© Agence France-PresseRussian Foreign Ministry
The remarks were made in a statement released on Friday by the Russian Foreign Ministry, in which Moscow also accused the bloc of taking an "extremely unconstructive position."
"Russia will not accept such language of sanctions and threats, but in the event of their implementation in practice they will not be left without a response," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in the statement, adding, "At this delicate moment...the EU has taken an extremely unconstructive stance by refusing to cooperate with Russia in areas important for our countries' citizens and business circles."The ministry's comments came a day after an EU emergency summit in Brussels decided to freeze talks on a visa-free regime with Russia.
This is while China has voiced its opposition to sanctions or threats of sanctions against Russia over the crisis in Ukraine and instead called for a political settlement to the current crisis.
India has also expressed support for Russia's stance on Ukraine, saying that Moscow has legitimate interests, which should be taken into account.
Ukraine has been gripped by a political crisis since November 2013, when the ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych, refrained from signing an Association Agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.
In my opinion it is in the interest of the US to generally allow Russia to be the major influence in most of the former Soviet countries. Russia is in a better position to provide better assistance to those countries in many ways because they are neighbors and share a common history, culture, etc. Plus it would reduce the amount of aid the US is giving to those countries to keep them "friendly." The US could then enter into productive arrangements with Russia that would benefit both.
The US simply cannot manage world affairs effectively by itself, and the same common sense approach in any large operation at the individual level also applies at the international level, in that having responsibilities divided between partners is more effective and beneficial as a whole than micromanagement by a single entity.
The current crisis with rhetoric against Russia isn't even about US interests at all, it is ideological, it is for freedom, democracy, human rights, suppressing tyranny, etc., etc. Essentially, to make the world a better place with US National Security as a "possible" side effect.
This is utterly ridiculous. The US government, or any government for that matter, does not have any duty to humanity at large, but rather only to interests of those citizens that they represent. If, while pursuing the interests of their citizens, they can also help humanity at large, as a side effect, then great. So much the better.
So, again, who benefits?