Frazzled wrote: Of course not. They are just dropping that ship there to provide a new refuge for plant and animal life, to create a new man made reef so that Nature may flourish once more.
They are just being Green.
An American Special Ops Veteran On The Ground In Ukraine Speaks Out
One of my Ukrainian colleagues asked me if I was informing my friends back home about the situation here. I admitted that I’ve only talked to my wife much about it and he accepted that. I got to thinking and decided that I’ve been delinquent.
I came here in [TIMELINE REDACTED] on a contract to help build a professional corps of NCOs for the Ukrainian Army. It was a dismal failure. The military budget couldn’t support building the kind of NCO corps the US Army has. Ukraine just doesn’t have the budget for the personnel and training changes that are necessary. Also, as a result of many years of European- and Soviet-style military doctrine, the junior leaders are officers; NCOs are just technicians. That’s worked for them for a couple centuries. The current mid-grade officers recognized that this wasn’t the most efficient way of leadership, but they just can’t convince the civilians to put enough in the budget to professionalize the force. Conscription stopped this year, but they are a long way from developing a small, professional army.
I left Ukraine and went back to Iraq, then Germany, then Afghanistan. I came back to Ukraine when I got the opportunity to work at one of the few diamonds in the rough that I’d seen in Ukraine on my earlier contract. I’m now a [JOB POSITION AND LOCATION REDACTED]
During my last [TIMELINE REDACTED] here now, I’ve met and worked with several Ukrainian mid-grade (major through colonel) and junior grade (lieutenant and captain) officers. Plus a few hundred cadets. I’ve made friends, a couple enemies, and a lot of good colleagues. I’ve met local civilians and have eaten in some fantastic cafes. I enjoy living in [CITY REDACTED]. It has a history that goes back a couple thousand years and is rich in a culture that even Soviet occupation for 50 years could not destroy.
Ukrainians are almost as much of a mixed culture as is the USA. There are leftists, rightists, centerists, and a few idiots. There is a small but vocal group that bears resemblance to the Nazi Party in Germany in 1939. There are human rights activists, well educated professionals, business entrepreneurs, and criminals. Just like home. What amazed me, however, was the level of corruption. I expected it, after having worked in former socialist countries before, and have seen what happens when you toss out the communists.
The only groups ready to replace the communists… the only groups with any formal/semi-formal hierarchy, organization, chains of command, resource procurement procedures, etc… the only groups immediately available… are the crooks and criminal organizations. What usually happens is the crooks make their way into government positions, both elected and appointed, and just raise the level of their operations to a national level. The people usually get tired of it, and either vote them out or kick their asses out. Once they do, the only groups ready to move back in and take charge are…. the old communists! They’ll have a new name, but old styles. So the folks kick them out and the damned crooks come back in… usually with less power.
Ukraine has gone through these cycles. There is no civil service system here. When a new political party takes charge, everyone who works for the government expects to lose their job. Teachers, civil works technicians, cops, secretaries, postal workers, etc. If they don’t offer a bribe to their new politically appointed boss, they will lose their paycheck.
Cops are a special thing. No city cops, no state cops, just the national police. and they get paid MUCH less than minimum wage. A cop does not chase criminals, he chases his boss’ political opponents. A traffic cop does not enforce traffic laws, he fights to get assigned to a check point on a good street so he can stop new cars and extort money from the driver (obviously well off… he’s driving a new car) using some trumped up charge. I’ve been stopped many times. They want me to blow into a fake breathalyzer so they can charge me with DUI. I was stopped once and they asked for my ID and drivers license. I unbuckled my seat belt to get to my wallet. The cop looked at my license and then wanted to charge me with not wearing my seatbelt. Normal Ukrainians normally pay the cop somewhere between $12 to $20 to get on their way. I show my US passport and start dialing the embassy on my cell phone. They usually let me go.
Businesses are extorted by officers attempting to enforce unwritten city codes. Driving schools don’t teach kids to drive, the kids can buy a license for $50 and walk out the same day they enrolled in the course. Everything is like that.
When I got here I was just flat amazed how deep the corruption was. My translator asked me how I would handle such a situation back in [HOME STATE REDACTED]. I told him we had enforceable laws, much more accountability of officials… and as a last resort, the.45 on my hip and the AR-15 in my bedroom gun cabinet. He sighed…. said we have none of that. We can’t make changes.
Well folks. Ukrainians stood up on their hind legs these last few months, and they fought back against the crooks… and they won! More than one hundred of them died doing it. It’ll take the new folks in government to change what they had. It’s hard changing a nation, a culture of corruption, a business environment that doesn’t know how to enforce contract law. But they want to give it a chance.
And now, Vladimir Putin has decided that he can’t allow the new Ukraines to succeed. Because if they do, Russians might decide to get rid of the criminals who are the Russian Mafia, and the people like Putin who are trying to rebuild… not the Soviet Union… but the old Russian Empire. There are good geo-political reasons for him to desire that., but it comes at the cost of Ukrainian freedoms to chose.
The US will not, maybe cannot, jump in here and oppose the Russians militarily (the US has zero tanks left in Germany, folks). The Germans, Brits, French, etc., don’t have the forces to do it, either. Nor the political will. So a NATO military option is out of the question. The Ukrainian military is too small, too under-resourced, and too tied to old Soviet style doctrine to go it alone.
So, what is left?
That will be up to President Obama, the British Prime Minister, Ban-Ki-Moon at the UN, and, believe it or not, the people and prime minister of Turkey. The Poles might go up against the Russians. They’ve done it before. Polish military history is pretty brave. They’ve been outclassed and outmatched, but no one can ever accuse them of cowardice. If the Russians try to take western Ukraine, the Poles might surprise everyone.
I support what the Ukrainians are trying to do. I can’t do much about it, except teach… Because of the semi-official position I work in, I can’t do much more. If it gets too dangerous out here in western Ukraine, I have to go home. If it gets too politically strenuous for the US, the State Department might order us to go home. I’m not impressed with John Kerry whining that Putin doesn’t respond to our super-civilized new world society. He is “stunned” that Mr Putin acted in the same old way that Russians have always reacted. By force. By making your enemies fear you. By taking action, not talking. I’m amazed that anyone with a clue really thinks that this 21st century is going to be much different than the 19th century. History shows us otherwise. Every Damned Time.
So, I’ve made my conscience easier by writing this. The old Ukrainian colleague who asked if I had written my friends is a retired [RANK AND PROFESSION REDACTED]. And he is itching to put his uniform back on and go defend Ukraine. Against the Russians. Against a force a hundred times bigger. He has a beautiful, [AGE REDACTED] year-old daughter, who wants to be a ballerina. And he wants her to have the opportunity to do it in a free, law-abiding, free-enterprise nation. And he’s willing to go up against the Russian Bear to do it.
The Guardian wrote:The de facto authorities in Crimea have announced that they consider the territory to be part of Russia after a swift vote in the local parliament.
The MPs said on Thursday morning that a referendum planned for 30 March – which was due to ask voters if they wanted more autonomy from Kiev – would now take place on 16 March, ask whether they wanted to join Russia, and only be a ratification of a decision that had already been taken.
The parliament also appealed to Moscow to assist its decision to seek union with Russia.
The bombshell announcement coincided with an emergency EU summit in Brussels devoted to Ukraine. Senior EU officials denounced the idea as "completely illegal" while British officials said they would take their cue from the interim Ukrainian government, which deems the referendum anti-constitutional.
The acting Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, roundly dismissed the referendum idea.
Crimea_map_WEB "This is an illegitimate decision. This so-called referendum has no legal grounds at all. Crimea was, is and will be an integral part of Ukraine.
"In case of further escalation and military intervention into Ukraininan territory by foreign forces, the Ukrainian government and military will act in accordance with the constitution and laws."
In Moscow, Russian MP Sergei Mironov said the Duma, Russia's parliament, could consider the appeal from Crimea as early as next week. The Duma has already begun work on a bill that would make it easier for new territories to join Russia, clearly penned with one eye on events in Crimea. On Tuesday, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had said categorically that Russia was "not considering" joining Crimea to Russia.
At a press conference in the Crimean capital Simferopol, the deputy prime minister of the region, Rustam Temirgaliev, said the parliament voted by 78 votes to 0, with eight abstentions, to hold the referendum on 16 March. He said the decision, which also gave the go-ahead to the territory to begin preparations to join Russia, "comes into effect from the current moment". The referendum would be held "only to confirm" the decision.
Temirgaliev said that as of Thursday, the only legal troops on Crimean soil were the Russian army.
"Any troops of a third country will be treated as illegal band formations, with all the consequences that entails," he said.
Shortly after this decision was announced, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe confirmed that an observer mission of more than 30, dispatched to defuse the situation in the peninsula, had been "prevented from entering Crimean territory".
Ukraine has a number of military bases in Crimea that have come under siege from armed local volunteers and the Russian army in recent days. Russia has denied its troops are involved in the region despite widespread evidence to the contrary. Ukrainian soldiers in the bases have come under pressure to defect to Russian or Crimean forces, but have mainly not done so.
With events moving quickly on the ground, the big question is whether the officer class starts to defect en masse, and whether Russia uses force if they do not.
In Kiev, Ukraine's economy minister, Pavlo Sheremeta, said the referendum would be illegitimate, but in Simferopol, politicians said the referendum was now only a formality. Crimea has a large pro-Russian population, though many want more autonomy rather than actual union with Russia.
The Kremlin's final goal in Crimea has been murky, with many analysts suggesting that Putin would be satisfied with more autonomy or de facto independence for the region, but Thursday's events appear to suggest that the decision has been taken to annex the region.
"We have a group of Russian specialists here working on introducing the Russian rouble to the region," said Temirgaliev. He added that all Ukrainian state property in the region would be nationalised.
Outside the parliament building in Simferopol, a group of about 100 people waved Russian flags and chanted as the Russian national anthem was played, as well as a new "Crimean anthem" that begins: "The island of Crimea is fighting for freedom" and continues with scornful words about "fascist bands" in Kiev and their western backers.
The proceedings were interrupted by two topless demonstrators from the protest group Femen, who charged the stage with "Stop Putin's War" written on their torsos. They were beaten and screamed at by a crowd of elderly women before being dragged off by Cossack irregulars and taken away in a police van.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
It's somewhat depressing to see someone post that at 14.
Honestly I never got the fascination over a girl or guy being from a certain country/area I've seen hot Canadians, Eastern European, Africans, Indians, etc, etc on the qualities I'm looking for in a women what country they're from is so low on the list it doesn't even matter to me.
So if Crimea becomes a satellite Russian country....say going the route of Ukraine without the violence and either join as a whole Russia or become seperate with the same agreement with Sevastopol Naval Base..
If your all going to "debate" Iron_Captain on his viewpoints with your viewpoints It lends more credibility to your debate if you back it up with some links
Jihadin wrote: So if Crimea becomes a satellite Russian country....say going the route of Ukraine without the violence and either join as a whole Russia or become seperate with the same agreement with Sevastopol Naval Base..
If your all going to "debate" Iron_Captain on his viewpoints with your viewpoints It lends more credibility to your debate if you back it up with some links
But... Jihadin Sir... Everyone knows the media is biased on both sides.
All we're left is pulling stuff out of our nether region.
Crimea’s parliament, which enjoys a degree of autonomy under current Ukrainian law, voted 78-0 with eight abstentions Thursday in favor of holding the referendum and joining Russia. Local voters will also be given the choice of deciding to remain part of Ukraine, but with enhanced local powers.
RIA reported that the referendum would consist of two questions. The first would ask whether voters wished to join Russia "as a subject of the [Russian Federation]." The second question would ask whether voters wished to remain a part of Ukraine but as an autonomous republic, as laid out in the country's post-Soviet 1992 constitution
Going going going GONE...Mid March...(single hit home run)
Eastern Ukraine...Grand Slam...can it do it..can that half make it to center bleachers.
Crimea is still part of Ukraine whoever is in charge, a fragment of the country can't just go off doing their own thing because central government is in doubt and the Russians say they can do what they like. First the country needs to carry out democratic elections, then perhaps they need a referendum on crimea.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Crimea is still part of Ukraine whoever is in charge, a fragment of the country can't just go off doing their own thing because central government is in doubt and the Russians say they can do what they like. First the country needs to carry out democratic elections, then perhaps they need a referendum on crimea.
I don't understand the hypocrisy from my government. Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have hired a proper Slavic girl instead. Slavic girls are more loyal and much prettier to look at
It's somewhat depressing to see someone post that at 14.
Agreed.
Why? It may have come out wrong. I meant loyalty to Moscow. A Slavic, Russian girl would've not been as likely to turn her back on RT over disagreements with Russian policies and would thus have been a better choice. The second part was a generalisation and matter of personal preference.
I'll take a beautiful Magyar maiden over a slavic girl any day... not that, you know I have anything against slavic women... theyre beautiful too...and that accent.... ughh... but the Hungarians? MMMHHHMMMMMM!
I just happen to actually support Putin on many points. Is that so wrong?
No, I mean, he is a dictatorial thug, but he IS a total badass (yes, I am jealous), and no matter what, he is doing a lot to benefit Russia (as a nation, not necessarily as a people).
He is a teenage son of expatriates, probably first generation if we go by his comments, so his general view of the world is coloured by this personal reality and he just doesn't have the mental maturity to be able to distinguish truth from propaganda.
I see allot of young people like him over here, only here they are the sons of African immigrants. They grow to idolize their home country because not having had any real contact with the reasons that forced their parents to leave it they think that it is just like the place where they currently live, only "better" in some vague way.
Same story here, mostly with the hispanic types, but also some asians and europeans. I like to say that such people are "more Mexican than actual Mexicans" (Mexican chosen arbitrarily, substitute with Dominican, Puerto Rican, Polish, Italian, Korean, etc.)
Basically I have no idea why people like chaos0xomega or Ketara are giving any credence to his posts, he is just way too young to be discussing something like this in any meaningful way.
Well, in my case I actually kinda like the kid (though he is pretty annoying at times), he reminds me of a younger version of myself *wipes tears away wistfully*, just arguing for the other side.
Hooo boy....
Russia Sinks Ship to Block Ukrainian Navy Ships
Meh.
Interestingly, Russia has done this exact thing before (blocking a narrow inlet with ships). In WWII (I think, might have been the earlier Russo-Japanese war) they blocked entry into Vladivostok's harbor by sinking their own ships.
Its a valid naval tactic been done by many others. The Dutch and the British did it a good bit back in the day as well. They are called 'blockships'.
Am I the only one who is starting to admire this guy's iron? He would be a more worthy opponent for Nixon or Reagan than the post Bush I lot.
"Soldiers deserve soldiers, sir"
- Kurt Russell, The Soldier
Agreed... I've always been a bit of a Putin fan myself (in the way that Patton was a 'fan' of Rommel), but this? DAMN SON.
Honestly I never got the fascination over a girl or guy being from a certain country/area I've seen hot Canadians, Eastern European, Africans, Indians, etc, etc on the qualities I'm looking for in a women what country they're from is so low on the list it doesn't even matter to me.
I'm inclined to agree with you, though I will say that the primary reason for having a preference for eastern european women is I like the culture, the accents turn me on, and my first exposure to porn involved eastern european women
Howard A Treesong wrote:Crimea is still part of Ukraine whoever is in charge, a fragment of the country can't just go off doing their own thing because central government is in doubt and the Russians say they can do what they like. First the country needs to carry out democratic elections, then perhaps they need a referendum on crimea.
Surely the central Government being in doubt is the perfect time to go off and do your own thing? I mean, it's hard to imagine a better time to do it, than after your constitutionally elected authorities have been violently removed from power. This, in a nutshell:-
-Shrike- wrote:Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
From that Russia Today article linked to earlier in this thread.
“Pres Obama has been clear that we cannot allow Russia or any country to defy international law with impunity,” Sec. Kerry added. “There’s no place in the community of nations for the kind of aggression and steps that we have seen taken in Crimea and Ukraine in these last days.”
Only America is allowed to defy internation law with impunity.
“Pres Obama has been clear that we cannot allow Russia or any country to defy international law with impunity,” Sec. Kerry added. “There’s no place in the community of nations for the kind of aggression and steps that we have seen taken in Crimea and Ukraine in these last days.”
Only America is allowed to defy internation law with impunity.
It's our benefit for all this money we're spending
Anyone else sick of all this empty rhetoric and propaganda from Western leaders? They're all hypocrites, obsessed with globalism and expanding their own power and influence.
IMO they're making Putin look like the good guy, and thats quite a feat.
-Shrike- wrote:Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
To answer your second point, why should the Americans be proud of the 4th of July or the French; Bastille day?
Because in a democracy a government serves the people, the people have the right and the duty to overthrow a government that fails its constitutional agreement.
A government does not have the right to murder its own people just because they have a different opinion on how things should be run.
For the Crimea, just look at what is happening in the UK with Scotland, if it suddenly decided overnight it was leaving the union WITHOUT a democratic vote of all the people within the regional geopolitical boundary that the local government represents.
Just the members of the Scottish assembly government getting together and then saying "Scotland is now independent".
Imagine the Anarchy if anyone who has any area of land can just declare it as independent!
Now lets also add that the vote took place with no independent witnesses and under armed Russian troops!
-Shrike- wrote:Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
To answer your second point, why should the Americans be proud of the 4th of July or the French; Bastille day?
Because in a democracy a government serves the people, the people have the right and the duty to overthrow a government that fails its constitutional agreement.
A government does not have the right to murder its own people just because they have a different opinion on how things should be run.
For the Crimea, just look at what is happening in the UK with Scotland, if it suddenly decided overnight it was leaving the union WITHOUT a democratic vote of all the people within the regional geopolitical boundary that the local government represents.
Just the members of the Scottish assembly government getting together and then saying "Scotland is now independent".
Imagine the Anarchy if anyone who has any area of land can just declare it as independent!
Now lets also add that the vote took place with no independent witnesses and under armed Russian troops!
The referendum hasn't been yet...
It is now going to be held on 16 March, and all Crimeans will be able to vote on the question of joining Russia and reinstating the 1992 Crimean constitution.
The vote in the Crimean parliament has already voted to join Russia, but they will only do so if the population also agrees. The option which gets the most votes will be executed. That is democracy isn't it?
What's with all the creeps and Neonazis in the Ukraine? Are the newscast just making them out to be backwater idiots over there, or are they just THAT racist over there? If so, them Russians can have them.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: What's with all the creeps and Neonazis in the Ukraine? Are the newscast just making them out to be backwater idiots over there, or are they just THAT racist over there? If so, them Russians can have them.
Racist is a heavy word, but the Western Ukraine has long been (in)famous for its radical nationalism. The area around Lvov in particular.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: What's with all the creeps and Neonazis in the Ukraine? Are the newscast just making them out to be backwater idiots over there, or are they just THAT racist over there? If so, them Russians can have them.
There's some neo-nazi's there; when I went about 8 years ago now we were told not to go to Independence Square (where all the protests were) after dark because that's where the neo-nazis hung out
Jihadin wrote: It favors Putin so its the wrong type of democracy.
It has one of the belligerents "guaranteeing" the freedom of the vote. That's sketchy at best.
Just as a note, I say let the Crimeans have their voice heard on the issue, but it's rather poor form to have one side in complete military control of the place that's voting about whether or not to join that side.
Walrus I'm with you but what started out as Putin securing his Naval Base he invested in snowballed into what we have currently. Yet the Ukraine, US/EU, and/or Russia has even brought up that subject matter. US/EU leaped before they looked without even looking at the map of his initial troop movements. Now I've a feeling that Obama trying to save face along with Kerry and Putin letting them twist in the wind. So what happens when eastern Ukraine breaks off?
Jihadin wrote: Walrus I'm with you but what started out as Putin securing his Naval Base he invested in snowballed into what we have currently. Yet the Ukraine, US/EU, and/or Russia has even brought up that subject matter. US/EU leaped before they looked without even looking at the map of his initial troop movements. Now I've a feeling that Obama trying to save face along with Kerry and Putin letting them twist in the wind. So what happens when eastern Ukraine breaks off?
