations with Russia.

This is complicated by the fact Russia is the main source of energy for the Ukraine AND the Ukraine is the route Russian Pipeline goes through on their way to Europe. The Germans have all but embraced Putin's plan for they want a secure energy source and that means Russia.

As to Putin"s "Plans" to expand Russia, as Putin himself said, if he wanted the Ukraine he could take Kiev if two weeks. Putin does NOT want the Ukraine, it is an economic basket case that was only be upheld by Russian payments for payment to the Ukraine for the Russian Naval base in the Crimea. THe lost of the Crimea not only cut off the Russian Payments, it also cut off the Ukraine from most of its claim to energy under the Black Sea (Under the laws of the sea, any resource within 200 miles of your coast is yours to exploit UNLESS it overlaps the claim of another country, then the area of exclusive economic use is the half way point between the two nations. In the case of the Black Sea, is is all within 200 miles of some coast, thus the half way mark ends up being the real border and given the location of the Crimea, the switch of the Crimea from the Ukraine to Russia cut off most of the Ukraine from any claims to oil under the Black Sea).



http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/23/crimea-an-eu-us-exxon-screwup/

Thus all Putin wants of the Ukraine is the Crimea, he does NOT want the rest of the Ukraine. That does NOT mean he is NOT interested in what is going on along his borders, any country will be concerned about that. Thus Putin has no plans to annex the Ukraine. On the other hand he also does NOT want NATO on his borders. It is bad enough the Baltic States, which borders Russia, are members of NATO (and it should be remembered, the Baltic States only became part of the Russian Empire after being used as bases by Sweden to attack Russia in the Swedish-Russian wars of the 1700s, something we in the West tend to forget but the Russian remember).

Back to the Ukraine, the Ukraine has to accept that it is best as a neutral between Russia and NATO, that would be acceptable to Russia and should be acceptable to NATO. As a Neutral it can NOT be used as a base to attack NATO or Russia. Sweden and Switzerland adopted that position in WWII and the Cold War (in the Cold War, Finland joined Sweden and Switzerland in neutrality), and all three areas boomed because of it. That is the Ukraine's best option and the option Putin would like the Ukraine to adopt, nothing more and nothing less. Putin does NOT want the Ukraine, but he also does NOT want NATO troops in the Ukraine, if he is forced Putin would take the Ukraine rather then face NATO troops in the Ukraine, but that is far from Putin's First Choice, a neutral Ukraine that can trade with NATO and Russia is his first choice and the only one Putin is working on at the present time.

[MrNJ]

3. Thank you for this valuable restatement of Putin's propaganda.

/sarcasm.

The unfortunate reality is that Putin and Russia get what they want only because we, the West, forgot what happens when you appease aggressors.
As long as our leaders continue bending over backwards, inventing words and definitions that describe the Russia's actions in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine as anything less than illegal military invasion, Putin's appetite for land will continue to expand.
As bully he will only "get it" if he is responded to with sufficient force. And no, I don't mean nuclear war.
If we sold or lent Ukraine a fleet of drone planes and an army of tanks, all with modern weapons, Putin would quickly forget whatever the hell he thinks he wants. Just like Hitler, Napoleon and all the other invading aggressors before him.

[PeoViejo]

5. Lend-Lease II

The Irony would be palpable.

[uhnope]

7. what you said needs to be repeated over and over

until people start to get it

[Xithras]

9. What do you think that would accomplish?

Drones are easy to shoot down with modern weapons systems, and the Malaysian airliner demonstrated that the rebels have anti-aircraft missiles that are more than capable of downing an aircraft at high altitude and long range.

As for the tanks, the Ukrainian government already has a sizable contingent of heavy armor, including the relatively modern T-84 main battle tank. Ukraine is actually one of the worlds producers and exporters of tanks, since they inherited the tank foundries in Kharkiv after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They are a major exporter of tanks and tank services to the Middle East and Pakistan. I'm sure that the Ukrainians would LOVE to get their hands on a few M1 Abrams, but they wouldn't be sending it to the battlefield...they'd be sending them to Kharkiv to disassemble them at Malyshev.

