LOL.

'Die Anstalt' you mentioned in the post before is a satirical broadcast. Many people claim, you get a better view on current political issues through this, than through the real news. I tend to agree.

Gysi is leader of the left party. They are sort of political outcasts here in germany. That's probably the reason why they often tend to say the truth - because it doesn't matter as they don't in a position of real political power. But in many cases they just like to take the opposite position to everyone else. And yes, everyone else are 5 political parties (two of them forming a permanent union), that usually all cover the same political position.

Ukraine was going to get away from Europe:

The Euromaidan (Ukrainian: Євромайдан, literally "Eurosquare") protests started in November 2013, after then president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union, describing it as disadvantageous to Ukraine.(Wikipedia)

If Ukraine goes away from Europe, it's because of or to go with Russia. Isn't that a reason enough for Obama ?

Just for a quote I had a friend from Yugoslavia who lived here when it was communist and he used to say to me: "When we read newspapers in Yugoslavia we knew it was full of bullshit written by the Governement. Lot of people were joking about it at home. What is incredible in Democracy is that you think the bullshit you read is true. Because that's a Democracy, right ? But it's all the same." I don't know for your country, but in France, the very same people raging for Kosovo independance and "Peoples' right to dispose of themselves" a few years before now explains that Crimean referendum is illegal. Wtf, really. That's what makes so many think about Democracy as an euphemism for western imperialism.

I think it has very big value to USA. Americans ships in Black Sea will lead to US leadership in  Mediterranean Sea + gave possiblity to block Syria.

 I disagree on that, I don't think Russia expanding is not a problem for US. US Governement is still in a cold war containment strategy (and Russia is also still in "active defense" mode). That's why both Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO (and why Russia got in both). Just for a country corrupted and unstable in the border of Russia to join NATO proves there is some value. The Balkan Peninsula as always been very strategic because it's unstable and geographically of importance. Also the US are very pissed about Snowden fleeing in Russia, aren't they ?

Also Crimea was not invaded the way US fought Irak. There are soldiers here more and less like an UN mission, for control. And Crimea agreed to join Russia by a referendum that is said to be pretty fair.

Also as a general rule, US is making war, controlling, influencing, helping so many countries, I don't think there are lot of things that are not an issue for US.

OK, not in NATO, but on the verge of joining it.

The bold sentence is quite clear. It's covered if russia is involved. It's not if a bunch of fascists overcome a democratic governement near Europe, and want to remove russian as an official language in an area where people are mostly russians.

US was involved in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Yemen, Liberia, Pakistan, in about 15 years. They fought wars, killed, threw away governements, are still in place in lot of these countries, took good access to resources. For Irak it was based on facts proven to be lies and won by brutal force and occupation. In most cases there were no international or UN agreement. For Afghanistan it involved torture. I'm not telling everything is wrong or by pure interest. I'm telling that how can you come with "an agressive Russia trying to reclaim Soviet Union territory" ? This is such a cold war BS when Russia sent a little army force, fought no war and proved support by a referendum. Was it aggressive, really ? There is a giant chess game on going, and Russia is a very small, cautious and defensive player compared to US.

Didn't the Americans do this with Iraq? Few in power objected, the Americans so far have got away with it, so Putin probably feels justified 

In western minds it's ok for them to grab 100% of the Ukraine, but it's not ok if Russia takes less than 5%, wtf?
You wanna choke or something? 95% of the country and hundreds of our dead bodies is not enough for you?

Stop being delusional white sheep and at least don't lie to yourself.

There is a misunderstanding. Let's say it differently. US is playing the chess board more than at cold war highest level and with a cold war mentality : them versus us.  "Them" is not that much about Russia anymore, it's about anything that could be, perhaps, in some way, against US domination. That's why they dare to ally and favor unstability in country near russian border, why they fight so many war, why they spy at such a massive level even allies. We went to the point that present seems like an absurd alternate reality where people get refuge in Russia to show east germany Stasi like american spying secret.

So US shoot some kicks to the minor player Russia became, and just go crazy on TV when Russia kick back at a moderate intensity that is in any way near the brutal level US reached. So, please don't fell in that cheap propaganda and talk about "an agressive Russia trying to reclaim Soviet Union territory".

I'm aware of Russia/Putine lies, and I would not personnaly like to join Russia at any point of Russian history. I'm just putting it in perspective of USA (worst) actions, and (that's what I deeply think) negative influence : precedent of Kosovo, overuse of veto, right to not follow international rules, right to overthrow any weak country and get away with it.

About soviet union, you could also says "region with an ethnic majority of russian", "region with national interests in danger", "region near the frontier with anti-democratic movements", "area of natural influence", and that's still a fact. Talking about soviet territory is a selected fact that is your choice , and it makes it sounds like an imminent danger of communist invasion.

As for past hegemonic power, it's hard to compare it with current world, where we have nukes and MAD, international laws, alliances, few to expect from territorial gains, and as far as we are both concerned something to eat today and tomorrow for most people.

As for USA news, I'm not an expert. In countries I lived in, there is a kind of political duopoly that switch once in a while. Both have affiliate news paper that will get angry about some insignicant details, mostly in the form of trashing the guy in charge. For example, if we take a real test case : does Fox News disagree on important matters such as Obama's position about Ukraine ? I just search a little, that's the first fox news page I found. So basically this news is saying the same as you, and the same as Obama, isn't it ?

^Does that really matter what does "Obama" want with Ukraine? (and I put Obama in quotes to denote he's not a self-sufficient politican). You don't ask a burgler what does he want, you shoot at him. Nevertheless I've shared my opinion on the matter multiple times already, long story short -- it supposed to be a Yugoslavian scenario.

Here's factology of the US involement aside from the official one for those who have missed:

1) US Army Attache Assistant is scheeming a provocation with represntatives of Nazies (Labaychuk, one of the leader of Trizub organization, which served as a basis for today's Right Sector) and Ukrainian general staff command (Protsik).

2) Yakimenko testimony suggests that current SBU (Ukrainian secret service) chief, Nalivaychenko, handed over personal files of his employees to CIA, effectively making him a CIA plant. Previously Nalivaychenko has been suspected in connections with Nazies and, in fact, has been caught on tape in one of their training camps (btw their training camps exist not only in Ukraine, there're camps In Poland and Baltic states).

3) Yakimenko as well stated that the main culprit behind the shootings of February 20th is Parubiy, Maidan Commadant, previosuly the leader of Front for Change party, that joined with Yatsenyuk's Batkivshchyna party. He's the man of Yatsenyuk.

4) Indirect evidence to that is Ashton-Pate converstion that has been caught on tape, new coalition is the most probable mastermind behind this they suggest .

5) Yatsenyuk has been officially recognized as absolutely legitimate by Obama et al,  Nuland-Pyatt conversation suggests that he was planned as their protege from the very beginning, effecively making him their proxy.

Bottomline. By themselves each of these facts do not mean much. But you can't ignore Yakimenko and say it was his opinion, because he knows these things. He used to work in SBU for years, and has been appointed to his position in January of this year. It was him who announced "a counter-terroristic operation", which apparently failed due to how events went in February and March. Of course, there's a chance he's lying, and each of these facts is a set-up and simply put a conspiracy -- take it as you want, not going to persuade anyone.