I actually heard something interesting on that note, legally, to break away, the referendum that Crimea is making has to be voted on by the entire country, not just Crimeans to be valid.
Jihadin wrote: It favors Putin so its the wrong type of democracy.
It has one of the belligerents "guaranteeing" the freedom of the vote. That's sketchy at best.
Just as a note, I say let the Crimeans have their voice heard on the issue, but it's rather poor form to have one side in complete military control of the place that's voting about whether or not to join that side.
Hey now, I'm sure Putin will make the elections exactly as free, fair and open as Russian elections are...
That said, if someone invaded Hawaii, then demanded they have an immediate referendum on independence while under military occupation, citing various independence movements as their justification... I'm sure everyone would be just fine and dandy with that.
Jihadin wrote: Walrus I'm with you but what started out as Putin securing his Naval Base he invested in snowballed into what we have currently. Yet the Ukraine, US/EU, and/or Russia has even brought up that subject matter. US/EU leaped before they looked without even looking at the map of his initial troop movements. Now I've a feeling that Obama trying to save face along with Kerry and Putin letting them twist in the wind. So what happens when eastern Ukraine breaks off?
I actually heard something interesting on that note, legally, to break away, the referendum that Crimea is making has to be voted on by the entire country, not just Crimeans to be valid.
you mean like voting on an elected leader like the one who was just run out of town?
seriously, you cannot claim legitimacy over crimea just because the parts of ukraine that are not crimea dont want it to go... tyranny of the majority and all that.
Plenty of states and even one of the provinces have had legal secession proceedings, its not an illegitimate practice at all.
You are saying that violent revolutionaries putting unelected people in power (some of whom are neo nazis) is more legitimate then a province holding a vote on what it as a people wants to do.
so in your opinion violent overthrow = democracy , having votes = oppressive violence/invasion/war.
so far, the use of force so far has been far more deaths on the side of the revolutionaries and none on the russians.
deal with it, CRIMEA and CRIMEANS get to decide their own fate... that is democracy, not the rest of Ukraine forcing them to stay when they done want to, and fairly dont recognize the appointed leaders of the recent violent revolution.
you say that like you think american elections are free, fair, and open...
HEY!!!..wait..I...um...wait..let me think....
Dangit..all that comes to mind was whathisnutsname that went around like a week ago asking people what their thoughts were on President Roosevelt who died the day earlier...
I seem to recall you yanks pulling one of those "illegitimate" cessations back in 1812... as I recall we burnt down your white house for it.
Uppity colonies, always trying to leave the empire... OK i reverse my position, force crimea to stay AT ALL COSTS! send in the troops! once more for the light brigade, TALLY HOOOOOOOO
Jihadin wrote: Crimea local government though does not recognize the new government...
No, I mean legaly even before this. I might be wrong though, I did just here this on the radio (and everything that's reported is true right! ).
It is true, according to the Ukrainian constitution, Crimean independence should be voted over by the whole of the Ukraine. But according to the same Ukrainian constitution it was illegal for the opposition to take over power in Kiev. Also according to the Ukrainian constitution, the new regime was not allowed to change many things they have changed (like the constitution itself).
And besides that, the whole constitution is pretty much irrelevant now because the Crimean government does no longer recognise the government in Kiev or the constitution.
If all of the Ukraine gets to vote in any referendum on Crimean independence, then shouldn't all of the UK get to vote on Scottish independence?
As a proud Brit and Englishman, I demand the right to vote on Scottish independence! Just who do they think they are anyway, daring to breaking away from our benevolent rule? They should know their place and stop complaining. [/sarcasm]
I think West Ukraine threw away the moral high ground on legitimacy and internation law when they decided to overthrow the elected government in favour of an unelected motley crew of violent Neo Nazis and pro-west demagogues. They can hardly complain of illegitimacy and international law when the pro-Russia east decides they don't want to be a part of this new Ukraine.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If all of the Ukraine gets to vote in any referendum on Crimean independence, then shouldn't all of the UK get to vote on Scottish independence?
As a proud Brit and Englishman, I demand the right to vote on Scottish independence! Just who do they think they are anyway, daring to breaking away from our benevolent rule? They should know their place. [/sarcasm]
Ketara wrote: That depends on your perspective. Global politics have a habit of flipping on their head every thirty years or so. The wheel turns, the historical dialectic comes into play, and systems and influences shuffle back and forth. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily, 'the end of of Russia's political influence' on Ukraine, regardless of the Crimea.
Sure, by no means is this a sign of a permanent end to Russian influence. I didn't mean to suggest that it was.
Merely that is reflective of a decline in power right now. Not even a decline based on anything permanent, possible just one of those fluctuations that happen, when for instance a really corrupt Russian backed leader is ousted from power and exposed. But the point is that Russia's move isn't part of some long game, it's a reaction to secure what is important to them when they weren't, for the time being, able to secure it through influence alone.
I would not be surprised if, for example, the US and EU made lots of very nice speeches about supporting the Ukraine economically over the next week, and then only followed through with the most token support.
It's all about joining NATO or not, really.
'Tis but a matter of opinion though. Time will tell.
Absolutely. People who are confident that they know how this is going to turn out don't know enough to know how little they know, if you get my meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Going going going GONE...Mid March...(single hit home run)
Maybe. The question is whether Russia wants it, as the Crimea would is a money pit (though Russia is fairly used to those), and it would mean losing a strong block of pro-Russian votes to influence Ukrainian politics.
Russia already has a vested interest in Crimea.Putin poured in quite of bit of funds upgrading/expanding the naval base that he has an agreement with the old Ukraine government that the new Ukraine government not recognizing or they forgot about it
Just the members of the Scottish assembly government getting together and then saying "Scotland is now independent".
Sure. But let me make this scenario remotely accurate. It'll have slight holes in, but will be as close as we can get using the UK as an example.
UK Scenario wrote:Assume that the democratically elected Lib/Con government in Westminster has been violently overthrown by an unelected coalition of UKIP, the BNP, and New Labour. Then Ireland bloodlessly stations troops all throughout Northern Ireland and says that they're going to hold a referendum.
Meanwhile, the BNP/UKIP/Labour coalition, insist hysterically that this is totally against the law in Britain, and that the Irish should butt out. All Northern Irish MP's take a vote for integration with mainland Ireland, and unanimously agree in favour. The new coalition in London says that this is an outrage, and that the entire United Kingdom should now vote on the secession of Northern Ireland. Then the US and EU declare trade sanctions against Ireland.
Does that seem quite so clear cut as the other situation? Because it's more or less identical, the only thing its missing is the tanks that gathered on the Ukrainian border temporarily. Would you be in favour of sanctions on the Irish in this scenario? If so, congratulations on consistency. I disagree with your opinion, but respect it. If not? Then I'm less inclined to pay attention.
Jihadin wrote: Russia already has a vested interest in Crimea.Putin poured in quite of bit of funds upgrading/expanding the naval base that he has an agreement with the old Ukraine government that the new Ukraine government not recognizing or they forgot about it
The lease on the naval base was never that politically safe, even under the old government. The renewal of the lease caused quite a storm in the Ukraine a couple of years ago.
With that lease was the discount to supply Ukraine with Natural gas. It was a agreement between both countries. Mind you the new government called on the old agreements made by the government they replaced for the US/EU to support them. The two brigades operating to secure that logistical lifeline was deemed "invasion" yet the new Ukraine never acknowledge Putin agreement and.I say again..called on US/EU to support them on old agreements. Why I mention earlier on this thread what would have happen if the new government informed Putin that his agreement was still in play and not ignore it.
The new government is screwing the pooch and continues to do so. Putin going to get Crimea and Eastern Ukraine I've a feeling the new government going to take that 1 billion dollar loan of ours and work it west to east.
-Shrike- wrote:Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
To answer your second point, why should the Americans be proud of the 4th of July or the French; Bastille day?
Because in a democracy a government serves the people, the people have the right and the duty to overthrow a government that fails its constitutional agreement.
A government does not have the right to murder its own people just because they have a different opinion on how things should be run.
For the Crimea, just look at what is happening in the UK with Scotland, if it suddenly decided overnight it was leaving the union WITHOUT a democratic vote of all the people within the regional geopolitical boundary that the local government represents.
Just the members of the Scottish assembly government getting together and then saying "Scotland is now independent".
Imagine the Anarchy if anyone who has any area of land can just declare it as independent!
Now lets also add that the vote took place with no independent witnesses and under armed Russian troops!
The referendum hasn't been yet...
It is now going to be held on 16 March, and all Crimeans will be able to vote on the question of joining Russia and reinstating the 1992 Crimean constitution.
The vote in the Crimean parliament has already voted to join Russia, but they will only do so if the population also agrees. The option which gets the most votes will be executed. That is democracy isn't it?
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: I seem to recall you yanks pulling one of those "illegitimate" cessations back in 1812... as I recall we burnt down your white house for it.
Uppity colonies, always trying to leave the empire... OK i reverse my position, force crimea to stay AT ALL COSTS! send in the troops! once more for the light brigade, TALLY HOOOOOOOO
Well we settled that gak hard in 1814. My ancestors thoroughly enjoyed shooting the crap out of redcoats to prove that Southern hospitality is a blessed thing.
easysauce wrote: I seem to recall you yanks pulling one of those "illegitimate" cessations back in 1812... as I recall we burnt down your white house for it.
Actually, 1812 was an invasion not a cessation. And I thought those were British regulars who torched the Capitol, but it's been a while since I last read about it so perhaps one of our Brit posters can verify that.
Still, you went back 200+ years for that? Seriously?
easysauce wrote: I seem to recall you yanks pulling one of those "illegitimate" cessations back in 1812... as I recall we burnt down your white house for it.
Actually, 1812 was an invasion not a cessation. And I thought those were British regulars who torched the Capitol, but it's been a while since I last read about it so perhaps one of our Brit posters can verify that.
Brits don't study that part of history. It was British regulars though that did it. The force that sacked D. C. had just arrived from Europe.
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
The Soviet Union is long gone, but clearly not in your mind. Get over it and come back to the present.
The people in Crimea are not being forced to vote one way or another, the Russian troops are there to protect the Russian naval base and stop the illegitimate regime in Kiev from interfering. They are not threatening any civilians.
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country.
Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
It was but the units were raised from the Canadian population some of the soldiers that burned the capitol were even present during the sacking of York (Toronto) and for them it was good old fashioned pay back, Canadians did not identify themselves as Canadian until after the war of 1812, it was that war that gave us our identity as Canadian.
But before there is a referendum perhaps a general election should be held first to elect a new Ukrainian leader
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country.
Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
I find it extremely Ironic, that so many people, from a country FOUNDED by an "illegitimate" declaration of independance from their true leaders in the great bristish empire,
would decry other people, trying to make their own decisions via democratic vote.
If you are calling a violent revolution "legitimate" (hey some are) but are calling a democratic vote "illegitimate" you might just be a hyppocrate (read in jeff foxworthy voice)
I find it extremely Ironic, that so many people, from a country FOUNDED by an "illegitimate" declaration of independance from their true leaders in the great bristish empire,
would decry other people, trying to make their own decisions via democratic vote.
If you are calling a violent revolution "legitimate" (hey some are) but are calling a democratic vote "illegitimate" you might just be a hyppocrate (read in jeff foxworthy voice)
I find it extremely Ironic, that so many people, from a country FOUNDED by an "illegitimate" declaration of independance from their true leaders in the great bristish empire,
would decry other people, trying to make their own decisions via democratic vote.
If you are calling a violent revolution "legitimate" (hey some are) but are calling a democratic vote "illegitimate" you might just be a hyppocrate (read in jeff foxworthy voice)
Oversimplify things much?
Yes... yes you do.
It does oversimplify slightly, but it does get the heart of an issue that a lot of the 'anti-Russia' crowd here and elsewhere seem to want to dance around. Usually by:-
a) saying any vote in the Crimea will totally be rigged by the evil Russians,
b) saying just because one group breaks the constitution does not make it alright for everybody else to do so,
c) ignoring it.
I find it extremely Ironic, that so many people, from a country FOUNDED by an "illegitimate" declaration of independance from their true leaders in the great bristish empire,
would decry other people, trying to make their own decisions via democratic vote.
If you are calling a violent revolution "legitimate" (hey some are) but are calling a democratic vote "illegitimate" you might just be a hyppocrate (read in jeff foxworthy voice)
Oversimplify things much?
Yes... yes you do.
It does oversimplify slightly, but it does get the heart of an issue that a lot of the 'anti-Russia' crowd here and elsewhere seem to want to dance around. Usually by:-
a) saying any vote in the Crimea will totally be rigged by the evil Russians,
b) saying just because one group breaks the constitution does not make it alright for everybody else to do so,
c) ignoring it.
If your not a Scottish-freedom-person-thing (they have a name, I just forgot it), would you be OK with Scotland seceding and joining Ireland. Or for people from the US, Texas or Alaska. Or for people from Canada, Quebec. And on, and on. I think that's the point. It's not like America and Britain, or India and Britain (you guys really did control about half the world) where it's a foreign power. I think that's their point. I don't really have an opinion on this issue yet, but you have to admit, Russia is a hard country to agree with knowing what Putin has done.
no one reads the long dissertations, besides which,
the point is very valid, simple as it may be,
we have one group of people who violently over threw a democratically elected leader, who broke the constitution by the opposition appointing people (factually verifiable neo-nazis amoung the appointations), then changed the constitution through declaration, instead of the legal means, being called legitimate.
where as a distinct group of people, who wish to hold a vote, by themselves, and for themselves, and have had no violence enacted to do it are being called illegitimate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: If your not a Scottish-freedom-person-thing (they have a name, I just forgot it), would you be OK with Scotland seceding and joining Ireland. Or for people from the US, Texas or Alaska. Or for people from Canada, Quebec. And on, and on. I think that's the point. It's not like America and Britain, or India and Britain (you guys really did control about half the world) where it's a foreign power. I think that's their point. I don't really have an opinion on this issue yet, but you have to admit, Russia is a hard country to agree with knowing what Putin has done.
by that same logic, new york shouldnt be able to elect a mayor that washington doesnt like... texas should have to run govenours by the other states ect ect.
same with the founding of the united states, totally illegal, come pick up your british citizenships and shut down your ilegal country immediatly
easysauce wrote: where as a distinct group of people, who wish to hold a vote, by themselves, and for themselves, and have had no violence enacted to do it are being called illegitimate.
Wasn't the parliament building stormed and the vote for a new PM took place in a room full of armed people?
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
The Soviet Union is long gone, but clearly not in your mind. Get over it and come back to the present.
The people in Crimea are not being forced to vote one way or another, the Russian troops are there to protect the Russian naval base and stop the illegitimate regime in Kiev from interfering. They are not threatening any civilians.
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country.
Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
yea its a 3rd world nation. Brazil stomps it GDP wise.
If you think a fair election can be held when one side is sitting there with guns you're what we call crazy.
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
The Soviet Union is long gone, but clearly not in your mind. Get over it and come back to the present. The people in Crimea are not being forced to vote one way or another, the Russian troops are there to protect the Russian naval base and stop the illegitimate regime in Kiev from interfering. They are not threatening any civilians.
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country. Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
yea its a 3rd world nation. Brazil stomps it GDP wise. If you think a fair election can be held when one side is sitting there with guns you're what we call crazy.
As opposed to the other type of crazy, who think a fair election can held in Kiev. Especially now that we know that if Western Ukraine doesn't like the result, they'll just overthrow the elected president.
Seriously, could you just answer this one question?
-Shrike- wrote: Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
If your not a Scottish-freedom-person-thing (they have a name, I just forgot it), would you be OK with Scotland seceding and joining Ireland. Or for people from the US, Texas or Alaska. Or for people from Canada, Quebec. And on, and on. I think that's the point. It's not like America and Britain, or India and Britain (you guys really did control about half the world) where it's a foreign power. I think that's their point. I don't really have an opinion on this issue yet, but you have to admit, Russia is a hard country to agree with knowing what Putin has done.
If the Scottish want to join Norway or Ireland or somewhere? Let 'em. Democracy baby.
You'll note that here in the UK, the rest of us don't get a vote on whether or not they leave. Whilst I'm ruthless in that I feel that any Scottish independence should be negotiated heavily in our favour (keeping highly Pro-Britain areas of 60% or more, retaining our nuclear base Gibraltar style, no currency union, etc), people who want to govern themselves should get it.
I find it extremely Ironic, that so many people, from a country FOUNDED by an "illegitimate" declaration of independance from their true leaders in the great bristish empire,
would decry other people, trying to make their own decisions via democratic vote.
If you are calling a violent revolution "legitimate" (hey some are) but are calling a democratic vote "illegitimate" you might just be a hyppocrate (read in jeff foxworthy voice)
It's also a country that fought a very bloody war to keep half of itself that wanted out as part of the union.
Grey Templar wrote: I think the difference there is that the citizens are the ones holding the guns.
They were? You could have fooled me. How did they fit the entire democratic electorate into such small offices?
I think what you meant to say, was that some few people who happen to be citizens are holding the guns. When you consider that most of the army/navy in Crimea defected and swore loyalty to the elected Parliament of Crimea, you realise that the second one actually has a better claim to legitimacy than the former.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If your not a Scottish-freedom-person-thing (they have a name, I just forgot it), would you be OK with Scotland seceding and joining Ireland. Or for people from the US, Texas or Alaska. Or for people from Canada, Quebec. And on, and on. I think that's the point. It's not like America and Britain, or India and Britain (you guys really did control about half the world) where it's a foreign power. I think that's their point. I don't really have an opinion on this issue yet, but you have to admit, Russia is a hard country to agree with knowing what Putin has done.
by that same logic, new york shouldnt be able to elect a mayor that washington doesnt like... texas should have to run govenours by the other states ect ect.
same with the founding of the united states, totally illegal, come pick up your british citizenships and shut down your ilegal country immediatly
That's not my logic. That's my interpretation of the reason people are against Russian cession of Crimrea. As I said " don't really have an opinion on this issue yet."
Seaward wrote: It's also a country that fought a very bloody war to keep half of itself that wanted out as part of the union.
so? the war of independance was a bloody one as well... you have to own both parts of history,
do we just pick and choose, based on what we in particular want to be "legitimate" at the time?
you would do well to remember, that the "legitimacy" of those secessions (both independance and civil war), was subjectively determined by the victor of the war, not because secession is legal or not as an absolute truth.
So the whole, "You can't decry the Crimean referendum because of the Revolution!" line is a bit weak with the Civil War coming less than a hundred years later.
Seriously, could you just answer this one question?
-Shrike- wrote: Why is this referendum illegal and anti-constitutional, and the violent revolution in Kiev something to be proud of?
You're creating a straw man. The only comparison here is yours. Further, they are having actual elections in Kiev. You can't have a free election if one of the parties is sitting there with tanks.
If they wanted that - and they don't- there would be UN or 3rd party poll watchers here. This is a Russia landgrab.
Grey Templar wrote: The presence of the Russian military taints the result of any election that Crimea takes.
Why? I don't genuinely believe that the Russians have had time yet to subvert the electoral system of another country, the Crimean MP's voted 64-0 in favour of integration before sending it to referendum, and the country is majority ethnically Russian. What's more, their alternative option seems to be a more than slightly anti-Russian administration that ousted the pro-russian administration they helped to vote in.
If this was Poland or somewhere, then yes, I wouldn't believe that the election would be free and fair, because there'd be no way that the Russians would win it without rigging it. But here? I honestly don't think they're going to rig it, simply because they don't have to. The majority of the locals want them there, and prefer them to the alternative choice (aka, the illegal anti-Russian coup government).
And that's what a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp, that a region could democratically wish to join Russia. No, no, no. It must be those evil Russians, forcing people into the voting booths at gunpoint and ticking the boxes for them whilst holding revolvers to their heads.