Not that tanks matter much anyway. The rebels have proven themselves quite adept that turning tanks into bonfires. They have modern anti-tank weapons that seems to be punching right through modern armor.


Adding more weapons to the situation will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[brooklynite]

4. That theory worked so well For Germany before WW 2.

[happyslug]

14. Putin is NOT trying to "gather all the Russians" into Russia

Now, that was Hitler's plan prior and during WWII.

Putin, except for the Crimea, has MADE NO effort to take over any territory of any former Soviet State. Putin did moved troops in Chechnya, but that was a Republic WITHIN the Russian Federation (i.e. much like a US State, which under the US Constitution must have a "Republican" form of Government).

Putin also moved against Georgia, but only is regards to South Ossetia, which Russia considered part of Russia (through it had technically been part of Georgia in the days of the Soviet Union).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

Thus, except for the Crimea, Putin has attack NO country that did not attack Russia (or Russian Claim land first, i.e. Georgia in regard to South Ossetia) OR what not only Putin, but the rest of the world consider part of the Russian Federation (i,e, Chechnya). To compare Putin's acts with Hitler, is like saying Obama's escalation in Afghanistan was what Hitler would have done.

Did Putin send in troops into the Ukraine? The better reports is all he did was send in senior officers and their staff to better coordinate the existing Ukrainian Rebels Forces. That along with some quickly trained in Russia Ukrainian Rebel Forces AND the decline of the Regular Ukrainian Army, led to defeat of the Ukrainian attacks by those Rebels and the present Cease fire.

Hopefully both sides will now talk and work out some sort of agreement where the Ukraine can still remain united, but the rights of Russian Speaking and other minorities are protected. The rebels are NOT strong enough to win complete independence, but the present Government in Kiev is NOT able to suppress them, thus some sort of compromise is called for. Hopefully one will be worked out without further bloodshed.

[uhnope]

6. not supported by facts or logic

Here are the facts http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=905952

As for logic, people can easily compare life in Western Europe under the various forms of imperfect democracy vs life in the dictatorship of Russia with its gaybashing laws and destruction of the free press and assassinations of journalists and jailing of dissidents, and when they do, most would not pick Russia.

[happyslug]

12. You can NOT refuse to accept the views of a sizable minority.

In the Ukraine, Russian Speakers are a sizable minority, larger then the African American Community in the US. Under you logic, do to the fact whites outnumber African Americans, the US government should ignore the desires and opinions of African Americans. i.e they are a minority and what they want do not count.

Furthermore the split seems to less language based, then on where people see their economic well being with. Much of the Eastern Ukraine has always been tied in with industry of the Volga River Valley, that river is the heart of Russia. Thus they may see Western Europe as giving more freedom, but they also see Russia as where they can sell what they make. Ukrainian made Steel is used domestically only, it cost to much for it is to energy intense based on the lack of up to date steel making technology, thus much of the Eastern Ukraine has only one market for its products and that is Russia.

In fact one of the problem with the Ukraine is it had two population centers (Three if you count Kiev), but those two are on opposite side of the Ukraine. Except foR Kiev and the areas around Kiev, the population DROPS in the middle of the Country:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine

With a heavy RURAL population in the Southwest:



With the greatest amount of Urbanization in the East:



Just a comment that you have to take into the consideration the wants of any sizable minorities, and in the case of the Ukraine, that includes taking into consideration the wants of the Russian Speaking Eastern Part of the Ukraine.

[uhnope]

16. sorry, your logic fails--sizable minorities or even majorities are NOT allowed to have mob rule

just because of their numbers. This is the basics of democracy. Like the American South in the lead-up to the Civil War, a "sizable minority" or even a majority are not allowed to rule against the basic precepts of the democracy or the sovereign state itself. If some Ukrainian wants to be in Russia, let them move there.

[happyslug]

18. Who said anything about mob rule????

What about the mob the destroyed the Statute or Lenin in Kharkov? It had been defended in February by Russian Speakers, now that the area is under the control of Kiev. That was like destroying a Statute of Martin Luther King because he was a "Communist", a position adopted by many whites at the time of his death. Thus a majority of whites could demand the destruction of that Statute of Martin Luther King under your position.

