Henry Vilas wrote:Yet you defend Russian militarism in the Ukraine.
I haven't yet defended it but I may have excused it.
It depends, of course, on how you define militarism. Certainly, it is much more militaristic to be militarily involved in countries 5,000 miles way than on your border. In Crimea, Russian troops stationed at the Russian Naval Base in Sevastopol took over Crimea after a U.S.-supported coup overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine. This is defensible.
Crimea has never been Ukrainian except in an administrative sense and it has been the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea fleet for over 200 years. It's inclusion in Ukraine when that country is susceptible to being taken over by an anti-Russian alliance creates an unstable situation that has been improved by its reincorporation into Russia.
Russian involvement in the Donbass is more complicated. There are no unbiased sources of information as to how much involvement there is. Russia has had to deal with thousands of refugees from Ukraine. It is really questionable as to whether the involvement there is is militaristic.
Russia is far, far less militaristic than the U.S. U.S. militarism is the responsibility of the U.S. electorate. Russian militarism is not unless it is directed at us.