Ukraine: military (Aug '14 to mid-June '15) closed

[AmericanPride]

So you see they place "great faith" in agreements so why have they been since 2012 constantly violating them?

Probably because the favorable conditions under which those agreements were made are no longer present.

Back to their holding to signed agreements since 1994---the current hardliners as well as Putin are adamant in overturning all signed agreements since 94 as they view those agreements to have been pushed on a "weak" Russia and not fitting for a superpower.

And this has already been discussed at length. Again - if Russia has the means (renewed capabilities), motive (desirous of restoring its superpower status), and opportunity (Georgia, Ukraine, et. al), how is Russia's behavior irrational? Even in your own comments you recognize that these conditions for exist yet you insist that somehow Russia's behavior cannot be understood.

a friendly inclined nice to work with country or simply a rouge country which ignores all agreements and one who does not care what the world thinks?

Those are the only two options in diplomacy? Either a country is friendly with us or it is a rogue country? Who again is making the irrational statements? By the way - if "[ignoring] all agreements" and "not [caring] what the world thinks" constitute a 'rogue country', you should add the U.S. to your list. That's the problem with your descriptions of Russia's behavior; it does not establish how Russia's behavior is uniquely objectionable or irrational, nor puts it in the proper context of the international system.

Now explain to me how you would treat a rouge country as shown above other than through isolation until such time as the current leadership either wakes up and or continues on the path.

Russia is not a "rogue" country. The strong do what they can - and Russia's strength is obviously higher than many people anticipated. I do not think it's wise policy to fixate on one issue at the expense of all others. Is Ukraine's territorial integrity the highest U.S. security interest? If not - then there's a limit to which this should be pursued. I've asked you to identify the extent that the U.S. should chase this issue and you haven't answered. Is that because you don't have a clear end-state in mind?

What would you have as a functional relationship with a country that is basically a developing second world country which has two raw resources and nuclear weapons -- while claiming they can assist us in the international world problems such as Syria where they even blocked humanitarian assistance, Iran, and North Korea---what as been achieved with Russia assistance---exactly just what agreements have come out of Russian assistance?

Here's a few: denuclearization of post-Soviet states; building a functional counter-proliferation regime; mutual reduction of nuclear weapons; supplying NATO forces in Afghanistan; Russian ascension to WTO; and other technical agreements in education, science, and space. So - if as you claim that Russia is "basically a developing second world country", why are you hyping it is a major security threat? There's an underlying contradiction in your argument that you have not resolved.

They have almost an alternative state of reality with this argument and they have not come off of it.

It's generally a good idea to take official pronouncements at face value, Russian or others. It sounds like you believe their propaganda more than they do. It's no more absurd than U.S. State spokesman trying to support/not support the coup/not-a-coup in Egypt. It has to be said because it's political - not because anyone actually believes it.

It may be true that Russian confidence and relative capacity is growing, but Russian influence is not. If the Ukraine emerges from this with a firmly pro-western regime (with or without Crimea and Donetsk), Putin's only ally on his western border will be the consummate loose cannon that is Lukashenko. Sooner or later he will fall (they all do) and who knows what happens then? Assad may well remain in power, but Syria will be a broken state and as much liability as asset for Putin for years to come. Chinese influence is growing in the 'Stans. Worldwide, nations that find themselves out of favor in the West are increasingly looking to China, rather than Russia, for support and leadership. It's difficult to argue that Russia is in any way ascendant in the global influence derby. Who do they influence?

That's part of the problem. There's a disparity between Russia's capabilities and desired status with its ascribed status. That gap creates insecurity and frames policy.