You have to address the needs and wants of any sizable minority. The present Government, until the defeat of its army, was unwilling to do that, thus the revolt. Today, there appear an effort by both sides to work out a deal both can live under. That is know as "Compromise".

As to the Concept of Democracy. Right now you can NOT call the present government in Kiev the product of a fair election. Supporters of the former president were NOT able to field a Candidate AND the areas in the East did NOT participate in the election for they had held their own election and voted to succeed and thus were NOT part of the Ukraine when that recent election occurred. Thus Russia can claim the Majority of the East wants out of the Ukraine (and citing Kosovo, where the US used such a vote to show Kosovo was independent of Serbia, even as Serbia objected to that vote for Independence, under that precedent the fact that the Ukraine refuses to recognize such a vote for independence vote of the Eastern Ukraine has no basis when it comes to the Independence of those Eastern Parts of the Ukraine).

At the same time the present government of the Ukraine can show it won the last election, even as it re-wrote the Ukrainian Constitution without input from the Eastern Areas of the Ukraine and received not votes from that part of the Ukraine (Reminds me of the white only primary of the American South, only whites could vote in the Primaries, thus when African Americans could vote in the general election, the choice had been made in the Primary thus African American votes were meaningless).

The Present Government of the Ukraine have made no effort to bring the Eastern Areas back into the Ukraine (other then by brute force, which was defeated). The present Government of the Ukraine has to give something to the Eastern regions, and at the present time that Government has made no such efforts.

This screams for some sort of compromise. Some sort of deal that addresses the concerns of the Eastern areas. Even Putin has reached out for a deal.

The problems with the Ukraine was best shown in the maps showing population concentrations. You have a heavy rural population in the Western Ukraine, an area the speaks overwhelming Ukrainian. You have an even heavier population of urban population in the Eastern Ukraine, in an area with extensive numbers of Russian Speakers. You have a much lower rural population in the middle of the Ukraine, except for the capital Kiev and the areas around Kiev.

The Center should be Kiev, but it appears to be a weak center with two much more powerful and populated areas in the West and East. It would be like the US had a dispute between the West Coast and the East Coast but the Capital is in Denver. I.e. two heavily populated areas with the Capital in between, but in an area of low population except for the Capital. In such a dispute, with the West Coast wanting to increase contacts with China and Japan, and the East Coast wanting more contact with Europe, how will the Capital, which in this comparison would be in Denver respond?

Side note: in my comparision, to be more like the Ukraine, the US would have to have a much heavier populated West Coast, but the Eastern part of the Country would stop at the Appalachian Mountains. i.e. The East Coast would be an independent country like Russia is an independent country to the Ukraine (Pittsburgh would be the most Eastern City in the US, Philadephia would be in an Independent East Coast). At the same time the East Coast would have extensive trade with the Mid West, in fact the Mid West (Defined as Pittsburgh to Minneapolis/St Paul) had more trade with the Independent East Coast then the West Coast. The West Coast would complain of the extensive contacts between the Mid West and the East Coast and claim the East Coast was interfering within the "US". The Mid West would then reject what the West Coast wanted the country to do as a whole and use its extensive trade connections with the East Coast for support. In such a situation is is unreasonable for the East Coast to support the Mid-West against the West Coast? In many ways that is what Russia and the Ukraine are facing, a split country going two different directions.

In many ways the language difference is more a reflection of who is trading with whom then a difference in nationality. The Western Ukraine sees its future with the West, the Eastern Ukraine sees its future with Russia. Thus both groups are being pushed two different directions based on existing trade. The Center around Kiev is a small population area compared to the Eastern and Western parts of the Ukraine and can NOT hold these two areas together without their consent. Thus the problems of the Ukraine, a neutral not allied with anyone Ukraine appears to be the best solution. The problem is the Western Ukraine are full of radicals that want the Ukraine to look only to the west. That is unacceptable to the east and thus the present fighting. Given that it is now clear that brute force will NOT get the Eastern Ukraine back within the Ukraine, the Government of the Ukraine will have to address the concerns of the Eastern Ukraine. This will upset the radicals in the Western Ukraine for they will feel "Betrayed" and we may see a military/police move against them within few years.