Frazzled wrote: When have the Russians had an election that was free and fair?
I think the question should be, 'When did Crimea last have a free and fair election'. Because they're the ones who have the established electoral system and the voting populace.
Although having said that, Russia doesn't generally rig elections. It tries to influence them by launching corruption charges and smear campaigns against certain candidates the Government doesn't like, but they don't tend to tamper with the boxes at the polling booths, or shoot people who vote the wrong way. They're not Robert Mugabe.
Just out of curiosity, if UN observers were sent in, and concluded that the referendum was totally free and fair, as it were, would you be willing to support their joining Russia?
Frazzled wrote: When have the Russians had an election that was free and fair?
I think the question should be, 'When did Crimea last have a free and fair election'. Because they're the ones who have the established electoral system and the voting populace.
Although having said that, Russia doesn't generally rig elections. It tries to influence them by launching corruption charges and smear campaigns against certain candidates the Government doesn't like, but they don't tend to tamper with the boxes at the polling booths, or shoot people who vote the wrong way. They're not Robert Mugabe.
Just out of curiosity, if UN observers were sent in, and concluded that the election was totally free and fair, as it were, would you be willing to support their joining Russia?
Under the gun of the RUssians. I'll repreat, when have the Russians ever had a free and fair election? When have they permitted another party under their control to have free and fair elections?
North Vietnam
North Korea
Poland
East Germany
Hungary
Czechloslavakia
Yugoslavia
Romania
When exactly? Which have the four or tifve rotating elections Putin has been in have been fair and free?
I don't genuinely believe that the Russians have had time yet to subvert the electoral system of another country, the Crimean MP's voted 64-0 in favour of integration before sending it to referendum, and the country is majority ethnically Russian. What's more, their alternative option seems to be a more than slightly anti-Russian administration that ousted the pro-russian administration they helped to vote in.
If this was Poland or somewhere, then yes, I wouldn't believe that the election would be free and fair, because there'd be no way that the Russians would win it without rigging it. But here? I honestly don't think they're going to rig it, simply because they don't have to. The majority of the locals want them there, and prefer them to the alternative choice (aka, the illegal anti-Russian coup government).
And that's what a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp, that a region could democratically wish to join Russia. No, no, no. It must be those evil Russians, forcing people into the voting booths at gunpoint and ticking the boxes for them whilst holding revolvers to their heads.
They've successfully intimidated/cowed/brainwashed their populace into only voting for the party the government wants to stay in power. Dissenters better stay home.
While the election results may be genuinely what gets entered in the polls, its a rigged system because of external pressures. Anyone that disagrees doesn't vote or the vote doesn't matter because their candidate was forced to leave the election.
Intimidating the candidates is just as bad as physically tampering with the ballots.
They've successfully intimidated/cowed/brainwashed their populace into only voting for the party the government wants to stay in power. Dissenters better stay home.
Prove it. Seriously, prove that one. I haven't heard a single media report of a Crimean MP being forced to step down, a single report of Russian troopers threatening people to vote the right way, or even a single report of a Russian trooper beating someone up.
As for brainwashing, the Crimean media has not been subverted or taken over to the best of my knowledge. The educational system does not have Marxist re-educationalists kicking out the teachers and indoctrinating the children. What's more, it would have to be some pretty fast brainwashing to be done in two weeks on the majority of the population.
In other words, what you just said? Prove it. Substantiate your wild assertion of Russians 'brainwashing' and intimidating the Crimean populace.
Ketara wrote: To reiterate my previous point Frazzled.
I don't genuinely believe that the Russians have had time yet to subvert the electoral system of another country, the Crimean MP's voted 64-0 in favour of integration before sending it to referendum, and the country is majority ethnically Russian. What's more, their alternative option seems to be a more than slightly anti-Russian administration that ousted the pro-russian administration they helped to vote in.
If this was Poland or somewhere, then yes, I wouldn't believe that the election would be free and fair, because there'd be no way that the Russians would win it without rigging it. But here? I honestly don't think they're going to rig it, simply because they don't have to. The majority of the locals want them there, and prefer them to the alternative choice (aka, the illegal anti-Russian coup government).
And that's what a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp, that a region could democratically wish to join Russia. No, no, no. It must be those evil Russians, forcing people into the voting booths at gunpoint and ticking the boxes for them whilst holding revolvers to their heads.
They won't rig it because they don't need to.
Pretty much because of the whole genocide and repopulation thing that someone mentioned a little earlier in the discussion.
Pretty much because of the whole genocide and repopulation thing that someone mentioned a little earlier in the discussion.
Sure. That was quite a while back now. That one can't be pinned on Putin. But if the Tartars hadn't been oppressed, would they have still had cause to hate Russia? You might have found that they'd be Pro-Russian instead, and thus nudge the majority even more in favour of Russian integration.
You can't rewrite history without affecting more than one factor.
Frazzled wrote:I heard it onthe news this morning, that MPs weren't allowed to vote.
Why exactly are you defending a dictator?
The MP's already voted to hold the referendum. 64-0, remember? Perhaps they're not allowed to vote in the referendum, but with only 64, that's hardly a dent in the voting populace, they've already indicated what they'd favour (Russia), and it's most likely a quirk of the Crimean voting system if anything.
Thing is Frazzled, I look at these things critically, and analytically. When people oppose things for the sake of opposing them, I try and point it out. I'm not in favour of 'Putin'. I'm in favour of the Crimean people's right to self-determination, especially when their alternative is a Government made of people who violently shoved their way into power, and are just as corrupt as the batch that preceded them.
If the Crimeans wanted independence? They should have it. They want to be Ukrainian? Sure. They want to be Russian? Daft, but their choice. If someone can genuinely produce something to show the Russians intimidating the local populace or vote rigging, then my opinion would change accordingly. But I've seen nothing whatsoever to substantiate anything like that occurring so far. If you can find it, please do show me. Until then, it's just an empty assertion, and if you asserted it before looking for evidence, then you're not looking at these things critically to begin with (and more looking for evidence to prop up a pre-existing bias).
Prove it. Seriously, prove that one. I haven't heard a single media report of a Crimean MP being forced to step down, a single report of Russian troopers threatening people to vote the right way, or even a single report of a Russian trooper beating someone up.
And I stated I did in fact hear just that this morning.
Again why are you defending a former KGB dictator?
Prove it. Seriously, prove that one. I haven't heard a single media report of a Crimean MP being forced to step down, a single report of Russian troopers threatening people to vote the right way, or even a single report of a Russian trooper beating someone up.
And I stated I did in fact hear just that this morning.
Again why are you defending a former KGB dictator?
Source?
And see my last post. I answered you quite explicitly, overtly, and bluntly there.
Frazzled wrote: You're defending a dictator who has invaded another country and is joyously well along in his process of annexing it.
Pharoah would be proud.
No. I'm telling you to substantiate your assertions. Which since you say you saw them this morning, shouldn't be too hard to remember where you saw it exactly?
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
The Soviet Union is long gone, but clearly not in your mind. Get over it and come back to the present. The people in Crimea are not being forced to vote one way or another, the Russian troops are there to protect the Russian naval base and stop the illegitimate regime in Kiev from interfering. They are not threatening any civilians.
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country. Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
yea its a 3rd world nation. Brazil stomps it GDP wise. If you think a fair election can be held when one side is sitting there with guns you're what we call crazy.
1. Brazil is also not a 3rd world nation. 2. GDP does not say anything about standard of living. 3. The standard of living of the average Russian is a lot higher than that of the average Brazillian. 4. Russia is ranked as 'high' on the Human Development index. It seems you still don't know what a 3rd world country is. And why so afraid of guns? It is not like they are threatening anyone with them. The Crimean people can do and vote whatever they want. It is not like they are being held hostage or forced to vote at gunpoint. The Russians are there to guarantee the possibility of a referendum in the first place. Why is that so hard to understand? If the Russian soldiers hadn't been there, the regime in Kiev would have never allowed this referendum to be held. Should the Crimeans vote to remain part of Ukraine, the Russian soldiers would withdraw to Sevastopol. But of course the Crimeans aren't going to choose to remain part of the Ukraine. Everyone who knows Crimea knows that by far the most people would rather be a part of Russia. Why all this hatred towards Russia?
Frazzled wrote: You're defending a dictator who has invaded another country and is joyously well along in his process of annexing it.
Pharoah would be proud.
So now you are calling Putin a dictator? Putin is a highly popular and democratically elected (in elections under international supervision) president. If you call Putin a dictator than you should call Obama also a dictator.
Frazzled wrote: You're defending a dictator who has invaded another country and is joyously well along in his process of annexing it.
Pharoah would be proud.
No. I'm telling you to substantiate your assertions. Which since you say you saw them this morning, shouldn't be too hard to remember where you saw it exactly?
Heard - radio. NPR or BBC most likely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although having said that, Russia doesn't generally rig elections
The Russians are there to guarantee the possibility of a referendum in the first place. Why is that so hard to understand? If the Russian soldiers hadn't been there, the regime in Kiev would have never allowed this referendum to be held.
Should the Crimeans vote to remain part of Ukraine, the Russian soldiers would withdraw to Sevastopol. But of course the Crimeans aren't going to choose to remain part of the Ukraine. Everyone who knows Crimea knows that by far the most people would rather be a part of Russia.
Why all this hatred towards Russia?
Yes and no. The Crimeans wouldn't get the referendum without them being there.
At the same time, guaranteeing that referendum is not the Russian's motivation for being there. And I'm not convinced they'll withdraw if it goes against them. More likely that would be when repression/setting up a puppet state would begin.
But at the end of the day, they're not doing it yet, because they don't think they have to. It also makes the West look like bloody hypocritical fools, because they're criticising democracy and self-determination when they criticise the Crimea voting to join Russia.
Frazzled wrote:Heard - radio. NPR or BBC most likely.
I've done a search. Can't find anything. I'm afraid that a second hand assertion on a radio show isn't quite enough for me to believe that the Crimeans are suddenly suffering widespread repression, simply because that would be front-page if it was more than just somebody's opinion at this stage.
Wow, that just stops me cold.
It might help if you actually read the rest of the post as opposed to stopping nine words in.
See, Frazzled, I've actually lived in a country where the voting system is rigged. Where the votes are read by a man with a gun in front of you, where you get denied food if you vote the wrong way, where tens of thousands of votes are 'lost', and the entire dead population seems to vote for the current Government. Compared to those, Putin's election was the very model of democracy.
At the same time, I am aware that the Russian Government does a LOT to bias people one way or another. But at the end of the day, you don't get hunted down in Russia for voting the wrong way, they don't deliberately lose/alter your vote, and you don't get much in the way of fraud. They'll do everything else to alter the outcome, but a rough democracy does prevail, and I can substantiate that with reports from electoral monitoring bodies if necessary.
Iron_Captain wrote:So now you are calling Putin a dictator? Putin is a highly popular and democratically elected (in elections under international supervision) president. If you call Putin a dictator than you should call Obama also a dictator.
This is nonsensical. Putin's popular in some parts, and yes, he is relatively democratically elected. Yes, some internal supervisors are present. But they operate under severe restrictions, there are severe attempts to stab the competition in the back before they reach the voting booth, and some supervisory bodies choose to bypass Russia on that basis.
Obama is infinitely more legitimate in terms of democracy than Putin.
So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
Democracy at the point of a gun is not Democracy, except in the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, er Russia. Now Vote Properly Comrade. Its very cold in Siberia.
Whats funny is Russia is a 3rd rate just this side of 3rd world country now.
The Soviet Union is long gone, but clearly not in your mind. Get over it and come back to the present.
The people in Crimea are not being forced to vote one way or another, the Russian troops are there to protect the Russian naval base and stop the illegitimate regime in Kiev from interfering. They are not threatening any civilians.
Your second comment is so full of gak and ignorance that I don't even know why I bother replying to it. Clearly you have never been to Russia nor an actual 3rd world country.
Maybe you should learn to think before you insult other nations.
yea its a 3rd world nation. Brazil stomps it GDP wise.
If you think a fair election can be held when one side is sitting there with guns you're what we call crazy.
1. Brazil is also not a 3rd world nation.
2. GDP does not say anything about standard of living.
3. The standard of living of the average Russian is a lot higher than that of the average Brazillian.
4. Russia is ranked as 'high' on the Human Development index.
It seems you still don't know what a 3rd world country is.
And why so afraid of guns? It is not like they are threatening anyone with them. The Crimean people can do and vote whatever they want. It is not like they are being held hostage or forced to vote at gunpoint.
The Russians are there to guarantee the possibility of a referendum in the first place. Why is that so hard to understand? If the Russian soldiers hadn't been there, the regime in Kiev would have never allowed this referendum to be held.
Should the Crimeans vote to remain part of Ukraine, the Russian soldiers would withdraw to Sevastopol. But of course the Crimeans aren't going to choose to remain part of the Ukraine. Everyone who knows Crimea knows that by far the most people would rather be a part of Russia.
Why all this hatred towards Russia?
Sorry I'm not debating with a child over Russia.
Frazzled wrote: You're defending a dictator who has invaded another country and is joyously well along in his process of annexing it.
Pharoah would be proud.
So now you are calling Putin a dictator? Putin is a highly popular and democratically elected (in elections under international supervision) president. If you call Putin a dictator than you should call Obama also a dictator.
In Sevastopol, the Russian soldiers stormed the Ukrainian military unit A2355.
This was reported by the agency " Interfax-Ukraine "of the assistant on duty.
According to him, the Russian military army broke through the gates KAMAZ military unit seized a nearby house, and now burst to the command.
On the territory of the pieces are about 100 Ukrainian military, on the number of attackers is not the spokesman said.
In turn, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine said that at this time about 20 people stormed the tactical command post of the "Crimea" Ukrainian Air Force.
Among a group of attackers - "Cossacks", as well as local radicals with bits that throw stun grenades.
According to the information at this time commander and political officer got out of the command post and hold talks with the strikers. The personnel of the military unit barricaded himself in one of the barracks.
A military unit 2355 is located in Sevastopol Yuharinoy beam.
DUDE!?!?!?
The Ukrainian troops are barricading themselves in their bunkers.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
MGS has the way of it.
Yup. Agreed...
But, then again... I don't know gak. It's just looks all sorts of bad.
They've successfully intimidated/cowed/brainwashed their populace into only voting for the party the government wants to stay in power. Dissenters better stay home.
Prove it. Seriously, prove that one. I haven't heard a single media report of a Crimean MP being forced to step down, a single report of Russian troopers threatening people to vote the right way, or even a single report of a Russian trooper beating someone up.
As for brainwashing, the Crimean media has not been subverted or taken over to the best of my knowledge. The educational system does not have Marxist re-educationalists kicking out the teachers and indoctrinating the children. What's more, it would have to be some pretty fast brainwashing to be done in two weeks on the majority of the population.
In other words, what you just said? Prove it. Substantiate your wild assertion of Russians 'brainwashing' and intimidating the Crimean populace.
The presence of active Russian military units is the intimidation.
Brainwashing is the fact that Crimea was still part of the USSR less than 40 years ago. Plenty of time for the Soviet brainwashing effects to still be around.
I've been to Russia, I've talked with Russians. Many of them still see the USSR in a very positive light. That attitude will still be around in Crimea. They'll have taught their children the same thing.
They've successfully intimidated/cowed/brainwashed their populace into only voting for the party the government wants to stay in power. Dissenters better stay home.
Prove it. Seriously, prove that one. I haven't heard a single media report of a Crimean MP being forced to step down, a single report of Russian troopers threatening people to vote the right way, or even a single report of a Russian trooper beating someone up.
As for brainwashing, the Crimean media has not been subverted or taken over to the best of my knowledge. The educational system does not have Marxist re-educationalists kicking out the teachers and indoctrinating the children. What's more, it would have to be some pretty fast brainwashing to be done in two weeks on the majority of the population.
In other words, what you just said? Prove it. Substantiate your wild assertion of Russians 'brainwashing' and intimidating the Crimean populace.
The presence of active Russian military units is the intimidation.
Brainwashing is the fact that Crimea was still part of the USSR less than 40 years ago. Plenty of time for the Soviet brainwashing effects to still be around.
I've been to Russia, I've talked with Russians. Many of them still see the USSR in a very positive light. That attitude will still be around in Crimea. They'll have taught their children the same thing.
My time in Kyrgyzstan showed me the same thing. Lots of nostalgia for the USSR.
Grey Templar wrote: The presence of the Russian military taints the result of any election that Crimea takes.
I'm not saying the new Government in Kiev is any better. Its the choice between crap and crap.
At the very least the government in Kiev has more legitimacy, as legitimate as any revolutionary government can be.
Without the Russian presence would there even be a democratic referendum in Crimea? Just now I was watching some Kiev spokesman on Sky News, quite belligerently condeming the Crimean seperatists as criminals and traiters, breaching international law and the Ukranian Constitution (the irony and projection there is quite hilarious, considering recent events in Kiev).
If Russia did not have a military presence in Crimea, "keeping the peace" as they put it, is it possible that there'd be bloodshed between military forces loyal to the new Western government in Kiev, and the forces that have deserted/defected to the Crimean seperatist faction? Wouldn't the Kiev faction attempt to crack down on the Crimean seperatists by force?
Seems to me like Russia's occupation is preventing a civil war...at the risk of World War III.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
Just out of interest, would you say the same to any Northern Irish who want Irish integration? I know the situations are not exactly parallel, but I'm curious.
I'm of the opinion that it was seventy years ago, and whilst that sucks for the people who were deported, that's no reasOn to deny the right of self-determination to the multiple generations born there of Russian heritage since. But that's my viewpoint, and solely a matter of opinion. I'd hate to be the one to be telling seventy years worth of people that they had no voice because of something a dictator did a long time ago though.
Frazzled wrote:
This is why I'm not debating a child over Russia.
Honestly don't blame you.
djones520 wrote:Russian troops attack a Ukranian military base.
I guess the Russians ran out of patience, although it might have been prompted by the Crimean MP's. Regardless, it's a shame, and shouldn't have happened.
I would appreciate you not just labelling me as an 'apologist' though, without at least engaging in reasoned discussion. That just smacks of incendiary trolling to me.
The presence of active Russian military units is the intimidation.
Brainwashing is the fact that Crimea was still part of the USSR less than 40 years ago. Plenty of time for the Soviet brainwashing effects to still be around.
I've been to Russia, I've talked with Russians. Many of them still see the USSR in a very positive light. That attitude will still be around in Crimea. They'll have taught their children the same thing.
You're conflating cultural indoctrination with brainwashing here. It's the sort of thing that leads to believing that your system is best because everyone teaches you how to point out the perceived flaws in every other culture's style of thinking, whilst promoting your own one mindlessly.
As for the intimidation, I've read reports from Crimeans on the BBC about how they find the Russian presdence to be actually comforting. So kind of the exact opposite?
While there might be a little more fighting, I don't think there would be full on warfare.
The new Government really wouldn't be in much shape to take back Crimea even without the Russians there.
My take is the Russians should mind their own damn business. If the Crimea wants to come back you let them come to you, you don't just waltz in at the first sign of "we're gonna have a vote to go back to Russia"
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
Just out of interest, would you say the same to any Northern Irish who want Irish integration? I know the situations are not exactly parallel, but I'm curious.
I'm of the opinion that it was seventy years ago, and whilst that sucks for the people who were deported, that's no reaosn to deny the right of self-determination to the mutliple generations born there of Russian heritage since. But that's my viewpoint, and solely a matter of opinion. I hate to be the one to be telling seventy years worth of people that they had no voice because of something a dictator did a long time ago though.
The Russians turned the indigenous people of that area into a minority in living memory. They moved their own people into this desirable piece of real estate in living memory, the treatment of the Tatars didn't stop when Stalin was gone, they were continually treated as second class citizens throughout Russian Soviet ownership of the area. The issues of Northern Ireland are over 500 years old and not only not parallel but fairly totally unrelated. A fairer analogy would be Scotland claiming independence in the forthcoming referendum and then the English marching in to claim the lowlands and some strategic oil field ownership at the same time 5 years later because the english living in Scotland claimed they felt threatened.
