You know what, you're article is very thin on facts...

How did NATO expansion threaten Russia? I know you and the Russians think it's an affront. But so what? Sovereign decisions of sovereign states/nations.

But what are the actual facts? NATO hasn't moved any troops into the newly joined countries (to be read: closer to Russia), their defences hasn't been increased, in fact their military spending in percentages of GDP has decreased. European countries have a 5 year streak of reducing military spending until 2013. While NATO's troops are stretched thin in bases all over the world.

So how is that a problem to Russia? At least 1 fact you should be able to produce for this... c'mon...

How did the USA react over Cuba???? Why shouldn't Russia feel the same way when she is threatened?

Russia was moving nuclear weapons there. The US, UK and France are keeping all their nuclear bombs exactly where they are today. That's not a very good argument, when it comes to logic.

What Ukraine and other eastern Europe have done by joining the EU and/or NATO is ensuring a better future for themselves. Poland's GDP has increased 5x times in gross numbers and 2x times considering inflation since joining the EU. And they have did so after the Cold War ended, with Russia as a full time partner and observer of all and any NATO discussions/meetings.

In future, go research the facts yourself instead of asking others to do it for you. You might learn something and you'll certainly look less of a fool if you do.

The United States has moved troops into Lithuania, Latvia,Estonia and Poland. The US is a member of NATO, just in case that escaped your attention. NATO troops have also carried out exercises in Ukraine, a non-NATO member.

Have you bothered to check them yourself? Are your retarded or something? These actions occurred all after Russia retaliated and directly and specifically threatened the baltic countries, Poland and Romania. The response was also proportionally to their future intent. 100 US marines and 10 British planes don't actually constitute an actual defence. It's only a symbolic gesture.

I still invite you to provide proof that NATO has committed threatening moves before Russia's reaction.

Yes, I've bothered to check them for myself, something that you have patently failed to do.

Russia did not "retaliate". Yanukovich refused to sign a deal with the EU that required Ukraine to cut trade ties with Russia. Then, out of thin air, the US-funded and organised "Maidan" protests started, resulting in the ouster of Yanukovich by armed thugs and swiftly followed by the installation of the very same oligarchs into power as had been discussed by Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine in that famous telephone conversation.

This in turn was followed by legislation similar to that in the Baltic states that blatantly discriminated against those whose mother tongue is Russian and itself resulted in moves by Crimea to declare itself no longer part of Ukraine. This took the form of a referendum that had massive popular support. After the referendum had passed Crimea asked if it could accede to Russia, a request that was granted.

There is and was no Russian "reaction" and I have provided you with proof that NATO has been very active on Russia's doorstep. If you don't like it, then feel free to take your arguments elsewhere.

You still haven't provided any specific actions that NATO did prior to this conflict that would cause an actual threat to Russia. Unless you consider offending Russia a threat in itself. Pathetic.

I didn't claim NATO carried out any specific actions prior to this conflict. Stop moving the goalposts.

Your article is titled: "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault", you do realise that? You're entire argumentation stands on that. So far you have provided only opinions, ergo my comment: your article is very thin on facts - and you're later comments are just as weak.

It is not my article. It is not my argumentation. Take it up with John John Mearsheimer.

I haven't the time or inclination to tell you what an idiot you are. Maybe some other kind soul does...

I remember when the Russians tried to move missiles into Cuba. America felt so threatened by Russia moving closer to the US border that they were willing to risk nuclear war to stop it. Now NATO (read America) is attempting to expand right to Russia's border and they've made no secret that they are going to place missiles there. If it was right for America to be alarmed at the Cuba situation, then Russia is right to be alarmed at what NATO is doing.

NATO troops include the armies of all their members and are under the control of America. Let's not forget that America spends more money on military annually than the next 15 countries combined.

Maybe you didn't hear about the thousands of "US military advisers" going to Iraq or the "US military advisers" working in Georgia when Georgia attacked their own citizens. "US military advisers" are stationed in Kiev right now. You've got to be naive to think the US military is not calling the shots and Russia has every right to be concerned.

Let's take this on face value, how would the future historian look back in retrospective.

So you mean to tell me that a Chinese historian in the 22nd century, wouldn't find any difference between USSR moving nuclear missiles in Cuba, next to it's declared rival, the US and between the situation of Ukraine making a sovereign decision to join an economic treaty with the EU, while Russia is now an official partner and holds a seat at all NATO meetings this time around and hears of these decisions first hand, as soon as they are made?

Can YOU spot the difference?

How about the historian's reaction on Russia trampling it's guarantee to Ukraine sovereignty, the Budapest memorandum? How would the Chinese historian expect the US and UK, co-guarantors, to behave?

Russia has not trampled on Ukraine's sovereignty. That has been done by the US and EU, whose machinations have brought about the current state of affairs. Nice try, but nobody is buying your establishment-media echo-chamber talking points.