After a revolution the most radicals are always suppressed for they are not willing to compromise. I do NOT see such radicals in the Eastern Ukraine, most of their actions including independence were more of political positioning NOT the results of deeply held beliefs. As to the Radicals of the Western Ukraine, that is another story, they tend to be the most Anti-Russian advocates in the Ukraine and want to suppress everything Russian. Even in the Western Ukraine, they are a clear minority, but a radical minority who are willing to fight for what they believe in, thus a good source for fighters. There are NOT enough of them to win this war, thus they will be used till a deal is made, then either ignored or killed off by the present Government of the Ukraine. That tends to be the fate of any such radicals, but it takes a few years and this upcoming winter may force both sides to make a compromise that such radicals will reject and the Government of the Ukraine will have then to address how to handle the radicals (Most likely a compromise between executing them and ignoring them, kill off the leadership, but leave the lower echelons alone).

[EX500rider]

19. Does that theory work with other countries too?

Say a "sizable" percentage of Mexican's want to join the US...can the US then just seize that part of Mexico?

If US border states have a large population of Mexican/Latino's can Mexico then seize that territory?

[happyslug]

22. That what we did in 1848, remember?

A sizable, if not a majority of "voters" in what is now called the American Southwest, wanted annexation into the US in 1848. A clear Majority in Texas and a growing majority in New Mexico and Arizona also supporting annexation. Northern California appears to have a solid majority of Americans by 1848 but the record is less clear, but that changed with the movement of the 49ers into Northern California by 1850. Southern California and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and new Mexico seems to be the only areas with sizable Mexican population at that time period. As to the Rio Grande Valley it appears both groups (Texas and New Mexico Mexicans) also agreed to annexation by the US (both areas had by 1848 adopted trade routes that connected with the US more then the older trade routes tied in with Mexico). Southern California seems to be the only area out, but many of the Mexicans in Southern California saw the US at better able to expand San Diego bay into a major port then could Mexico, and thus appear to support annexation.

Now, the majority of the people in the American Southwest in 1848 were Native Americans, but they did not care if they were claimed by Mexico or the US. The only real group of opposition was the Mormons of Utah, but they had fought with the US forces to take the Southwest from Mexico so a good many of them wanted to be in the US.

Thus if a vote took place in the American Southwest in 1848, they would have voted for annexation by the US and out of Mexico. Native Americans cared less (and sizable numbers of Navajos, Apaches and Comanches preferred the US), the White Communities of the Southwest would have overwhelmingly wanted to be part of the US. It also appears most of the Mexican Communities would have voted for annexation.

Thus you statement was true, the US did seize of part of Mexico the US wanted and it is still part of the US.

[EX500rider]

23. Lots of things were done in the 1800's we don't do any more.

I said do you think it would be OK now?

And what percentage of Mexican border states would rather be US citizens? Most?

Does that make it OK for the US to seize those states?

[pampango]

8. No. Most Russian speakers want to maintain Ukraine's borders. And ethnic Russians are a minority

everywhere in Ukraine except in Crimea.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/08/new-poll-shows-eastern-ukraines-separatists-are-wrong/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#mediaviewer/File:Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG

[Adrahil]

10. I wish I could rec this post! NT

[happyslug]

11. And I agree with that, but that includes contacts with Russia

Even the Russian Speaking Ukrainians want an united Ukraine, but one that is friendly to Russia as while as the West. They know Russia will oppose Ukrainian membership in NATO for such membership is threat to Russia. Thus they support a united neutral Ukraine, That is also the position of Russia but it is NOT the acceptable to the most radical supporters of the Western Ukraine (Notice I did not say the Majority of Ukrainians, just that group who are the most radical).

Thus you have the elements of a Truce and a long term peace, one that leads to a neutral Ukraine, friendly to both the EU, NATO as while as Russia.

As Putin himself said last week, if he wanted the Ukraine, he could take Kiev in two weeks. Putin's REFUSAL to do so indicate he does NOT want the Ukraine, but at the same time Putin will do all he can to make sure the Ukraine does NOT join NATO.

[pampango]

13. "Putin's REFUSAL to do so (capture Kiev) indicate he does NOT want the Ukraine."