What I'm really trying to illustrate here is the Crimean and Eastern Provinces are being portrayed as 'naturally Russian' when they aren't, they've received an influx of intentionally placed Russian people to these areas in the last 70 years, that's not enough to warrant cutting those chunks of Ukraine off and giving them to the Russians, unless you also want to cut out sizable parts of the city of Bristol and give it to Somalia or Poland.
If it sucked to be the people deported 70 years ago, perhaps today it sucks to be the Russian migrants living in Ukraine, without the whole force-able relocation to your likely death bit...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: While there might be a little more fighting, I don't think there would be full on warfare.
The new Government really wouldn't be in much shape to take back Crimea even without the Russians there.
My take is the Russians should mind their own damn business. If the Crimea wants to come back you let them come to you, you don't just waltz in at the first sign of "we're gonna have a vote to go back to Russia"
We should hold emergency talks and sign Ukraine into NATO immediately.
Park a few bombers in her Western airfields, a Nimitz in the Black Sea and then see how frisky Putin's 'unmarked army' is feeling, especially as being unmarked, they can be targeted and liquidated as terrorists.
Grey Templar wrote: Kazakhstan was also like that, despite the crumbling half finished buildings and general decay the Soviets left behind.
You'll encounter that in many parts of the former Soviet Union. Why? Because the Soviet Union actually was better in many ways. Those decaying buildings say enough. After the collapse of the USSR, the whole economy and society, pretty much everything came crashing down. There wasn't any money left to maintain all the nice Soviet infrastructrure. The whole area suffered a lot during the '90s, and it is still in the process of rebuilding.
A country like Russia had to be rebuilt almost from scratch. Putin did that very well, which explains his high popularity in Russia. Only recently has Russia almost reached the same standard of living again that it had in the USSR. Apart from the heavy political opression, the USSR was not that bad a place. Especially for most Central Asian nations, as they have not rebuild as well as Russia has.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So, Crimea, mainly Russian population since...? About 70 years ago.
Why so recent? Because the indigenous Tatar people were force-ably relocated by Uncle Joe Stalin, resulting in the deaths of around 50% of the relocated who were shipped off to the fringes to mine salt and uranium and enjoy the comfort of gulags.
So it's all Russian folks in Crimea now? No, there are still Tatars there, they are just now in the minority, but having seen many of their chums forced off to die in various frozen hells, these poor bastards aren't exactly thrilled with the prospect of being assimilated into Putin's new empire.
So... tell me why people who moved to the area 70 years ago at the behest of a great monster are being talked about like they really have any sort of claim to move the Crimea into the Russian sphere, whilst the Tatars, who've been there considerably longer, are to be overlooked, suppressed and reabsorbed back into a nation that did a fairly convincing job of making them an endangered species, should be told 'sorry mate, you're in the minority and that's how democracy works'.
If the Russians want to be in Russia, cross the effing border, you're family has been in the area for 70 years, that's less time than my grandparents have been alive, hardly a convincing claim to national dominance.
1. Tatars are not the indigenous people. They replaced those who lived in Crimea before them (Pechenegs, Russians, Greeks) during the Middle Ages.
2. Russians had been living in Crimea before the Tatars came.
3. Russians have started moving towards the Crimea again from the 18th century onwards, not just the last 70 years.
4. Land changes hands all the time, it does not belong to any people by default.
The Russians turned the indigenous people of that area into a minority in living memory. They moved their own people into this desirable piece of real estate in living memory, the treatment of the Tatars didn't stop when Stalin was gone, they were continually treated as second class citizens throughout Russian Soviet ownership of the area. The issues of Northern Ireland are over 500 years old and not only not parallel but fairly totally unrelated. A fairer analogy would be Scotland claiming independence in the forthcoming referendum and then the English marching in to claim the lowlands and some strategic oil field ownership at the same time 5 years later because the english living in Scotland claimed they felt threatened.
What I'm really trying to illustrate here is the Crimean and Eastern Provinces are being portrayed as 'naturally Russian' when they aren't, they've received an influx of intentionally placed Russian people to these areas in the last 70 years, that's not enough to warrant cutting those chunks of Ukraine off and giving them to the Russians, unless you also want to cut out sizable parts of the city of Bristol and give it to Somalia or Poland.
If it sucked to be the people deported 70 years ago, perhaps today it sucks to be the Russian migrants living in Ukraine, without the whole force-able relocation to your likely death bit...
I get the whole living memory bit MGS. No need to triple emphasize.
But I would say as someone who believes in democracy and freedom to choose, that ultimately, what is done is done. Repressing that sixty percent of the population today in favour of that ten percent does not make the events of seventy years past right. All it does it create a new wrong. And then the cycles of bitterness and genocide carry on through the generations, until nobody can even remember who oppressed who to begin with.
You don't have to agree with me on that one, and I'm not expecting you to. But I would oppose people who would suppress that sixty percent of the population, the vast majority of whom were not even alive at the time of the tartar population shift, let alone mature adults responsible for what occurred. By all means, punish those responsible for the shift. But I see no reason to punish and remove basic human rights from those who did nothing but get born into an area where a crime against humanity was committed half a century previously.
Then, as Grey_Templar said, do it without the 30,000 Russian troops that are there.
You seem to think that the problem is the Crimea might vote to leave the Ukraine. That is not the issue. It's that it could do so under the sway of strongest military power in the region.
The Russians turned the indigenous people of that area into a minority in living memory. They moved their own people into this desirable piece of real estate in living memory, the treatment of the Tatars didn't stop when Stalin was gone, they were continually treated as second class citizens throughout Russian Soviet ownership of the area. The issues of Northern Ireland are over 500 years old and not only not parallel but fairly totally unrelated. A fairer analogy would be Scotland claiming independence in the forthcoming referendum and then the English marching in to claim the lowlands and some strategic oil field ownership at the same time 5 years later because the english living in Scotland claimed they felt threatened.
What I'm really trying to illustrate here is the Crimean and Eastern Provinces are being portrayed as 'naturally Russian' when they aren't, they've received an influx of intentionally placed Russian people to these areas in the last 70 years, that's not enough to warrant cutting those chunks of Ukraine off and giving them to the Russians, unless you also want to cut out sizable parts of the city of Bristol and give it to Somalia or Poland.
If it sucked to be the people deported 70 years ago, perhaps today it sucks to be the Russian migrants living in Ukraine, without the whole force-able relocation to your likely death bit...
But I would say as someone who believes in democracy and freedom to choose, that ultimately, what is done is done. Repressing that sixty percent of the population today in favour of that ten percent does not make the events of seventy years past right. All it does it create a new wrong. And then the cycles of bitterness and genocide carry on through the generations, until nobody can even remember who oppressed who to begin with.
You don't have to agree with me on that one, and I'm not expecting you to. But I would oppose people who would suppress that sixty percent of the population, the vast majority of whom were not even alive at the time of the tartar population shift, let alone mature adults responsible for what occurred. By all means, punish those responsible for the shift. But I see no reason to punish and remove basic human rights from those who did nothing but get born into an area where a crime against humanity was committed half a century previously.
A new wrong sees some people who identify as Russian living as they were, in Ukraine, a new wrong in the other direction sees an already diminished populace re-assimilated into a vast nation that has already made a fairly successful attempt to destroy them and will now likely simply suffocate them into extinction.
And what human rights are being removed from the russian identifying majority who's parents moved into that area? I was unaware of them being forced into camps or have their families split up or anything else really, other than the Soviet empire they moved into the area under the auspices of had collapsed and left them on the wrong side of the border, at which stage they could either suck it up and work to be better Ukrainians or ship out.
1. Tatars are not the indigenous people. They replaced those who lived in Crimea before them (Pechenegs, Russians, Greeks) during the Middle Ages.
2. Russians had been living in Crimea before the Tatars came.
3. Russians have started moving towards the Crimea again from the 18th century onwards, not just the last 70 years.
4. Land changes hands all the time, it does not belong to any people by default.
1. Right, so about a thousand years ago.
2. Some, the Tatars were in the majority for a thousand years.
3. Perhaps, they were still a small minority until Stalin sent most Tatars to their deaths.
4. Indeed, and now they were Ukrainian, until Putin decided to play Emperor...
djones520 wrote: Then, as Grey_Templar said, do it without the 30,000 Russian troops that are there.
You seem to think that the problem is the Crimea might vote to leave the Ukraine. That is not the issue. It's that it could do so under the sway of strongest military power in the region.
The Crimea would never be democratically allowed to leave the Ukraine under the Ukrainian Constitution. What is more, the one body that could have legally authorised it has been removed by an illegal coup which now masquerades as the legal authority. In reality, it has no legal right or authority to tell the Crimean populace what it can and cannot do.
I think that in this particular case, the Russian troops are actually enabling them to have a vote they would not otherwise get to have. And no, I do not believe that the Russians are going to manipulate it. Mainly because they don't need to. To reprint:-
If this was Poland or somewhere, then yes, I wouldn't believe that the election would be free and fair, because there'd be no way that the Russians would win it without rigging it. But here? I honestly don't think they're going to rig it, simply because they don't have to. The majority of the locals want them there, and prefer them to the alternative choice (aka, the illegal anti-Russian coup government).
And that's what a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp, that a region could democratically wish to join Russia. No, no, no. It must be those evil Russians, forcing people into the voting booths at gunpoint and ticking the boxes for them whilst holding revolvers to their heads.
So far, the only evidence I've heard that those troops may have anything to do with the results are:
a) they exist. This makes them intimidating, and will clearly make people vote to enter into autocracy via secret ballot willingly.
b)an assertion that someone on the radio said something along those lines at some point.
c) The evil Russians have brainwashed all the crimean people into voting for them, which makes it not true democracy.
And all of these things, gentlemen, are more or less either unsubstantiated or ridiculous. When someone can produce a legitimate piece of evidence that is not inherently untrustworthy, or finds its basis more in fact than pre-disposed bias, I'll accept it.
And what human rights are being removed from the russian identifying majority who's parents moved into that area?
You noted it as a problem that the ethnic Russians would vote to join Russia, and this would drown out the voice of the Tartars correct? You seemed to imply in your posts that the ethnic Russians should not have the right to self-determination and to integrate with Russia if they so desired, because the Tartars were wiped out seventy years ago.
So well, those human rights. You'd be prioritising the ten percent of the population above the sixty if you denied the people of Russian descent their right to self-determination on that basis.
djones520 wrote: Then, as Grey_Templar said, do it without the 30,000 Russian troops that are there.
You seem to think that the problem is the Crimea might vote to leave the Ukraine. That is not the issue. It's that it could do so under the sway of strongest military power in the region.
The Crimea would never be democratically allowed to leave the Ukraine under the Ukrainian Constitution. What is more, the one body that could have legally authorised it has been removed by an illegal coup which now masquerades as the legal authority. In reality, it has no legal right or authority to tell the Crimean populace what it can and cannot do.
I think that in this particular case, the Russian troops are actually enabling them to have a vote they would not otherwise get to have. And no, I do not believe that the Russians are going to manipulate it. Mainly because they don't need to. To reprint:-
And how is that Russia's issue then? As has been stated, if people of Russian ethnicity want to be Russian, then they can walk across the border.
If N. Ireland wished to leave the UK, would you support the US dropping the 101st in until a vote could be held?
Russia is playing Imperial King Maker here, plain and simple. Were the US to do something like this, the international indignation would be through the roof. There would be no arguing if it was wrong or not.
Started reading on page 34ish and pretty much went skimming after that with the "Russian" military ubit seemingly influencing the general population votes for being there with "guns to their heads".
You all forgotten the Iraq free elections and Afghanistan Free election with US/Coalition military forces securing the area of the voting centers?
whembly wrote: Ketara... why have this referendum now then?
Why not wait till the new Ukrainian officials are elected?
Still looks like a potential Civil War is brewing there...
Russia is pushing the timing because they want the vote settled and the Crimean populace to state that they want to join. Why? Because it pulls the rug out from under the West. It makes them look even more like hypocrites. How can they push for Crimean integration into a country that the Crimeans have just staggeringly voted to be no part of? It makes the West look like idiots.
That's Russia's goal, and it coincides with the Crimeans. They don't want to be under this new administration in Kiev, because they've already given clear indications that they'll make problems for the Russian speakers. They'd rather be independent, or under the Russian thumb, than under the Ukrainian robber Baroness who got done for skimming 5% off all the gas revenue into her swiss bank account, in coalition with a bunch of nationalists.
djones520 wrote: Then, as Grey_Templar said, do it without the 30,000 Russian troops that are there.
You seem to think that the problem is the Crimea might vote to leave the Ukraine. That is not the issue. It's that it could do so under the sway of strongest military power in the region.
The Crimea would never be democratically allowed to leave the Ukraine under the Ukrainian Constitution. What is more, the one body that could have legally authorised it has been removed by an illegal coup which now masquerades as the legal authority. In reality, it has no legal right or authority to tell the Crimean populace what it can and cannot do.
I think that in this particular case, the Russian troops are actually enabling them to have a vote they would not otherwise get to have. And no, I do not believe that the Russians are going to manipulate it. Mainly because they don't need to. To reprint:-
And how is that Russia's issue then? As has been stated, if people of Russian ethnicity want to be Russian, then they can walk across the border.
If N. Ireland wished to leave the UK, would you support the US dropping the 101st in until a vote could be held?
.
To be accurate, it would have to be the US drops the 101 in, and then two days later Ireland declares it wants to be the 51st state. We've seen this game before.
Jihadin wrote: Started reading on page 34ish and pretty much went skimming after that with the "Russian" military ubit seemingly influencing the general population votes for being there with "guns to their heads".
You all forgotten the Iraq free elections and Afghanistan Free election with US/Coalition military forces securing the area of the voting centers?
When did thousands of suicide bombers and militants start attacking Ukranians?
That's a horrible analogy Jihadin. I've been in theater for two of those elections, and I know damn well what our troops were doing those days. Comparing them to what the Russian troops are doing right now is disgusting.
To be accurate, it would have to be the US drops the 101 in, and then two days later Ireland declares it wants to be the 51st state. We've seen this game before.
To be accurate, it would have to be under the scenario I outlined a few pages back, with the British Government violently ousted by a UKIP/BNP/New Labour coalition, and then the Irish dropping troops in and allowing a Northern Irish referendum on secession to Ireland.
Ultimately, sure its a little dodgy. But as long as the vote is not rigged, then no, I see no problem with a section of the country abandoning an illegal institution to join another country. Basic democracy.
djones520 wrote:N. Ireland wished to leave the UK, would you support the US dropping the 101st in until a vote could be held?
Under the adjusted scenario above featuring regular Ireland, I would have no problem with it. I'm consistent.
Russia is playing Imperial King Maker here, plain and simple. Were the US to do something like this, the international indignation would be through the roof. There would be no arguing if it was wrong or not
The US routinely does far worse than this in terms of international invasions and politics. That's why people go through the roof each time they do it.
IF there is an election, and it went the wrong way, it was just disappear. Again, we've seen this dance before in Russian client states.
Under those circumstances, I would be amongst those calling on Russia to withdraw instantly and respect the decision of the people. Likewise, I would join them if the vote appeared to be rigged, and voters coerced or intimidated.
But until then? There's no need to re-enact the Cold War Mk II over it. And the West just looks insanely reactionary and hypocritical.
The fact that a horrific injustice was committed to an ethnic group 70 years ago does not justify taking revenge by repeating that same injustice against the ethnic group of the dictator responsible for the original crime. And lets not forget that this dictator treated many members of his own ethnicity in similar ways - the gulags weren't just reserved for non-Russians.
After the Cold War when the Soviet Empire fell, the West had the chance to build a positive relationship with Russia. Instead, we chose to continue treating it with hostility and repeatedly humiliated and isolated it. I suppose every superpower needs a bogeyman.
We have been rubbing Russia up the wrong way for nearly 25 years.
It is hard to see why.
Moscow could have been our friend if we had wanted that.
We rightly viewed the old Soviet Union as a global menace to freedom.
But Russia is no such thing, just a major regional power sick of being humiliated and pushed around by ignorant outsiders.
I watched the old Soviet menace vanish on the streets of Moscow in August 1991 when a KGB putsch failed, the Communist Party was shattered in pieces, and the USSR collapsed in a cloud of rust.
Russians always believed there was an unspoken agreement that, in return for this, they would be allowed their dignity. They now believe that agreement has been broken.
What was left after 1991 was Russia, a proud and courageous people living amid the wreckage left by 74 years of Marxism and hoping to revive their ravaged country. We could have helped them.
By indulging Boris Yeltsin’s debauched reign (during which he shelled his own parliament while the West looked on complacently), we made Russian voters see Vladimir Putin as an attractive alternative.
The Putin government is squalid, but nothing like as bad as that of China, with whom we are on good terms.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed.
In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike.
They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed
We have awakened the ancient passions of this cruel part of the world, who knows where it will lead?
We have awakened the ancient passions of this cruel part of the world, who knows where it will lead?
Senior American, German and EU figures have gone to Kiev to egg on the anti-Russian crowds. Imagine how you would feel if Russia’s Foreign Minister turned up at SNP rallies in Edinburgh, backing Scottish independence.
Putin’s Crimean games are a sarcastic response.
The unspoken message is: ‘You like breakaway movements and meddling in other people’s business? Try this for size.’
And now, having raised hopes we cannot fulfil, we have awakened the ancient passions of this cruel part of the world and who knows where our vainglorious folly will now lead?
IF there is an election, and it went the wrong way, it was just disappear. Again, we've seen this dance before in Russian client states.
Under those circumstances, I would be amongst those calling on Russia to withdraw instantly and respect the decision of the people. Likewise, I would join them if the vote appeared to be rigged, and voters coerced or intimidated.
But until then? There's no need to re-enact the Cold War Mk II over it. And the West just looks insanely reactionary and hypocritical.
Oh we don't need to start the Cold War. Don't assume we should care what happens to them. I just think the thought of a fair election run by Russians to be a prima facae farce.
IF there is an election, and it went the wrong way, it was just disappear. Again, we've seen this dance before in Russian client states.
Under those circumstances, I would be amongst those calling on Russia to withdraw instantly and respect the decision of the people. Likewise, I would join them if the vote appeared to be rigged, and voters coerced or intimidated.
But until then? There's no need to re-enact the Cold War Mk II over it. And the West just looks insanely reactionary and hypocritical.
Oh we don't need to start the Cold War. Don't assume we should care what happens to them. I just think the thought of a fair election run by Russians to be a prima facae farce.
It's mildly amusing, isn't it? Russia is hardly what one would usually call a guarantor of human rights But like I said, they won't rig it, simply because they don't need to. And as long as the people get what they want, then well....be careful what you wish for? They may find in twenty years time that joining Russia will be easier than leaving.
No shots fired. The gate supposedly driven through still intact. And the military lorries actually surrounded by irregulars, not Russians troops. Although the aforementioned irregulars have kicked the crap out of some journalists.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The fact that a horrific injustice was committed to an ethnic group 70 years ago does not justify taking revenge by repeating that same injustice against the ethnic group of the dictator responsible for the original crime. And lets not forget that this dictator treated many members of his own ethnicity in similar ways - the gulags weren't just reserved for non-Russians.
An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...
After the Cold War when the Soviet Empire fell, the West had the chance to build a positive relationship with Russia. Instead, we chose to continue treating it with hostility and repeatedly humiliated and isolated it. I suppose every superpower needs a bogeyman.
We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed.
In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike.
They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed
So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The fact that a horrific injustice was committed to an ethnic group 70 years ago does not justify taking revenge by repeating that same injustice against the ethnic group of the dictator responsible for the original crime. And lets not forget that this dictator treated many members of his own ethnicity in similar ways - the gulags weren't just reserved for non-Russians.