80% turnout and 95% of those who voted, voted for Crimea to join Russia. How does this equate to Russia trampling on Ukraine's sovereignty? All countries that join the UN agree that the principle of self-determination is a basic right of all people. Where does it say that Crimea doesn't have this right?

When the Falkland Islands held a referendum in March 2013, to associate with the UK, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We believe in self-determination. The Falkland Islanders have spoken so clearly about their future and now other countries right across the world, I hope, will respect and revere this very, very clear result." Keep in mind, there was no legal framework for this referendum in the Falklands.

According to Obama's recent UN address, the USA considers Russia to be the second most dangerous threat to the USA. The US has informed the world they are going to put missiles in Eastern Europe and they have refused to guarantee they won't be used against Russia. I think Chinese historians in the 22nd century will see similarities with the Cuban missile crisis.

As for guarantees, how about NATO's guarantee not to move one inch closer to Russia's border? What happened to that?

As for Ukraine making a sovereign decision to join the EU, how do you reconcile the fact that millions of eastern Ukrainians were not allowed to have candidates stand for election, nor were they allowed to have their voices heard in the election. They weren't allowed to vote. I think what you mean is that a PART of Ukraine made a decision to join the EU and it doesn't really make any difference what the other part says or wants.

Obviously you changed the subject, it would be interesting to see a comment on the topic you started - the comparison between the 2 incidents. Ukraine's constitution doesn't allow any region to segregate under NO legal circumstances, so unless the entire country votes on changing the constitution and allowing Crimea to vote on it's independence that vote is only consultative.

What's China's reaction though?
http://www.sott.net/article...
You'll be able to google it, it doesn't matter on how many sites the Russians are trying to get rid of that news. China is also stalling on it's new pet project:
https://news.vice.com/artic...
Which leads everyone to the logical conclusion that one of the conditions of that contract was the non-interference of Russia in Ukraine.

The US and China have played bad cop / good cop in order to stop Russia. It reduced the scale of the disaster. The months to come will show if China is only seeking a bigger profit or if they actually care about Ukraine as a precedent.

As for the Budapest memorandum, the integrity of Ukraine is not dependent on popular vote, it is absolute, just like in it's constitution.

In order to stop Russia? What exactly has Russia done. Stick to verifiable facts, if you don't mind. As for the integrity of Ukraine and the provisions of its constitution, they ceased to be relevant when the constitution was violated in order to install the present junta. Even if that wasn't the case, the UN Declaration on Human Rights affirms the right to self-determination of any people, which includes those in the east of Ukraine.

Well the self-determination right of Crimeans is not under discussion, it stands no matter what anybody does. The actual issue is Russia recognising an action that leads to a dissolution of a contract they signed in good faith (Crimea braking away) and 2, Russia annexing that piece of land that was part of the contract. The memorandum they signed, isn't specific, it includes any and all situations.

Had Crimea went through the legal hoops to become independent, I might have entertained the debate on Crimean rights, once elections weren't held at gunpoint - which makes them invalid.

Seriously, who cares what you might or might not have entertained? I notice your insistence on sticking to the letter of Ukraine's constitution is selective and you are ignoring the fact that the coup d'etat that lead to installation of this odious regime was itself in breach of Ukraine's constitution and that once that breach took place, all bets are off.

That's a pretty weak response, do you convince anybody new with this line?

Yanukovych was demitted by the democratically elected parliament, a parliament in which his OWN party had the majority of seats. It is not un-common in a parliamentary democracy (as Ukraine is de-facto), to kick the current government because of public unrest or poor economic results. They started with the president, which was made by the book and a couple members of the government... 5 men leave from the government + presidency, the parliament composition is exactly the same. What coup d'etat, do you even know how it is defined?

It is no more weak a response than the bullshit you have posted here, Adrian.

According to articles 108-112 of Ukraine’s constitution, there are four ways a sitting president may leave office between
elections. They are resignation, incapacitation, death, and impeachment. Article 111 stipulates that impeachment must follow a very specific procedure, namely that the Ukrainian Parliament must vote to impeach and then convene a committee to investigate. Having investigated, the committee must report back to parliament, which must then vote to bring charges.

Then a judgment of the Constitutional Court is required to the effect that the acts of the President contain elements of treason or other crime. A vote must then take place on this and requires that 75% of the parliament vote to convict. The multi-stage process outlined was not followed, they went straight to the final vote. Only 328 out of the required 338 MPs voted to convict (as only 328 were present) and there are allegations that many of those did so under duress, with threats having been made against them and their families.

The constitutional procedures were not followed, ergo the ouster of Yanukovich was contrary to Ukraine's constitution, which makes what happened a coup d'etat and also makes hypocrites out of the likes of you.

Take your trolling somewhere else, Adrian.