THAT is the reason Putin does not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine - because "he does not want it"? Nothing like a highly moral reason for not invading a neighboring country. I imagine that Russia's other neighbors fervently hope that Mr. Putin does not "want" them either.

Most Ukrainians (70%) want "strong ties with the EU" - 43% want them with just the EU and 27% with both the EU and Russia. 45% want "strong ties" with Russia - 18% just with Russia and 27% with Russia and the EU. It makes sense for Ukraine to have strong relations with both the EU and Russia in the long run. They have signed the trade agreement with the EU but can still trade with Russia too. (Mexico has a trade agreement with the EU and still trades with the US a great deal.)

[happyslug]

15. The Ukraine is an economic basket case, compared to it, Russia is a booming

And that is the reason for the problems in the Ukraine, everyone is blaming everyone else for the economic problems. What the Ukraine needs is modelization of its industry What Washington wants is another base to intimidate Russia with (and break up the close relations between China and Russia that has developed over the last 15-20 years).

The Ukraine would be best neutral between NATO and Russia, but right now that does NOT seem to be what a sizable minority wants (and by sizable Minority, I mean that group, that wants the Ukraine to be tied in with the EU, for they see they can make money that way, even as most Ukrainian lose money).

In fact, right now, the Ukrainian Government is having trouble getting recruits. The most radicals are already fighting, and the remaining potential soldiers do not see the need to fight, thus a shortage of troops. This was one of the reasons the Ukrainian Government agreed to the cease fire, it had no better option after its Army was defeated. The Rebels know they are NOT fighting to join Russia, but to secure their position within the Ukraine, thus they agree so that the negotiations on that issue can begin. As far as the rebels are concerned they have won all they can win by military means, now to secure those objections in the peace talks.

[pampango]

17. "The Ukraine would be best neutral between NATO and Russia ..." I agree but

a clear majority - 70% - (not "a sizable minority&quot want closer ties with the EU. A sizable minority - 45% - want closer ties to Russia though most of those (28% to 17%) want ties with both.

What Washington wants is another base to intimidate Russia with (and break up the close relations between China and Russia that has developed over the last 15-20 years).

Is Putin "intimidated" by the Baltic countries belonging to NATO? I don't see any evidence that he is. None of the Baltic countries have attempted to expand into sovereign Russian territory. And the list of countries that NATO has conquered militarily and annexed is short to the point of being nonexistent. As is the case with many national leaders, Putin needs a 'foreign boogeyman' (ISIS is an example in the US) to rally folks against. NATO/EU/US serve that role nicely.

How would events in Ukraine "break up the close relations between China and Russia"? China has supported Russia's annexation of Crimea. If anything events in Ukraine have brought the two countries closer together. They have a symbiotic relationship. They are both authoritarian governments with territorial ambitions in their "near abroad". Russia has natural resources - oil and natural gas - that China needs. China is a great market for these Russian resources and China does not link politics to this trade. None of that is going to change no matter what happens in Ukraine.

[happyslug]

20. 70% is the cut off? So the US should ignore the wants and needs of African Americans and Hispanics?

African Americans and Hispanics make up about 15% each of the US population (Total for both about 30%). Thus under your rule, since 70% of American are white (The number is slightly below that number) we should ignore what Hispanics and African Americans want? Since 7-0% of the population are NOT Hispanic or African Americans, both groups should NOT protest against discrimination? The police were right in Ferguson to just shoot African Americans for protesting how they are being treated?

Any country has to take into consideration all of its minorities, including minorities we do not like. The Ukraine has failed to do this when it comes to the Eastern Ukraine, and thus the problems in that part of the Ukraine. The government has to address those concerns, or the people with those problems will do something themselves (and in most cases the Government will NOT like they do, as we can see in Ferguson).

As to intimidation of Russia, why else would the US want to be allied with the Baltic States and the Ukraine? What is in such an alliance that benefits the US? The typical response is to "Keep the Peace in Europe" but would the US risk Chicago for Riga? (A variation of De Gaulle's comment from the 1960s on would the US risk Chicago for Paris, De Gaulle said not and thus France developed its own Atomic Bomb). Thus the US will NOT defend the Baltic States from any Russian aggression for the cost would be to high. That is also true for the rest of NATO (i.e. Germany will not risk Berlin for Riga, France will not risk Paris, nor England, London). On the other hand the Baltic is a perfect base to launch an attack on Moscow if and when Nuclear weapons are deemed NOT usable. That is Moscow's fear and a fear the US is provoking when it permitted the Baltics Nations to join NATO.