An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...
Naturally Russia? No, only since 1783. Your words are ironic and hypocritical, coming from an American. Give back the US to the native Americans, than you may speak. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. The new government in Kiev is clearly unfriendly towards Russians, denying them their rights to their own language and culture, and forcing them to learn Ukrainian. No wonder they want to be independent Crimea is ethnically Russian now, and whether you like it or not, it is the way it is. Besides that, Stalin wasn't even Russian, and Russians found their way to the Gulags as much as other ethnicities.
After the Cold War when the Soviet Empire fell, the West had the chance to build a positive relationship with Russia. Instead, we chose to continue treating it with hostility and repeatedly humiliated and isolated it. I suppose every superpower needs a bogeyman.
We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.
Muslims are hardly a suitable bogeyman. Not only are they unable to threaten the US on a large-scale level, there are also many muslims in the US who take offense. No, the US has never gotten out of its Cold War attitude towards Russia. Instead of giving the aid Russia needed in in the 90's, or at least leaving Russia alone, you had to break your treaties and promises and encroach ever further upon Russia's sphere of influence. The Russians offered you peace, an end to hostilities and old stereotypes, but instead of accepting that offer, you chose to decieve and threaten. And as you sow, so shall you reap. Now that Putin has restored order and Russia is growing in strenght again, you should not be surprised that this new Russia is even more hateful towards the US than the old. Sadly, a new Cold War seems almost inevitable, now that the US and their allies are declining, and Russia and China are on the rise.
Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia’s neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed. In recent months, the EU and the United States have been willing to wound but afraid to strike. They have aggressively sought to detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow. Rather than recognising that the Cold War was over, we re-started it for no good reason, encouraging Russia's neighbours to join the EU or Nato as if the USSR still existed
So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars? Ridiculous.
The West had explicitly promised not to flirt with Russia's ex-wife. It is a very bad analogy in any case. International relations are much, much more complicated than that. The US has no business in the Ukraine. Sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is considered very rude over here.
Iron_Captain, I'm British, so perhaps stop making assumptions.
Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises, if you want to discuss, discuss, but stop making simple contrary statements without basis or grounds or even the bloody decency to acknowledge when I'm being factual.
And if you ever try to whitewash the Stalinist regime's actions with 'well he wasn't even russian and some russians got killed so it's not fair on russia to complain about a people being wary of russian conquest due to Stalin' again, I'll put your excuse-making arse on ignore.
Naturally Russia? No, only since 1783. Your words are ironic and hypocritical, coming from an American.Give back the US to the native Americans, than you may speak. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Actually, MGS is one of those heathen tin miners from Cornwall.
He's no Yank, he just moved there.
Instead of giving the aid Russia needed in in the 90's, or at least leaving Russia alone, you had to break your treaties and promises and encroach ever further upon Russia's sphere of influence.
It's not so much a conscious choice as the nature of capitalism, and American capitalism in general. Marx had a lot to say on that one.
Sadly, a new Cold War seems almost inevitable, now that the US and their allies are declining, and Russia and China are on the rise.
China, yes, Russia, no. Throwing your weight around militarily does not re-invigorate your economy or increase your population count beyond a certain point. France and the UK combined have the total population of Russia. Russia, sadly, looks to be more or less done for as a major power unless they can turn things around on the domestic front.
It is completely irrelevant if it is ethnically Russian. That topic has been beat to death multiple times in this thread. Let it rest. Russia may be on the rise, but it is still decades away from being an economic power on par with the US, China, and Japan. China is more concerned with domestic problems than it is with making land grabs. Large portions of the country are woefully undeveloped and don't even have access to basic amenities that Western nations take for granted.
Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises, if you want to discuss, discuss, but stop making simple contrary statements without basis or grounds or even the bloody decency to acknowledge when I'm being factual.
And if you ever try to whitewash the Stalinist regime's actions with 'well he wasn't even russian and some russians got killed so it's not fair on russia to complain about a people being wary of russian conquest due to Stalin' again, I'll put your excuse-making arse on ignore.
Trust me, I would be one of the last to whitewash Stalin's actions, my grandfather lost his life in the Gulags. Stalin's actions are however no reason to prefer one ethnicity over another.
If you are British, I apologise. I assumed you were American due to the US flag next to you posts.
Also the rest of your response is basically like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud noises
Instead of being hypocritical, you could have adressed my opinions. I have yet to see you back up your opinions with any facts or post anything else but simple contrary statements yourself. You are giving your opinion, not making 'factual statements'.
I respect your opinion however, and I ask of you to respect mine.
Stick your head in the ground if you want to, but that is not how an adult should behave in my opinion.
Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.
An ethnic group that were in the majority in that area, an area now being touted as 'naturally Russia'... well, yes, if you persecute a people on an industrial level and move your own folks in, that's one way to do it, except for those of that people who remain in the area, along with all the other ethic groups with history there and no damned wish to be assimilated into Putin's new empire. But let's all say feth them, because they are in the minority now, so we must consider the Russians who were being...? Persecuted in Ukraine? Tortured? Forceably relocated? Not that I could see...
Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev trying to assert its authority over them after overthrowing the legitimate elected government that they favoured, they should all just bugger off back to where they (or rather, their great grandparents) came from. ?
We already had our bogeymen, they kneel to Mecca, Russia was just a mess, and it's officials and people in power were willing to sell out their own, their own nation and whore it out to the highest bidder. Where do you think these robber barons who invest their blood money in football teams and so on came from? Russians sold Russia down the river.
Ditto for Ukraine. The revolutionaries are hardly angels and model democrats themselves. Who'd have guessed, just 70 years after the horrors of fascism, national socialism and the holocaust that The West - the supposed free world - would be encouraging violent rebellions across the world and propping up a rag tag coalition government with a significant proportion of Neo Nazi's.
So it's the West's fault that we've been flirting with Russia's ex-wife after the divorce? So Russia is vindicated in showing up at her house in the middle of the night, claiming rights to the children and threatening to beat her up? And that's our fault for showing her a good time after he pissed off following an abusive marriage full of broken promises and scars?
Seeing as we're bandying about hyperbolic and idiotic analogies...two can play at that game.
-Russia & it's Ex (Ukraine) have acrimoniously split up.
-The kids are still on good terms with Russia and want to keep in contact.
-But Ukraine is having none of it, and stubbornly refuses contact rights. She bans the kids from speaking Russia's language - from now on they must only speak Ukranianian. All aspects of Russian culture are frowned upon.
-They had a prior agreement that Russia could still have access to the car, but now shes arbitrarily changed her mind.
-Whats more, Ukraine has shacked with Russia's old Nemesis the West. And to rub salt into the wound, The West has moved into their family house, across the street from Russia.
-Russia tried to bury the hatchet and reconcile with The West years ago, but The West kept on bullying and insulting Russia. Now Russia is humiliated and angry.
-After a violent psychotic outburst in which Ukraine self harmed, the kids have decided of their own free will that mama's loco and they'd prefer to live with Russia.
-Frightened, the kids asked Russia for help. Russia wants to protect his kids, and he wants to get back his car, so whilst Ukraine was distracted he sneaked into the house and locked himself and the kids in a room. He insists that he will accept the decision of the kids on who to live with.
-Ukraine's not happy about this, and has angrily labeled the kids as traitors. The West threatens Russia with "consequences", and goes round the neighbourhood telling everybody how nasty Russia is and tries to convince Russia's business clients not to do business with him.
Ridiculous.
Why? Because the article doesn't confirm your pre-conceptions?
The author of that article is a well travelled and knowledgeable foreign correspondent and journalist. He spent several years living in Soviet Russia (Moscow). Hes reported from inside North Korea, Somalia during the civil war, Palestine (Gaza), Iraq shortly after the invasion, South Africa during the Apartheid era, and China. He reported undercover from Iran. I think his analysis of the situation warrants a more thoughtful critique than a stupid analogy from a belligerant Yank Brit who dismisses out of hand everything that doesn't confirm his preconceptions of "West = Good. Russia = Bad".
Neither side is acting honourably, but The West is very much responsible for instigating this and many other hotspots around the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We are repeating the mistakes of 1918-1933. Instead of being magnanimous in victory, we took revenge.
Ketara wrote: Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.
Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions.
It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis
ShepNewsTeam ✔ @ShepNewsTeam
Follow
REPORTS: Situation at #Ukraine military base in #Crimea is over, two #Russia trucks drove off after "talks"
3:08 PM - 7 Mar 2014
Ketara wrote: Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.
Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions.
It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis
Please don't jump to conclusions about my own personal preconceptions. Yes, I'm British, but I've lived in other places in the world. I've also read fairly extensively in several academic fields by various nationalities(including Soviet and communist sources), meaning that I can usually spot my own cultural preconceptions when I run into them. You might note I seem to be doing a lot of arguing in this thread with various people.
But when you launch off into how powerful or wonderful Russia is in eighty five different ways with blanket opinionated assertions about military and economic strength that are woefully inaccurate, people simply don't take you seriously. It could be because you're simply not old enough to have read widely enough, I don't know your age (I'm assuming you're young as several people have called you a kid). And that's fine. We all start somewhere. I've learnt things here on Dakka to be true that I thought were not, and vice versa. Every day, you learn new things.
But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.
I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.
Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev
Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev
Annnnnddd you're outta there!
Hyperbole begats hyperbole.
Though, for the record. Do you deny that Neo Nazi groups were involved in some of the most violent protests, have been accused of using snipers to target both the Police and Protesters, and have had several of their members appointed to government positions?
But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.
I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.
Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.
Iron Captain, it reads from your posts like you are waving a banner and willing to argue anything and everything that does not entirely support Russia and Russia's perspective, widely targeting and blanket responding with counters without actual thought through reasoning but instead a strongly announced statement without the ability to back it up, like the statements about Russia's military, which were not in keeping with modern military thinking.
Right. Ok then. Lets just deport all ethnic Rus living in Crimea en masse back to Russia. If the ethnic Rus living in Crimea don't like the Neo Nazi regime in Kiev
Annnnnddd you're outta there!
Hyperbole begats hyperbole.
Though, for the record. Do you deny that Neo Nazi groups were involved in some of the most violent protests, have been accused of using snipers to target both the Police and Protesters, and have had several of their members appointed to government positions?
...begets...
I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.
Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?
I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.
Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?
No more ridiculous and childish than your silly, oversimplified analogy.
Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.
On that sidenote, will you be at Adepticon this year MGS? I'll be heading over, and sharing a scotch over a casual game could be good fun.
Do you deny that calling the current government of the Ukraine a 'Neo Nazi Regime' was ridiculous and childish?
In all fairness to both sides gentlemen, the analogy was a bit oversimplified, but likewise calling the Ukrainian administration neo-nazi's is equally oversimplified.
In all fairness to both sides gentlemen, the analogy was a bit oversimplified, but likewise calling the Ukrainian administration neo-nazi's is equally oversimplified.
So where exactly are we at on this thread?
Neo Nazi in Ukraine government?
Russia strong arming the Crimea local government?
Rig Crimean Elections?
So we were in Iraq and Afghanistan during their election Yep its a combat zone. Russia troops are not in a combat zone but troops are there. Saying their military presence effecting the outcome is saying the same about us effecting both those election.
So we were in Iraq and Afghanistan during their election Yep its a combat zone. Russia troops are not in a combat zone but troops are there. Saying their military presence effecting the outcome is saying the same about us effecting both those election.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that bro...
I'll admit, I'm not really qualified to have a concrete opinion... but, Iraq/Afganistan are (or were) active war zones. Ukraine is nothing like that...
Ketara wrote: Iron_Captain, just as something in the nature of friendly advice. You have something of a habit of making quite controversial statements with regards to Russian superiority, geopolitics, economics, and so forth without actually being able to substantiate them. Whilst I can see that you do genuinely want to have a constructive debate, you need to be able to provide a certain degree of proof, or most people will just bypass/dismiss you. Especially when what you're saying runs contrary to established cultural beliefs or perceptions.
Your cultural beliefs and perceptions are different than mine. And altough I am familiar with yours (I have mostly been living in the West since 2008, including a while in Scotland ), I do not see why I should be the only one to provide proof. Shouldn't both sides provide proof in a debate? I am just trying to state what the majority of Crimeans and Russians think of the situation, and therefore I cite RT, one of the more liberal Russian news sites, as proof. If you do not want to hear or accept that opinion, well than there might be one of the reasons that Russia and the West did not become friends. Maybe Russian values are inherently incompatible with Western values, or maybe both sides are just too full of themselves to accept different opinions. It is somewhat ironic though. Here I am seen as too pro-Russian, while on the Russian forums, I am seen as too pro-Western. I feel like having an identity crisis
Please don't jump to conclusions about my own personal preconceptions. Yes, I'm British, but I've lived in other places in the world. I've also read fairly extensively in several academic fields by various nationalities(including Soviet and communist sources), meaning that I can usually spot my own cultural preconceptions when I run into them. You might note I seem to be doing a lot of arguing in this thread with various people.
But when you launch off into how powerful or wonderful Russia is in eighty five different ways with blanket opinionated assertions about military and economic strength that are woefully inaccurate, people simply don't take you seriously. It could be because you're simply not old enough to have read widely enough, I don't know your age (I'm assuming you're young as several people have called you a kid). And that's fine. We all start somewhere. I've learnt things here on Dakka to be true that I thought were not, and vice versa. Every day, you learn new things.
But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.
I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.
Thanks for your kind words, it is good to hear them, and to be honest, I did not realise I was coming across as such. I apologise if I come across as overly patriotic, I may wave a Russian banner around every now and then, but I do not intend to be like that. However, it is said of the Russians that they love their country like a mother, and that is true for me as well, so I sometimes react rather violently to any perceived insult. I will try to reign it in as much as possible It is just that here in the West, I come across a lot of prejudice, racism and ignorance towards anything Russian, so I tend to be rather defensive about it. After all, it is every ethnic Russian's duty to defend his Motherland As people have noted, I am indeed young and somewhat inexperienced, though I strive to learn as much as I can. I am fairly knowledgable about topics relating to Russia (and Crimea especially), altough this knowledge stems more from personal experience and local contacts than from academic sources. However, if people more knowlegable than I am (and I am sure many of you are) start waving around fair, academic sources, I'll happily concede my argument, but not everyone else here makes such well substantiated posts as you do. Some other people also just shout their opinion without really substantiating. In any case, I want to try to substantiate my posts as well as possible, but I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into words. Language is also a barrier here, and I do not always understand what people mean when they write something. I really like your posts, they are unbiased, knowledgable and mostly well sourced. I wish I could say things as well as you can say them.
But you seem to make your assertions in a very provocative fashion, and rarely substantiate the most controversial ones. I'll note here that I'm probably just as bad with how I come across on the net, but I can usually cite multiple sources and books for any fact that I care to state, whilst you seem to link to an RT article every once in a while, and leave it at that.The result being that whilst MGS and I might disagree heavily on something, he and I go our separate ways without dismissing the other out of hand, but when you two butt heads, that doesn't happen so much.
I apologise if this comes off as patronising at all. I'm just trying to help you engage with all the other wonderful chaps on this forum in a productive and fun way.
Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.
Iron Captain, it reads from your posts like you are waving a banner and willing to argue anything and everything that does not entirely support Russia and Russia's perspective, widely targeting and blanket responding with counters without actual thought through reasoning but instead a strongly announced statement without the ability to back it up, like the statements about Russia's military, which were not in keeping with modern military thinking.
Again, I apologise if I came across as too patriotic. I'll gladly concede my arguments about Russia's military to anyone with superior military knowledge and good sources. I also try to get good sources, like NATO's former secretary-general, who said that the EU was a military dwarf compared to Russia and who I quoted earlier in this thread. I do put thought into my posts, but my opinions may be too strongly worded at times. Maybe you could give me some tips as how to better substantiate my opinions?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I won't deny something that is true, far right groups have been in protests, just as ultra-nationalist far right Russian groups have been in protests in the Crimean region. Positions in the temporary government have been given to right wing party representatives.
Good that you mention ultra-nationalist Russian groups. I have been going on about ultra-nationalist Ukrainians for so long now that I may as well start talking about Russian groups as well. It is important, because ultra-nationalist Russian groups, especially Cossacks are very active in Crimea at the moment and the Cossacks do certainly influence the situation there. According to one of my friends who lives in Simferopol, they are very active in organising pro-Russian protests right now and they beat up opponents and that kind of nasty stuff. The Cossacks are a really intimidating bunch, and they stand pretty much above of the law, so it is worrying. Not just in Crimea, but in the whole of Southern Russia. I was reading a very interesting background article on the return of the Cossacks just yesterday, and maybe you'll find it interesting as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/world/europe/cossacks-are-back-in-russia-may-the-hills-tremble.html Still, I find it hard to dissaprove of the Cossacks, they are like a combination of a knight and a cowboy, and it is them who made Russia in what it is today. They are the ones who conquered Siberia. I dissaprove of their actions towards non-Russians, but they are simply so awesome, they are like the epitome of Russian :
Indeed, Ketara and I agree on some threads, disagree on others, but I am usually inclined to stop and listen soundly to what he's saying and I am reassured that he, like several others who post here who post sound and balanced arguments, could sit down and have a beer with and talk about less incendiary matters or have a game of something.
On that sidenote, will you be at Adepticon this year MGS? I'll be heading over, and sharing a scotch over a casual game could be good fun.
No sir, I heard all you wiff-waff were coming over here so I'm taking Mrs S back to Blighty for two weeks...two... weeks.... two... w.....
Park a few bombers in her Western airfields, a Nimitz in the Black Sea and then see how frisky Putin's 'unmarked army' is feeling, especially as being unmarked, they can be targeted and liquidated as terrorists.
Iron_Captain wrote: Thanks for your kind words, it is good to hear them, and to be honest, I did not realise I was coming across as such.
I didn't think you did, which was why I wanted to try and get across to you in a non-hostile fashion the type of miscommunication that was going on between you and other posters here. I could see you and a number of other people getting fustrated, and was starting to discount you in the same way, and then realised it probably wasn't entirely fair and nice. We're all just normal blokes here to chat about toy soldiers, and occasionally something on the side. Life's too short for us to get upset over stuff on the internet.
not everyone else here makes such well substantiated posts as you do. Some other people also just shout their opinion without really substantiating. In any case, I want to try to substantiate my posts as well as possible, but I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into words. Language is also a barrier here, and I do not always understand what people mean when they write something. I really like your posts, they are unbiased, knowledgable and mostly well sourced. I wish I could say things as well as you can say them.
As someone who's currently striving their best to make it as a military historian, impartiality and thoroughness are part of the crucial main tools of my trade if I want to succeed. As you say, you won't always get people posting eighty five sources in support of their opinion, but most people don't need/want to write huge essays on Dakka as I'm sometimes inclined to do. Which is fair enough, and on most points, it's not always necessary.
I'll gladly concede my arguments about Russia's military to anyone with superior military knowledge and good sources. I also try to get good sources, like NATO's former secretary-general, who said that the EU was a military dwarf compared to Russia and who I quoted earlier in this thread.
I do put thought into my posts, but my opinions may be too strongly worded at times. Maybe you could give me some tips as how to better substantiate my opinions?
A few good tips:-
1) Try not to make broad assertions like, 'The EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia', unless they are manifestly self-evident, and specialist knowledge is not required. To make that statement means you need to have at least basic grasp of the economics behind each countries input into defence, the level of manpower they draw upon, and the comparative levels of technology. If you don't have those things, all you know is that someone said it, and you're repeating it. Which is fine if that other person was knowledgeable, but if they weren't, you'll suffer the same response they did. Which leads to:
2) Before you quote a source as a fact, or even accept as truth anything you read or write, question it. Who wrote it? What was their agenda? What other beliefs do they have, and what motivations? NATO's former Secretary General? What are his interests? Does he work for a prominent defence firm? Does he possibly have interests in exaggerating the Russian menace, in order to boost the 'need' for NATO, and the funding it receives? Is he trained in economics, or was he just a diplomat who got shuffled sideways? You're not always going to have the answers to these questions, but if you ask yourself what motivations a person could have to believe something, or to try and make you believe something, it'll make you harder to fool, more critical, and more impartial.
"What if I told you....that you could save hundreds on car insurance by switching to Geico?"
3) Distrust the media. Seriously. Everyone has an agenda to push. That sparkling review of Krzygstan by their Travel Editor? He got paid to write it. The article slagging off the British prime Minister? The owner of the paper just had a spat with him over a new restrictive law and wants to make him look bad. The 'survey' on how bad immigrants are? Odds are it was manipulated figures in some way, or all the other papers would be running it too.
If you know what influences and pressures a newspaper or website is under, you can spot the gaps in their reporting, and the spin they employ. You can, in other words, read between the lines and deduce the actual facts, or which ones are missing. If you get all your information from one or two media sources, and you don't know what their angle is, they're effectively directing your perception of events. It's a trap a lot of people get sucked into.
"I'll show that son of a gun Spiderman who really controls public opinion round here!"
4) Accept that opinion is not fact, and be able to separate the two in yourself when discussing something. Sebster and me had a slight disagreement a few pages back over Putin's motivations. We both made our predictions/reasoning plain, discussed them briefly, and then politely agreed to disagree. Very gentlemanly, very polite, educated on both sides. But you might remember him saying
sebster wrote: People who are confident that they know how this is going to turn out don't know enough to know how little they know, if you get my meaning.
Excellent advice. We both made our predictions and educated guesses, but we are both aware that we may not be in possession of all the facts, It is possible for two people to logically work off the same data and come to a different conclusion. As none of us have a truly defining piece of evidence to convince the other one or to prove our viewpoints, we are both aware that we're ultimately just guessing. If we tried to pass our opinions off as facts and dismiss all alternative views, we'd be being intellectually dishonest.
5) Try and be friendly. When you can feel yourself getting annoyed, try and tone your own posts down a little. I had an argument with another chap earlier on in this thread. I tried to tone my own posts down whilst trying to imply something of a ceasefire, but my own posts still had enough bite in them he didn't believe I was being genuine. Which is fair enough. We took it to PM, and now we're good. Too many people forget this is a wargaming site about toy soldiers, and being able to accept you are wrong, or even just saying, 'Yeah, we're getting overheated over this' makes it that much more fun for everyone. Also lowers your heart pressure.
"Mustn't....Blame...the victim!!!"
MGS wrote:No sir, I heard all you wiff-waff were coming over here so I'm taking Mrs S back to Blighty for two weeks...two... weeks.... two... w.....
People keep saying this, can I ask how when or where ?
Because I'm struggling to recall anything along this line really.
I'm sure there has no doubt been the odd occasion when Russia may have lost out, so to speak, in a situation, but no more so than any other nation has IMO.
I do seem to recall us bending over backwards to help Russia/former USSR countries with aid packages, investments and the like. And those people from those countries who have done well -- I'll grant you there some severely dubious sort of chaps, rum coves as t'were, amongst those who've made , literally, billions, whilst huge swathes of their country is left to stagnate and rot and decay but one would suggest that is little more than business as usual as it was under the previous regime and seems to infer that the west/rest of the world should, somehow have stopped this from happening.
Which -- impossibility aside -- one would suggest if we had even attempted to do so would indeed have been somewhat bullying and insulting to the people/nations involved.
Of course some of those who have died will have been killed by Terrorists and the like.
But it is somewhat ..... odd ...? ... convenient .. ? ... quite how many people who were investigating or critical of the regime have met with unfortunate accidents. Or committed suicide or etc etc
Also, you know, Alexander Litvinenko being murdered in the British streets by a Russian agent didn't paint Putin as a reasonable chap.
Seeing that poor bastard dying of radiation poisoning in a hospital bed didn't fill me with warm fuzzy feelings towards Russia and it's overlord and doesn't fill me with hope for the type of government offering to 'protect' big chunks of Ukraine...
Iron_Captain wrote: Thanks for your kind words, it is good to hear them, and to be honest, I did not realise I was coming across as such.
I didn't think you did, which was why I wanted to try and get across to you in a non-hostile fashion the type of miscommunication that was going on between you and other posters here. I could see you and a number of other people getting fustrated, and was starting to discount you in the same way, and then realised it probably wasn't entirely fair and nice. We're all just normal blokes here to chat about toy soldiers, and occasionally something on the side. Life's too short for us to get upset over stuff on the internet.
not everyone else here makes such well substantiated posts as you do. Some other people also just shout their opinion without really substantiating. In any case, I want to try to substantiate my posts as well as possible, but I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into words. Language is also a barrier here, and I do not always understand what people mean when they write something. I really like your posts, they are unbiased, knowledgable and mostly well sourced. I wish I could say things as well as you can say them.
As someone who's currently striving their best to make it as a military historian, impartiality and thoroughness are part of the crucial main tools of my trade if I want to succeed. As you say, you won't always get people posting eighty five sources in support of their opinion, but most people don't need/want to write huge essays on Dakka as I'm sometimes inclined to do. Which is fair enough, and on most points, it's not always necessary.
I'll gladly concede my arguments about Russia's military to anyone with superior military knowledge and good sources. I also try to get good sources, like NATO's former secretary-general, who said that the EU was a military dwarf compared to Russia and who I quoted earlier in this thread. I do put thought into my posts, but my opinions may be too strongly worded at times. Maybe you could give me some tips as how to better substantiate my opinions?
A few good tips:-
1) Try not to make broad assertions like, 'The EU is a military dwarf compared to Russia', unless they are manifestly self-evident, and specialist knowledge is not required. To make that statement means you need to have at least basic grasp of the economics behind each countries input into defence, the level of manpower they draw upon, and the comparative levels of technology. If you don't have those things, all you know is that someone said it, and you're repeating it. Which is fine if that other person was knowledgeable, but if they weren't, you'll suffer the same response they did. Which leads to:
2) Before you quote a source as a fact, or even accept as truth anything you read or write, question it. Who wrote it? What was their agenda? What other beliefs do they have, and what motivations? NATO's former Secretary General? What are his interests? Does he work for a prominent defence firm? Does he possibly have interests in exaggerating the Russian menace, in order to boost the 'need' for NATO, and the funding it receives? Is he trained in economics, or was he just a diplomat who got shuffled sideways? You're not always going to have the answers to these questions, but if you ask yourself what motivations a person could have to believe something, or to try and make you believe something, it'll make you harder to fool, more critical, and more impartial.
"What if I told you....that you could save hundreds on car insurance by switching to Geico?"
3) Distrust the media. Seriously. Everyone has an agenda to push. That sparkling review of Krzygstan by their Travel Editor? He got paid to write it. The article slagging off the British prime Minister? The owner of the paper just had a spat with him over a new restrictive law and wants to make him look bad. The 'survey' on how bad immigrants are? Odds are it was manipulated figures in some way, or all the other papers would be running it too.
If you know what influences and pressures a newspaper or website is under, you can spot the gaps in their reporting, and the spin they employ. You can, in other words, read between the lines and deduce the actual facts, or which ones are missing. If you get all your information from one or two media sources, and you don't know what their angle is, they're effectively directing your perception of events. It's a trap a lot of people get sucked into.
"I'll show that son of a gun Spiderman who really controls public opinion round here!"
4) Accept that opinion is not fact, and be able to separate the two in yourself when discussing something. Sebster and me had a slight disagreement a few pages back over Putin's motivations. We both made our predictions/reasoning plain, discussed them briefly, and then politely agreed to disagree. Very gentlemanly, very polite, educated on both sides. But you might remember him saying
sebster wrote: People who are confident that they know how this is going to turn out don't know enough to know how little they know, if you get my meaning.
Excellent advice. We both made our predictions and educated guesses, but we are both aware that we may not be in possession of all the facts, It is possible for two people to logically work off the same data and come to a different conclusion. As none of us have a truly defining piece of evidence to convince the other one or to prove our viewpoints, we are both aware that we're ultimately just guessing. If we tried to pass our opinions off as facts and dismiss all alternative views, we'd be being intellectually dishonest.
5) Try and be friendly. When you can feel yourself getting annoyed, try and tone your own posts down a little. I had an argument with another chap earlier on in this thread. I tried to tone my own posts down whilst trying to imply something of a ceasefire, but my own posts still had enough bite in them he didn't believe I was being genuine. Which is fair enough. We took it to PM, and now we're good. Too many people forget this is a wargaming site about toy soldiers, and being able to accept you are wrong, or even just saying, 'Yeah, we're getting overheated over this' makes it that much more fun for everyone. Also lowers your heart pressure.
"Mustn't....Blame...the victim!!!"
MGS wrote:No sir, I heard all you wiff-waff were coming over here so I'm taking Mrs S back to Blighty for two weeks...two... weeks.... two... w.....
Poor show old chap, poor show!
Exalted Ketara...
This should be stickied.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This place seems to getting weird...
...warned that the Russia would not stand by passively while Russophobic and neo-Nazi gangs hold the people of Crimea, Kharkiv and Donetsk at their mercy. ...
There's one (of many) problem with that...
The pro-Russian protesters under the leadership of Pavel Gubarev, the self-proclamied governor of Donetsk, who seized several buildings these past weeks, made severl demands to the local authorities, including the holding of a referendum on the status of the region.
This guy, Mr. Gubarev... is a known Nazi:
It's all about Russian assets in the region... nothing more than that.
Wow, Ukraine is full of Nazis.
But yeah this was always about Russian assets. The fact that they have local support is only a bonus and the whole pretext.
I now want to punch SWC right in its gestalt face.
For those not wanting to read the article it basically says the invasion of Crimea does suck but EU expansion eastwards, historical Russian paranoia of encirclement and the West's dubious wars elsewhere make it not so bad. Its relativistic crap in my opinion, the fact such a 'moral' organisation is willing to endorse the "one for me, one for you" supposedly realist interpretation of geopolitics is baffling but far from surprising. Sadly, particularly for myself as a left-libertarian, the "liberal-left" is awash with an anti-American/anti-West fetish. If the West touches it they simply back the other side.
What is happening in Crimea is in my opinion effectively Anschluss. A referendum for joining Russia following an armed coup, with no build-up to allow foreign observers in (according to the BBC, EU officials have tried several times to enter the region only to be barred by armed militia) or opposition groups to organise while Russian soldiers occupy the area is a white wash.
I have no doubt the intervention by Russia is popular with many, possibly the majority in Crimea but 42% of the population are Ukrainian and Tatar. The Ukrainians have just seen their corrupt president, a puppet of Moscow, removed after popular demonstration only to see Russian troops march into their country. The Tatars meanwhile (plus the former reason) have excellent reason to be wary of a Russian takeover, seeing as they've been ethnically cleansed from the area before.
Regardless of result, this situation will probably not end well in inter-communal tension terms. A Russian Crimea will be a very depressing place to live for the 42% minority.
Here's hoping the West doesn't chicken out like in Syria. With a nuclear-armed UN Security Council member running the job though, I'm not really holding my breath.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Crimea is still legally Ukrainian and the Americans unlike the UK have been relatively hawkish, both in language and things like freezing Russian assets. Have Ukraine fast tracked into NATO and send military forces into the country to avoid other area falling to Russian control. Send a fleet to Crimea, the Ukrainians still control some of the naval bases. Send troops with them, so these few free zones can at least provide a safe haven for minorities. Turkey is a NATO member, threaten to deny passage through the Bosporus to all Russian shipping unless Moscow agrees to UN officials entering the area to demilitarize and denounces the referendum (seeing as Russia is playing the facade they're not involved). Offer to turn a blind eye so 'militias' can return to Russia. Include Moscow in an international discussion regarding Crimea and possible devolution, independence or annexation but only done through a free, impartial and observed vote. Get Kiev to agree to protect Russian language rights and have the EU and Russia discuss shared influence in the country, including a 10-15 year moratorium on Ukrainian entry into the EU say.
This is just me spit balling and no doubt blunt, you'd certainly have to make it more nuanced so Russia could save a bit of face and of course might just be talking out my arse. With similar ethnic Russian grumblings in the Baltic States, and Belarus' dictator discussing annexation by Russia I seriously feel a hard-line needs to be taken to not encourage further expansionism. I'm quite confident if a colour revolution was to take place in Belarus for instance, Russian troops would be right across the border.
Russia is seeking to discourage Western expansionism. It doesn't want to share borders with EU and NATO nation states as its own borders are indefensible. The West does include many of their oldest enemies and invaders after all, the British Empire, Napolean, Hitler, and the USA during the Cold War. Absorbing many of the old Warsaw Pact states into NATO and the EU and rolling back Russian strategic influence right up to their own borders possibly wasn't the best way to win post Cold War Russia's trust.
How would America react if Russia entered into a military alliance with Canada and Mexico?
And the West started this craze of illegal interventions in the affairs of sovereign nations on bogus pretexts. Iraq, Syria, Libya. Russia is just emulating our behaviour.
I'm not saying I like Russia (in fact being a libertarian I quite dislike its authoritarianism), I'm just saying that perhaps western leaders should first reflect on their own countries behaviour and actions in recent decades before piously condemning the wrong doings of Russia.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.
I suspect that would not end well.
My view is that Putin is not going to be president for ever. He's 61, so he's going to be pulling the strings for another 10 years tops.
In the meantime, it's really not worth going to war with one man's ego.
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
They cannot join NATO. The Sevastopol Russian Naval Station in Crimea prevented that unless Crimea separates from Ukraine then they can join the NATO Alliance. Then NATO holding a mix bag of dog crap because eastern Ukraine might go way to Putin/Russia. That puts US/EU in a huge jam being the majority of heavy industries is located in eastern Ukraine
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
They cannot join NATO. The Sevastopol Russian Naval Station in Crimea prevented that unless Crimea separates from Ukraine then they can join the NATO Alliance. Then NATO holding a mix bag of dog crap because eastern Ukraine might go way to Putin/Russia. That puts US/EU in a huge jam being the majority of heavy industries is located in eastern Ukraine
Really? Why? I thought they were moving into MAP until the last fella got in and scuppered it.
I now want to punch SWC right in its gestalt face.
For those not wanting to read the article it basically says the invasion of Crimea does suck but EU expansion eastwards, historical Russian paranoia of encirclement and the West's dubious wars elsewhere make it not so bad. Its relativistic crap in my opinion, the fact such a 'moral' organisation is willing to endorse the "one for me, one for you" supposedly realist interpretation of geopolitics is baffling but far from surprising. Sadly, particularly for myself as a left-libertarian, the "liberal-left" is awash with an anti-American/anti-West fetish. If the West touches it they simply back the other side.
What is happening in Crimea is in my opinion effectively Anschluss. A referendum for joining Russia following an armed coup, with no build-up to allow foreign observers in (according to the BBC, EU officials have tried several times to enter the region only to be barred by armed militia) or opposition groups to organise while Russian soldiers occupy the area is a white wash.
I have no doubt the intervention by Russia is popular with many, possibly the majority in Crimea but 42% of the population are Ukrainian and Tatar. The Ukrainians have just seen their corrupt president, a puppet of Moscow, removed after popular demonstration only to see Russian troops march into their country. The Tatars meanwhile (plus the former reason) have excellent reason to be wary of a Russian takeover, seeing as they've been ethnically cleansed from the area before.
Massing troops on Russia's border strikes me as particulary aggressive.
And yet marching troops into another nation and seizing military bases and firing at international observers is totally cool with you.
I think you might be bias here.
Never said it was cool with me, I said Russia was been provoked into this by hostile behaviour on the part of EU, NATO and America.
If I'm "biased" in anyway, I'm biased against undemocratic power blocs and superpowers like like the EU, NATO and America forcing their will and intervening in sovereign nations... like America, Britain and co. have done in Iraq, Syria, Libya and countless other countries. We use drones to bomb Pakistan (a country that is supposedly a US ally) and Yemen, often causing severe "collateral damage" (I prefer Murder). Does that not violate the national sovereignty of those countries? We ignore and break international law when its convenient for us to do so to protect our own interests, then splutter in outrage when other nations like Russia (and soon China, I expect - maybe in Tawain) do the same. How do you think would your country react if Russia entered into a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? Stationed troops there to deter American expansionism and aggression?
Can you not see the hypocrisy of the West in crying foul over Ukraine's national sovereignty when we have been violating the sovereignty of nations all over the world for decades? If no, then I think YOU might be a wee bit biased yourself.
The EU and America are global powers. America is the worlds sole superpower. Russia is just a regional power, and feels threatened by the behaviour and hostility of the West, so its taking steps to defend itself against what it percieves to be a threat to its national security. We're treating Russia like we did Germany between 1918 and 1933.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.
That would make for some interesting maneuvering given that it is almost exactly what Putin did.
Voters in Ukraine’s Russian-occupied Crimea who vote in the March 16 referendum have two choices – join Russia immediately or declare independence and then join Russia.
So the choices are “yes, now” or “yes, later.”
Voting “no” is not an option.
The lack of choice wouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with how Soviet or Russian elections are run.
The Crimean parliament released the design of the ballot that will be used for the referendum, which will be taking place as thousands of Russian soldiers are in control and – it appears – Russian President Vladimir Putin is calling the shots..
Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov has annulled the referendum as illegal and unconstitutional, but the pro-Kremlin Crimean authorities who took power on Feb. 27 do not recognize the legitimacy of central government and have said they will proceed with the vote.
The ballot asks two questions and leaves no option for a “no” vote. Voters are simply asked to check one of two boxes:
Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a subject of Russian Federation?
And:
Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?
That Constitution declares that Crimea is an independent state.
The questions are written in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar, the three most widely spoken languages on the peninsula, and the paper carries a warning in all three languages that marking both options will invalidate the ballot.
Volodymyr Yavorkiy, a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, says that not only is the referendum completely illegal, the ballot for it doesn't stand up to any criticism.
“There is no option for ‘no,’ they are not counting the number of votes, but rather which one of the options gets more votes,” says Yavorskiy. “Moreover, the first question is about Crimea joining Russia, the second – about it declaring independence and joining Russia. In other words, there is no difference.”
He says with no choice available, “it's clear what the result will be.”
Mykhailo Malyshev, head of the Crimean parliament's commission on referendum, said the election will have 1,250 polling stations equipped with web cameras for the vote.
“We have a desire and preparations for installing web cameras at polling stations. They can play a great role during the vote, and if technically it is possible, the web cameras will be installed,” UNIAN news agency quoted him as saying.
Malyshev also said that 2.5 million ballots will be printed. However, according to the Central Election Commission data, as of Feb. 28, 2014 there were only just over 1.5 million voters in Crimea.
The Central Election Commission, which has also said that the Crimean referendum is illegitimate, took an emergency decision on March 6 to close off the state register to all authorities of the autonomy. In its ruling, the commission said it was doing it “to protect the database of the State register of voters from unsanctioned use of personal data and unsanctioned access and abuse of access.”
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.
That would make for some interesting maneuvering given that it is almost exactly what Putin did.
Indeed, let's match him, move for move and see if his bullying and murdering tactics will work as well with a military between 10 to 30 years in advance of his own, recently combat proven, as it has against tiny disorganized nations.
I am fairly solidly of the mindset he'd retreat back behind his borders in short order, and he's welcome to stay there, trade gas and not get any expansionist ideas in the future.
Want to clarify the "Sterile" uniform....." policy" for lack of words. When bullet fly's then patches and everything comes back on or re attach themselves. I am not going into detail about this and the US military is guilty of doing it to. Its to cause a bit of confusion and no one can confirm or deny who we are. We're there to move equipment into one country and facilitate a move into another country by ground. its not "new" concept.
Edit
Stop sending me PM's about it....
Uh and I cranked up
"Blood Angels" guild on Fippy Paw on EQ
Як ти смієш припускати, що я не знаю, як читати по-українськи!
Ok, so you can't read Ukrainian.