My father always told me to leave sleeping dogs lay, not to kick them for they might then bite. Russia, in the 1990s was a sleeping dog but the US did not just ignore Russia, the US kept Kicking Russia by expanding NATO. Sooner or later Russia was going to respond and I am amazed at the people saying Russia is being bad by objecting to these provocations. What else did you expect Russia to do, say "Kick me again, I Love it". Putin was selected to replace Yeltsin for the Russian leadership decided it could no longer afford the policies of Yeltsin. Under Putin economic reforms have strengthened the state and with it the Russian Military so that Russia no longer has to accept what the US has been doing all around Russia. For that "Crime" Putin is now an evil person, for he is saying kicking Russia is NOT acceptable.

Putin has made the point to all of the countries that border Russia that an alliance with a potential enemy of Russia will force him to treat them as being hostile to Russia. This includes the existing alliance such a NATO membership of the Baltic Nations. Putin has NOT attacked any of them, but he has made it clear he will NOT tolerate any hostile actions from those nations. Thus Neutrality of those states would be ideal for Putin, but that is NOT the situation given their alliance with NATO.

Yes, a "Defensive" alliance can also be an "Offensive" alliance. NATO has long ago ceased to be a "Defensive" alliance, the US see it as a tool to use offensively against Russia. Thus today membership in NATO as a offensive tool against Russia, and as long as that is the case membership in NATO is viewed by Russia as an agreement to attack Russia at some future date and time. That is a threat against Russia, a threat Russia can NOT ignore and Putin is being called a "Bad guy" for his actions to protect Russia from such an potential attack.

[pampango]

24. No group should be ignored - the majority or the minority. Are you suggesting the majority

(with its desire for closer ties to the EU) should be ignored for the sake of the minority? This is a policy question, not one of rights and freedoms. And is that a minority of a minority?

A majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians want a sovereign Ukraine with unchanged borders. A majority of Ukrainians in the east want closer ties to the EU as well as closer ties to Russia. How is closer ties to the EU somehow ignoring the minority? What minority is it exactly whose opinions we have to respect? A minority of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine?

Is it the EU or Russia that is preventing Ukraine from having closer ties with both?

"Defensive" alliance can also be an "Offensive" alliance.

Hypothetically. However, I detect little desire on the part of any Europeans or Americans to attack Russia. I suspect Putin knows this.

More likely than a 'defensive' alliance becoming an 'offensive' one is that Putin is using a 'defensive' alliance as a 'boogeyman' to fire up the nationalists. Politicians do it all the time. The call to 'rally around the flag' is a time-tested tactic to make a politician quite popular, at least for a while.

It does not take much of an imagination to understand why some small countries in eastern Europe might be somewhat fearful of a belligerent Russia "at some future date and time". If the Baltic countries had not joined NATO when they did, they might be getting more of the "Ukraine" treatment.

...he (Putin) has made it clear he will NOT tolerate any hostile actions from those (Baltic) nations.

Indeed, he should not accept "hostile actions" from any country (Baltic or otherwise, NATO or non-NATO - like China). Obviously, no one expects him to accept such actions. Indeed it takes a neo-con to say, "I will not accept hostile actions from ..." when no one expects him to accept such actions.

Nor does anyone expect any other countries to accept such actions from Russia or anyone else.

[Bragi]

21. Interesting map

If I'm not mistaken, hasn't it been Russian foreign policy to control the Crimea and access to the Black Sea for what, about 200 years?

So why are we surprised when Russia reacts negatively and forcefully to the US and EU trying to make the Black Sea into their own territory?

As a simple matter of geography, Ukraine is way more within Russia's sphere of interest than that of the US and NATO.

Everyone should calm down, including the right-wing coalition who seized power in Kiev after deposing the elected government of Ukraine.