I know this because I copy-pasted your statement into Google Translate and it produced "How dare you assume that I do not know how to read in Ukrainian!", which means you typed that phrase into Google Translate in English and had it translated into Ukrainian.
Just admit that you can't read Ukrainian, and that posting an image of a document written in Ukrainian, especially absent context, was bad.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Indeed, let's match him, move for move and see if his bullying and murdering tactics will work as well with a military between 10 to 30 years in advance of his own, recently combat proven, as it has against tiny disorganized nations.
I am fairly solidly of the mindset he'd retreat back behind his borders in short order, and he's welcome to stay there, trade gas and not get any expansionist ideas in the future.
I'm almost tempted to let him build his own larger Russian Federation, encounter the same issues as last time, over extend his reach, and have it all come crumbling down again
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm almost tempted to let him build his own larger Russian Federation, encounter the same issues as last time, over extend his reach, and have it all come crumbling down again.
Як ти смієш припускати, що я не знаю, як читати по-українськи!
Ok, so you can't read Ukrainian.
I know this because I copy-pasted your statement into Google Translate and it produced "How dare you assume that I do not know how to read in Ukrainian!", which means you typed that phrase into Google Translate in English and had it translated into Ukrainian.
Just admit that you can't read Ukrainian, and that posting an image of a document written in Ukrainian, especially absent context, was bad.
Massing troops on Russia's border strikes me as particulary aggressive.
And yet marching troops into another nation and seizing military bases and firing at international observers is totally cool with you.
I think you might be bias here.
Never said it was cool with me, I said Russia was been provoked into this by hostile behaviour on the part of EU, NATO and America.
If I'm "biased" in anyway, I'm biased against undemocratic power blocs and superpowers like like the EU, NATO and America forcing their will and intervening in sovereign nations... like America, Britain and co. have done in Iraq, Syria, Libya and countless other countries. We use drones to bomb Pakistan (a country that is supposedly a US ally) and Yemen, often causing severe "collateral damage" (I prefer Murder). Does that not violate the national sovereignty of those countries? We ignore and break international law when its convenient for us to do so to protect our own interests, then splutter in outrage when other nations like Russia (and soon China, I expect - maybe in Tawain) do the same. How do you think would your country react if Russia entered into a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? Stationed troops there to deter American expansionism and aggression?
Can you not see the hypocrisy of the West in crying foul over Ukraine's national sovereignty when we have been violating the sovereignty of nations all over the world for decades? If no, then I think YOU might be a wee bit biased yourself.
The EU and America are global powers. America is the worlds sole superpower. Russia is just a regional power, and feels threatened by the behaviour and hostility of the West, so its taking steps to defend itself against what it percieves to be a threat to its national security. We're treating Russia like we did Germany between 1918 and 1933.
This is the Stop the War Coalitions stance.
The failings of the West do not negate the failings of Russia also you're siting Libya and Syria as bad examples of Western intervention? In the former they helped the popular revolution topple Gaddafi, in the latter they chickened out and now Assad is gassing his own people. On Pakistan and Yemen, regardless of morality (very questionable IMO in terms of civilian deaths) those nations have agreements with America to help hunt terrorists, the Tribal Area of Warzistan in Pakistan is as much as part of the Afghan war as Helman Province. Iraq is such a sticky issue I'm not going to touch it. However all three are clear examples of totalitarian states whose governments I would not recognise as legitimate.
What is happening in Crimea is not the place to debate geopolitical morality of red team/blue team and a scoreboard. Russia is not running a bombing campaign against a dictatorship or intervening to stop a genocide, its annexing sovereign territory of another nation where a vocal, large minority certainly oppose them. Russia's enemy is not President-for-Life Generovich, its the popular will of the Ukrainian people. As I said in my previous post I have no doubt plenty of Crimeans welcome Russian intervention but as the ballot paper above shows, its a white wash and Putin has no interest in what the people actually want.
The issue is the people in Crimea who will be subjected to a bigoted, homophobic, corrupt dictatorship. Also the EU is not a 'world power', and Russia has kept its head down for the most part since 1991 but is still a gargantuan military and economic power.
I mean is your argument that because Washington, London and Brussels are backing the Ukrainians that specifically makes it a fight not worth having due to some quota system? If those people were backing Moscow would you switch sides?
I'm happy to accept the Western powers do plenty of crap, that they've agitated Russia but this is stuff to resolve through diplomacy, such acts of jingoism should face swift responses.
Even if I totally agreed with you, your stance is basically philosophical chin stroking, Eastern Europe is not a pie to be divided between powers. A lot of people will be effected by this.
When I heard about the anti/pro EU and NATO element of the revolution in Kiev I was wary, hoping the emotion of the situation wouldn't lead to Ukraine being rolled into the Western sphere before the people knew what was happening. My suggestion to rush Kiev into these institutions is because Russia has proven itself true to Ukraine's worst fears, a bullying jingoist happy to send tanks over the border.
On the Mexico/Canada proposition I feel the same way, it would be risky for Russia to infringe on America's traditional sphere as it would ruffle feathers but if America responded by invading Acapulco, I'd totally understand when MIGS started landing in Sonora.
Please understand, I see Russia's motivations, I'm no huge fan of many Western actions and have long been wary of EU/NATO advancement into Eastern Europe for precisely this reason but those nations have excellent cause to be wary of a dictatorship that is covering itself in Soviet nationalist nostalgia propaganda. For many older people, and political leaders in particular, things like Solidarity and Prague '68 are within living memory. Russia's traditional sphere has rarely been voluntary.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume we did all that - though why we'd base bombers in Ukraine, I have no idea. Why do you think Putin wouldn't call that bluff? Anybody who's called any of the administration's bluffs over the past five years has gotten what they wanted. Putin especially has already kicked us around enough to know we're going to retreat when called. Culling down to a pre-World War II-sized military isn't exactly sending a resolute signal to anybody, much less an aggressive old foe.
The failings of the West do not negate the failings of Russia
No, but it does expose the hypocrisy of the West and give the lie to the pretext given for our actions. This is not about the freedom and sovereignty of Ukrainians, this is about a political and economic power struggle between the East and the West over an important economic and strategic region.
Left-wing warmongers, who badly want some sort of conflict with Russia over Ukraine, are a mass of contradictions.
They say they’re in favour of ‘democracy’, when in fact they are apologists for a naked coup d’etat against an elected government by an armed mob.
They say they are against interference in other countries, when they excuse the blatant intervention of foreign politicians on the side of the Kiev rabble.
They say that Crimea has no right to secede from Ukraine, when they all supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia.
They say they are concerned about Mr Putin’s undoubtedly squalid and dishonest government. But they never complain about China, which is far more repressive and which is now trampling on the national independence of its imperial conquests in Tibet and Sinkiang.
When someone’s not consistent, they’re not telling you their real motives. Interestingly, most of the people who hate Russia also love the EU, and hate this country’s independence and traditions. That might give you a clue as to what sort of people they really are – and explain why I sympathise with Russia.
also you're siting Libya and Syria as bad examples of Western intervention? In the former they helped the popular revolution topple Gaddafi,
Yes, I am. In the former, they failed to act for decades, despite it being clear that Gadaffi was a tyrant responsible for abusing his own people and supporting terrorism such as the IRA and possibly the Lockerbie bombing. They were happy to do business with him for years, buying Libyan oil and signing trade deals so British companies could operate in Libya; but then the waves of social unrest began throughout the Middle East and all of a sudden the West was against dictators and in favour of democracy. Supporting the revolution had little to do with supporting freedom and democracy, and everything to do with saving face after decades of tolerance and inaction over a totalitarian dictator and ingratiating ourselves with the new regime.
in the latter they chickened out and now Assad is gassing his own people.
And the rebels are gassing civilians loyal to Assad using chemical weapons smuggled into the country, fighting amongst themselves as much as they do Assad and murdering civilians thorugh acts of blatant terrorism. The rebels are riddled with terrorist organisations. They're as bad as Assad, generally speaking. Correct identifying which of the myriad organisations involved are the "good guys" that deserve our support and which are extremists and terrorists hostile to our own countries and who will target us next, is next to impossible.
Just because one side is bad does not mean that the other side is good and deserving of our support.
On Pakistan and Yemen, regardless of morality (very questionable IMO in terms of civilian deaths) those nations have agreements with America to help hunt terrorists, the Tribal Area of Warzistan in Pakistan is as much as part of the Afghan war as Helman Province.
And yet IIRC the legislatures of those countries have condemned America's operation of drones in their national territory, violating ther sovereignty. I expect when they signed those agreements, they were thinking more of mutual cooperation between intelligence services and joint operations. I doubt what they had in mind was American aircraft arbitrarily dropping bombs without permission on targets in their country that kill more innocent people than terrorists.
Iraq is such a sticky issue I'm not going to touch it.
Why? Its the best example.
However all three are clear examples of totalitarian states whose governments I would not recognise as legitimate.
There are many other illegitimate totalitarian states throughout the world in which we do not intervene. The criteria for Western intervention (interference) is not an illegitimate totalitarian regime brutally repressing its own people - thats just the pretext. The real criteria is that we have national economic, political and strategic interests - we have something to gain from intervention, or something to lose from not intervening.
Otherwise, why don't we intervene in North Korea, which keeps thousands of its own people in concentration camps, or Iran, which is even more homophobic (last I check, the Russian state does not execute homosexuals). China is far more corrupt and repressive than Russia, yet because we do so much business with it that our economies depend on it we turn a blind eye to its crimes and simply make the occassional sanctimonious condemnation or declaration of concern yet take no action against China. Why aren't we hitting China with sanctions and freezing Chinese assets?
What is happening in Crimea is not the place to debate geopolitical morality of red team/blue team and a scoreboard. Russia is not running a bombing campaign against a dictatorship or intervening to stop a genocide, its annexing sovereign territory of another nation where a vocal, large minority certainly oppose them.
Do not mistake my distaste for Western hypocrisy and lies as tacit approval of Russia's actions.
Russia's enemy is not President-for-Life Generovich, its the popular will of the Ukrainian people.
No, its the will of a western Ukranian partially armed mob riddled with far right fascists. It will only be confirmed to be the will of the Ukranian people at large once free and open elections have been held (which may be rather difficult with the leader of the now opposition fleeing for his life, and opposition party members being arrested by the new regime) and the new regime can be considered an elected government.
I will consider the Kiev regime to be the rightful and legitimate government once they have won an electoral mandate. Until then, I will consider them as what they are - an unelected motley collection of demagogues and far right fascists installed through a violent rebellion.
Lets not forget that many other governments and regimes were installed via violent rebellion. The governments of Iran, Cuba, China and Libya were all installed through revolutions (though Libya was relatively bloodless AFAIK) and look how they all turned out. The fact that a regime was unpopular enough that it was overthrown by an angry section of the people does not necessarily mean that the new regime/government installed is legitimate.
As I said in my previous post I have no doubt plenty of Crimeans welcome Russian intervention but as the ballot paper above shows, its a white wash and Putin has no interest in what the people actually want.
Someone in this thread has questioned the translation of that ballot paper and the credibility of the person who posted it. Is the interpretation accurate? If so then I agree that dirty tricks are being played. I think a referendum and elections should be held in Crimea, under international observation to ensure its fair and legitimate. But the Kiev regime refuses to allow any referendum at all, denying the right of Crimeans to self determination.
The issue is the people in Crimea who will be subjected to a bigoted, homophobic, corrupt dictatorship.
China. Iran. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Pakistan. Why are we not intervening in those countries too then, if the criteria for intervention in a country is that they're being run by the bad guys?
Also the EU is not a 'world power'
Collectively it is, especially as the EU makes further moves to develop a common European foreign policy backed up by a European military force.
and Russia has kept its head down for the most part since 1991 but is still a gargantuan military and economic power.
But still only a regional power that intervenes in countries that are its direct neighbours, unlike America, a global superpower which has been interfering and invading countries all over the world on trumped up pretexts to further its own interests (to borrow a term from a certain "Kerry") for decades. America quite happily ignores and breaks international law to further its own interests whenever it suits it, yet splutter in outrage when other countries follow their example.
I mean is your argument that because Washington, London and Brussels are backing the Ukrainians that specifically makes it a fight not worth having due to some quota system? If those people were backing Moscow would you switch sides?
What the hell does that mean? Quota? What "people"?
I think neither side should be interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs. The West is gak stirring in countries all over the world, encouraging (often violent) rebellions and overthrowing of regimes/governments in the hopes of a regime more friendly and susceptible to Western manipulation, or discouraging rebellion and siding with a government if they favour that government. We supported the Egyptian revolution, but then they democratically elected the wrong leader, so we approved of the Military coup that removed him.
Democracy. As long as you vote for the correct option.
Spoiler:
I'm happy to accept the Western powers do plenty of crap, that they've agitated Russia but this is stuff to resolve through diplomacy, such acts of jingoism should face swift responses.
I agree. So why are we getting ready to send NATO troops to the Ukraine?
Even if I totally agreed with you, your stance is basically philosophical chin stroking, Eastern Europe is not a pie to be divided between powers. A lot of people will be effected by this.
I agree. But that is exactly how we and Russia are treating the Ukraine. This is a political, economic and strategic tug of war power struggle - Ukraine is the prize, its people the rope.
When I heard about the anti/pro EU and NATO element of the revolution in Kiev I was wary, hoping the emotion of the situation wouldn't lead to Ukraine being rolled into the Western sphere before the people knew what was happening. My suggestion to rush Kiev into these institutions is because Russia has proven itself true to Ukraine's worst fears, a bullying jingoist happy to send tanks over the border.
And America is not a bullying jingoist nation happy to sent troops over a border? I've read Op-eds suggesting that Ukraine's people have consistently expressed an opposition to joining NATO. They want into the EU for economic reasons, but don't want to enter the military alliance. Not sure how true this is though.
On the Mexico/Canada proposition I feel the same way, it would be risky for Russia to infringe on America's traditional sphere as it would ruffle feathers but if America responded by invading Acapulco, I'd totally understand when MIGS started landing in Sonora.
It would be risky for Russia to interfere in America's traditional sphere? So why are you ok with America and Europe interfering in Russia's political sphere? Is that not as risky? Why is it ok for the West to intervene in sovereign nations on trumped up pretexts to further its own interests, but not ok for Russia or China?
Please understand, I see Russia's motivations, I'm no huge fan of many Western actions and have long been wary of EU/NATO advancement into Eastern Europe for precisely this reason but those nations have excellent cause to be wary of a dictatorship that is covering itself in Soviet nationalist nostalgia propaganda. For many older people, and political leaders in particular, things like Solidarity and Prague '68 are within living memory.
And the German invasion of Russia is within living memory too. Both countries, Ukraine and Russia have legitimate concerns here. And the West is deliberately stirring up tensions, trying to further its own interests when its priority should be to bring the two nations to a mutually agreeable compromise.
IMO, we should come to an arrangement that involves:
1) an internationally observed and supervised democractic referendum on Crimean independence (2 questions: [1] Stay with Ukraine: Yes or No? [2] Independence or annexation by Russia?). Eastern Ukraine stays with Ukraine. This way Kiev gets to keep the richer, industrial north and Russia takes Crimea ( a poorer region, with a population largely hostile to Kiev) their hands. Russia gets to keep its crucial strategic military bases, but becomes responsible for financially supporting and bailing out Crimea.
2) In anticipation of this referendum, Russia should pull its troops out of Crimea and/or withdraw them to their existing naval bases, on the guarantee that Ukraine and NATO will not move in their own troops and try to prevent the referendum (as Kiev has said it would do).
3) Ukraine should be permitted to join the EU and economic treaties, but be exempt from any military agreements and treaties.
4) Ukraine will not join NATO.
The problem with national interests is that other countries have their own national interests too. Unless you're willing to declare war, then you have to accept that they want to protect and pursue their own interests too and when they contradict yours, you're going to have to come to a mutually agreeable compromise. The West is demanding that Russia concede everything, and will compromise on nothing.
Russia's traditional sphere has rarely been voluntary.
True. I don't like Russia myself. But a balance of power is always necessary to maintain peace. Upset that balance of power, by underming and threatening a nations security and interests, and you risk war. This is exactly how we treated Germany between 1918 and 1933. We won the War, but acted as though it never ended and continued to treat both nations with hostility.
That's a very ..... unique .... take you have with regards to our attitudes to Libya there.
I think -- if one takes into account things like the bombing raid carried out on his house for example -- it's something of a stretch to claim that the west was fine and dandy with Gaddafi in way shape or form .
In the 1970s Libya initiated a socialist style nationalization program under which the government either nationalized oil companies or became a participant in their concessions, production and transportation facilities.[7] As part of this program, NOC signed production-sharing agreements with Occidental Petroleum, Sincat (Italy), and formed a joint drilling company with Saipem (an Eni subsidiary). This was accompanied by nationalization of ConocoPhillips's Umm Farud field in 1970, British Petroleum's Sarir field in 1971 and Amoco's Sahabir field in 1976. After commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other Arab states proclaimed an embargo on oil exports to countries who supported Israel, primarily the United States. Additionally, the NOC had encountered legal actions by BP over claims of ownership. Although the 1973 oil crisis increased global demand, BP's legal position made some countries wary of importing from Libya. NOC compensated for this weakness by arranging barter deals with France and Argentina. On March 18, 1974, the Arab oil ministers ended the US-embargo, with Libya being the sole exception. During 1974, agreements were reached with Exxon, Mobil, Elf Aquitaine and Agip provided production-sharing on an 85-15 basis onshore, 81-19 offshore. Eventually, all the foreign companies (excluding BP) agreed to partial nationalization, providing Libya with a substantial oil surplus. However, declining world oil prices resulted in NOC selling back its production shares. Other concessions that were nationalized that year included those belonging to BP, Amoseas (Beida field), Hunt, Arco, Esso and Shell's 17 percent share in the Oasis Oil Company. Mobil-Gelsenberg was owned by the NOC (51%), Mobil (32%), and Gelsenberg (17%).[8] Overall, during 1976 the National Oil Corporation produced about 408,000 bbl/d (64,900 m3/d) and exported 1.2 mmbpd.
U.S. sanctions[edit]
The last phase of the socialist period was characterized by an intensive effort to build industrial capacity, but falling world oil prices in the early 1980s dramatically reduced government revenues and caused a serious decline in Libya’s advantage in terms of energy costs.[9] More importantly, accusations of terrorism and Libya’s growing friendship with the Soviet Union led to increased tensions with the West. On 10 March 1982, the U.S. prohibited imports of Libyan crude oil. Exxon and Mobil left their Libyan operations by January 1983. In March 1984, controls were expanded to prohibit exports to the Ras al-Enf petrochemical complex.
President Ronald Reagan imposed sanctions on 7 January 1986 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, prohibiting US companies from any trade or financial dealings with Libya, while freezing Libyan assets in the US.[10] On 30 June 1986, the US Treasury Department forces remaining US oil companies to leave Libya but allows them to negotiate standstill agreements, retaining ownership for three years while allowing NOC to operate the fields. As a result, Amerada Hess, Conoco, Grace Petroleum, Marathon, and Occidental left a production entitlement that was generating 263,000 bbl/d (41,800 m3/d). Negotiations with NOC and US oil companies over assets dominated much of the late 1980s.
Libya responded by concluding its third Exploration and Production Sharing Arrangements (EPSA-III) in 1988, including agreements with Rompetrol, the Romanian Oil Company, Royal Dutch Shell, Montedison, International Petroleum Corporation of Canada, INA-Naftaplin, OMV, Braspetro and Husky Oil. The agreements included expenditure guarantees by the Libyan government, an important departure from earlier regulations, designed to help offset sanctions. r
U.N. sanctions and afterward[edit]
Libya’s isolation became even more pronounced following the 1992 imposition of United Nations sanctions designed to force Gaddafi to hand over two suspects indicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The sanctions, imposed on 31 March 1992, initially banned sales of equipment for refining and transporting oil, but excluded oil production equipment. Sanctions were expanded on 11 November 1993, to include a freeze on Libya's overseas assets, excluding revenue from oil, natural gas, or agricultural products. Under these condition, NOC Chairman Abdallah al-Badri emphasized reducing new projects and upgrading domestic facilities. Joint ventures were initiated with Veba, Petrofina, North African Petroleum, the Petroleum Development Co. (Republic of Korea) and Lasmo. Foreign operators were encouraged to produce exclusively for export, limited to national oil companies with pre-sanctions equity in Libya. This policy was an attempt to contain the amount of crude offered on the spot market through third-party traders, and increase downstream investment. In 2000, NOC was reorganized by the General People's Congress after the Ministry of Energy was abolished, further consolidating control over the sector.
Although U.N. sanctions were suspended in 1999, foreign investment was curtailed due to the U.S. Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which capped the annual amount foreign companies can invest in Libya at $20 million (lowered from $40 million in 2001). On 14 August 2003, Libya agreed to compensate families of the 1988 bombing with $2.7 billion, to be released in three tranches; the first following a lifting of UN sanctions, the second after lifting of US sanctions, and the third after Libya is removed from the U.S. State Department's state sponsors of terrorism list. On 22 December 2003, Libya announced it will abandon WMD programs and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US welcomes the move, but says it will maintain economic sanctions until it sees evidence of compliance. On 4 June 2004, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce William H. Lash announced that Libya sent its first shipment of crude oil to the US since resumption of ties between the two countries. In May 2006, the U.S. officially removed Libya from its list of states that sponsor terrorism and normalized ties and removed sanctions.[11] Since then, oil majors have stepped up exploration efforts for oil and natural gas in the country. Likewise, companies have tried using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques to increase production at maturing fields.
This is not about the freedom and sovereignty of Ukrainians, this is about a political and economic power struggle between the East and the West over an important economic and strategic region.
Or, as is often the case in life, maybe it's a mixture of every motivation.
The Hitchen's quote is laughably bad -- are you seriously trying to claim that the West has never said anything or complained about China in Tibet ?!
For me the most striking thing about this crisis is the lack of critical analysis . Everybody has reverted to cold war mode. West = good, Russia = bad. If only it was that clear cut.
But as much as I despise Vladimir Putin, he's the only one that's acted sensibly.
A democratically elected Ukrainian president (everybody agrees his election was free and fair) was ousted from power because of his opposition to an EU trade deal. And yet, the Ukrainian parliament voted that deal down.
So a protest group springs up and EU leaders encourage the protestors in a reckless violation of what diplomacy is supposed to be. Could you imagine the American reaction if Putin turned up in America, ignored the president, and instead started meeting and talking with tea party leaders (or some other protest group) It would be a MASSIVE violation of diplomacy, but that's what EU leaders did in the Ukraine. They encouraged the protestors to set up an interim government whilst the last president was still in power!
Back to Putin. He's got naval bases on the Black sea, he's worried about the safety of the large ethic Russian population in the Ukraine, and he's just seen the Ukrainian president ousted from power by Neo-Nazi groups and anti-Semites.
From a geo-political view, his intervention is a clear, concise policy to safeguard Russian interests.
And then we have the UK and the USA, who just recently, illegally invaded a middle eastern country, lecturing Putin on sovereignty and the rule of law.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.
Like I said, I don't like Putin, I'm under no impressions he a murdering gangster, but this Ukraine situation is far more complex than cold war fantasies, and Russia seems to me to be the only country acting in a clear, geo-political way.
In contrast, The EU and the USA seem to be all over the shop. Sanctions or no sanctions, Ukraine in the EU or out of the EU. They don't know. It's a muddle.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.
As a Swede, I'll respectfully disagree. Not everyone in "the West" was on board with the whole Iraq debacle either, you know. The fact that the US and friends did some rather silly things doesn't mean we can't call out Putin on doing silly things of his own.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but we in the west are in no position to criticise Putin.
As a Swede, I'll respectfully disagree. Not everyone in "the West" was on board with the whole Iraq debacle either, you know. The fact that the US and friends did some rather silly things doesn't mean we can't call out Putin on doing silly things of his own.
That there, well, I believe they call it a Bingo...
And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?
And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?
It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.
If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.
And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?
And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?
It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.
If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.
Perhaps we should stop leading the free world and just start leading the world, perhaps we should start following Russia's example, follow China's example and dispense with playing nice with our opponents and instead show them what the hand of the West can do when it's not held back by soft notions they fail to demonstrate in return.
The West is in retreat to these second fiddle players and the lunatics in the deserts because it keeps staying it's hand with them like an over indulgent parent with children grown into abusive adolescence. I really think it's time that stopped.
When Russia moves troops and armor into neighboring independent nations, ask them if they'd like to sign on to our one-stop membership and fanclub page, then roll our own superior tanks, better equipped soldiery and flying death robots into the same nations, as protection.
Feth me. Ukraine is going to hell via the express elevator make no mistake.
I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire. Its starting to have certain vibes ascociated with a certain red wearing Warmachine faction.
I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire
Its weird, its Americans and English that seem to have a problem with modern Russia, not the Germans, French or Italians.
Germans seem to see themselves as superior to the Slavic people while the English historically have feared them going back centuries, strange.
Uh, what? Did I miss the memo about England historically fearing Russia? We have had historical rivalries with Spain, France and Germany but no nationwide fear of "Slavic people".
Breotan wrote: Except for all the ruined lives that will result.
And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?
And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?
It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.
In what parallel universe do any of the dots even allow you to draw a picture like that?
And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?
And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?
It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.
If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.
Right... because Russia doesn't have a history of being an imperialistic power predating the existence of the United States...
Hold on while I try to find my I'm not laughing my ass off at your idiotic assertion face.
And the American government hasn't left of a trail of graves?
And that has what to do with any of this? What at all?
It has everything to do with it. Russia is simply following the example that America set. More countries will follow - probably China. Russia sees that America is able to ignore and break international law with impunity to pursue and protect its own interests, and thinks it can do the same.
If America wants to be the leader of the free world, it has to act like it.
Perhaps we should stop leading the free world and just start leading the world, perhaps we should start following Russia's example, follow China's example and dispense with playing nice with our opponents and instead show them what the hand of the West can do when it's not held back by soft notions they fail to demonstrate in return.
The West is in retreat to these second fiddle players and the lunatics in the deserts because it keeps staying it's hand with them like an over indulgent parent with children grown into abusive adolescence. I really think it's time that stopped.
When Russia moves troops and armor into neighboring independent nations, ask them if they'd like to sign on to our one-stop membership and fanclub page, then roll our own superior tanks, better equipped soldiery and flying death robots into the same nations, as protection.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq. Were there 100,000 ethnic Texans or Geordies being persecuted in Baghdad?
I'm not having a go at you Mean, but the guff I have read in newspapers and on TV about this being a new cold war is getting silly.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.
The option of restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution automatically means remaining part of Ukraine. It pretty much counts as a 'no' option as all it would mean is returning to the situation of 1992, when the Crimea had more autonomy than it has now.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.
Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?
The actual referendum does have a "no" option on it. Whatever report you found earlier was wrong.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
Well, the Volga Tatars in Tatarstan are doing great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan. They have their own state within Russia and their rights are as well protected as those of ethnic Russians. I don't think the Crimean Tatars have anything to fear. Stalin is long dead and Russians and Tatars have lived together in peace on Crimea for many centuries. That is really not going to change all of a sudden. The same goes for the Ukrainians. There are 2 million Ukrainians living all over Russia already, and that has been like that for centuries.
Putin's invasion still has more justification than the US invasion of Iraq. Putin can claim that he is 'protecting' ethnic Russians and making the referendum possible. The US couldn't claim anything but lies.
The Tatars are still not the native people by the way.
Do you see a "No" option on the referendum?
The actual referendum does have a "no" option on it. Whatever report you found earlier was wrong.
Cool then... I actually feel better now about this crummy situation.
I'm no Putin fan, but at least his invasion makes 'sense.' Compare and contrast that with the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
But Putin's invasion 'makes sense'... Well, if you're Russian and wish to expand your country's borders, sure. If you're Ukrainian, or one of the minorities like the native Tatars... that's sense you can do without.
Give it 5, 10 years of Russian control of that zone, with the cossacks given free reign, and then take a look at the Tatar situation. Then tell me about how well we all did to leave Putin to continue to take bites out of neighboring nations...
Like I said, I'm not having a go at you personally, but the whole Ukraine situation has been a shambles from start to finish. It can be summed up as follows: The EU made a power grab for the Ukraine to bring it into it's sphere of influence. It fethed up big time. Now Russia has made its grab and as usual, Putin seems to have run rings around the west a la Syria and Assad.
I have to say that i am not too comftable with Russia re-building her Empire
Its weird, its Americans and English that seem to have a problem with modern Russia, not the Germans, French or Italians.
Germans seem to see themselves as superior to the Slavic people while the English historically have feared them going back centuries, strange.
Germans see themselves as superior? Where did you get that idea? It is not the 1940s anymore. Most Germans don't really see themselves as superior. Not at all I would say.
Besides that, I feel obliged to mention that WW2 proved who really are the superior people I think it can be better explained from historical and geopolitical reasons. Historically, the British have always been afraid of the Russians. The Russian Empire was the primary rival of the British Empire, especially in 'the Great Game'. Therefore the British have been treated to centuries of anti-Russian propaganda. That probably does leave a mark on a people. The US has of course the Cold War in recent memory.
The Germans on the other hand have, besides fought against, also often allied and fought together with the Russians. So historically, Germany does not have such a hostile view of Russia. Also, the Germans have relatively recently lost a massive war to the Russians, they have no desire to see Russian tanks roll towards Berlin again.
Geopolitical aspects are also important. The US and UK are far from Russia, safe on their islands. Germany on the other hand, is much closer to Russia and its tank divisions, and should there be war, it will likely be Germany (along with Poland) that will have to serve as the main battlefield.
France was defeated by Russia in the early 19th century (Napoleon's first defeat), and apart from that, France has never really had any trouble with Russia. Italy even less so.
The Russians themselves generally view France and especially Germany as friendly (mainly because of the intensive contact with the DDR), while they mostly view the UK as hostile and a puppet of the US. Russian feelings of the US swing between carefully positive at best, to a burning hatred at worst. The US has been especially reviled since Putin's rise to power. I find it somewhat ironic that the US is now much more disliked in Russia than it was in the Cold War.
The brilliant Boris Kagarlitsky once made a very good statement on current Russian anti-Americanism:
"Ironically, one of the dominant trends here is that we are anti-American because we want to be exactly like America. We are angry that Americans are allowed to invade minor nations and we are not."
-Shrike- wrote: Seriously? Short of a declaration of war, what would you do against Russia in this situation?
Emergency sign Ukraine into NATO, move well equipped and well trained Western troops into Ukrainian bases as part of 'shared training exercise'. Move Western fighters and bombers onto Ukrainian airfields and have them fly over Ukrainian sovereign airspace with the understanding that unmarked military units not identifying themselves are international terrorists and can be actively targeted.
Let Putin weigh the size of his balls after that.
We've been trying to bring Ukraine into NATO for like two decades now, theres a reason it hasn't happened, and for the most part that reason is that the Ukrainian people are overwhelmingly against it. What you're proposing is really no better than what Russia has done.
Besides that, I feel obliged to mention that WW2 proved who really are the superior people
The Germans? They had something like a 7:1 K/D ratio against the Soviets (and a 2:1 ratio against all Allied powers overall)...
Germans see themselves as superior? Where did you get that idea? It is not the 1940s anymore. Most Germans don't really see themselves as superior. Not at all I would say.
I’ll give you this. Eurotechno music is like the caterwalling of demons infested with jock itch.
Besides that, I feel obliged to mention that WW2 proved who really are the superior people
Aussies and Texans. God made Australia to train the faithful. Sinners go to Hell. Real sinners go to Texas.
I think it can be better explained from historical and geopolitical reasons. Historically, the British have always been afraid of the Russians. The Russian Empire was the primary rival of the British Empire, especially in 'the Great Game'. Therefore the British have been treated to centuries of anti-Russian propaganda. That probably does leave a mark on a people. The US has of course the Cold War in recent memory.
Afraid? Doubtful. They did try that balance of power thing for awhile.
The Germans on the other hand have, besides fought against, also often allied and fought together with the Russians. So historically, Germany does not have such a hostile view of Russia. Also, the Germans have relatively recently lost a massive war to the Russians, they have no desire to see Russian tanks roll towards Berlin again.
Other than the Napoleonic wars (where just as many German states fought on Napoleon’s side) what the hell are you talking about?
Geopolitical aspects are also important. The US and UK are far from Russia, safe on their islands.
North America is an island? You’re right. I forgot about Arizona’s glorious Gold Coast.
Germany on the other hand, is much closer to Russia and its tank divisions, and should there be war, it will likely be Germany (along with Poland) that will have to serve as the main battlefield.
True that.
France was defeated by Russia in the early 19th century (Napoleon's first defeat), and apart from that, France has never really had any trouble with Russia. Italy even less so.
Agreed although Italy had tens of thousands of casualties in Russia in WWII.
The Russians themselves generally view France and especially Germany as friendly (mainly because of the intensive contact with the DDR), while they mostly view the UK as hostile and a puppet of the US. Russian feelings of the US swing between carefully positive at best, to a burning hatred at worst. The US has been especially reviled since Putin's rise to power. I find it somewhat ironic that the US is now much more disliked in Russia than it was in the Cold War.
As you weren’t around during the Cold War I call bs.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As a Swede, I'll respectfully disagree. Not everyone in "the West" was on board with the whole Iraq debacle either, you know. The fact that the US and friends did some rather silly things doesn't mean we can't call out Putin on doing silly things of his own.
You may be shocked to learn that again I agree with you
Frazzled wrote: Afraid? Doubtful. They did try that balance of power thing for awhile.
They certainly were afraid of the Russians threatening their interests. Afraid may be the wrong word to use though. Do you know a better one?
Other than the Napoleonic wars (where just as many German states fought on Napoleon’s side) what the hell are you talking about?
Russia and Germany have fought each other 4 times (War of Austrian Succession, Seven Years War, World War I, World War II) and fought together 6 times (First, Second and Third Partitions of Poland, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, Invasion of Poland) Poor Poland... Even if we count all three Partitions as a single war, Russia and Germany still fought together as much as against each other. Russian/German relations were also rather good during most of the 18th and 19th centuries, and both countries have supported each other many times outside of warfare.
North America is an island? You’re right. I forgot about Arizona’s glorious Gold Coast.
I know North America isn't an island, but I hope you got the point I was trying to make.
As you weren’t around during the Cold War I call bs.
I wasn't around, but my father and many others I know were. I have the ability to talk to them and hear their opinions about it, you know?
Russian troops seized a military hospital and a missile base in the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea Monday, in the latest show of force in the battle for the country’s disputed future.
Pro-Russian militias joined Russian troops in taking over the hospital in Simferopol -- the region’s main administrative city -- herding staff members into a hallway to apparently “meet the institution’s new directors,” Reuters reported, citing Interfax. The report said 20 patients at the hospital are gravely ill.
Russian soldiers disarmed servicemen at a Ukrainian Army missile base overnight Friday. Ukrainian military spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov told a local TV station that some 200 troops approached the building and threatened to charge it if the Ukrainian soldiers refused to give up their weapons.
Crimea's parliament has set a March 16 referendum on joining Russia, which has been denounced by Ukraine's government.
While separatists in Crimea are keeping up the pressure for unification with Moscow,Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk vowed Sunday not to give up "a single centimeter" of his country's territory. During commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Ukraine's greatest poet, Yatsenyuk said, "This is our land."
Standing before the crowd gathered at the Kiev statue to writer and nationalist Taras Shevchenko on Sunday, Yatsenyuk said, "Our fathers and grandfathers have spilled their blood for this land. And we won't budge a single centimeter from Ukrainian land. Let Russia and its president know this."
Yatsenyuk will address the United Nations Security Council about the situation in Crimea Thursday, Interfax reported Monday.
Interfax also quoted Yatsenyuk telling reporters he believed Russia sought to "undermine the foundations of global security and revise the outcome of World War II.''
President Barack Obama will meet Wednesday with Yatsenyuk to discuss options to peacefully resolve Russia's military intervention in Crimea.
Also Friday, one of Russia's most famous prisoners suggested Russia is ruining its longstanding friendship with Ukraine by its aggressive and pro-separatist actions in Crimea. Mikhail Khodorkovsky made the remarks in a lecture to students at Kiev Polytechnic University Monday.
"We are losing Ukrainian-Russian friendship" because of Russian actions, Khodorkovsky said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has refused to have any dealings with the new Ukrainian leaders who replaced fugitive pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych.
But Khodorkovsky expressed support for them, saying they came to power thanks to "a revolution of justice." Khodorkovsky, once Russia's wealthiest man, was pardoned last December by Putin. Many believe he was convicted of tax violations and other crimes and sent to prison on trumped-up charges.
"Ukraine must become a European state," the former tycoon told the students. For that to happen, Khodorkovsky said there must be foreign investment, eradication of corruption and a modern-day Marshall Plan of international assistance
Putin defended Russia’s actions in Crimea, claiming they were in keeping with international law. President Obama has warned the March 16 vote would violate international law. But in Moscow, Putin made it clear over the weekend that he supports the referendum in phone calls Sunday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Minister David Cameron.
According to the Kremlin, Putin said, "The steps taken by the legitimate leadership of Crimea are based on the norms of international law and aim to ensure the legal interests of the population of the peninsula."
The Associate Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled is over three times your age, he personally witnessed the events you have "spoken to your dad about".
And I'm still mystified by this deep seated rivalry that Britain is supposed to have with Russia.
Well, Russia could have limited vodka supplies, thus impacting the martini market. Britain and M5 would doubtly be concerned about the loss of quality martinis.
"Shaken, not stirred"
"So you like wussy martinis?"
"What?"
"Er...nevermind"
The Germans, overall, have a pretty negative view of Russia (interestingly, Russians tend to have a more positive view of Germans), but politically they have had no qualms over working together with the Russians when its in their best interest to do for. Realpolitik and pragmatism have seemingly always been the Germans approach to politics, even Hitler put aside ideology and beliefs to partner with the Soviets when it benefited him most to do so.
Earlier, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said a group of about 20 pro-Russian activists from the so-called Crimea self-defense squads had broken into the military hospital in the region's main administrative city, Simferopol, and thrown out its chief.
In a later statement, it said the hospital chief was back at work after negotiations but added the premises were being blockaded by the activists.
However a CNN team that traveled to the hospital found it very quiet, with no one around. A guard on duty said he had not heard or seen anything unusual and that there was no senior official to speak with as Monday was a public holiday.
In the course of the rapidly changing events of the past week, a propaganda war over Ukraine has quickly developed as each side seeks to strengthen its stance.
From the article Dogma linked to. To me, it certainly looks like Western Ukraine is really pushing out the BS propaganda now. (Not saying Russia isn't also doing similar things, but isn't this the second or third time fake attacks have been reported?)
What I would give for an unbiased, politically neutral news source...
Does anyone know if the Ukrainian Prime Minster actually said this...
While separatists in Crimea are keeping up the pressure for unification with Moscow,Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk vowed Sunday not to give up "a single centimeter" of his country's territory. During commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Ukraine's greatest poet, Yatsenyuk said, "This is our land."
Standing before the crowd gathered at the Kiev statue to writer and nationalist Taras Shevchenko on Sunday, Yatsenyuk said, "Our fathers and grandfathers have spilled their blood for this land. And we won't budge a single centimeter from Ukrainian land. Let Russia and its president know this."
What I would give for an unbiased, politically neutral news source...
If only those freedom loving certainly-not-Russian soldiers weren't keeping the unarmed observers out of the territory...
Let's look at what I quoted:
Earlier, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said a group of about 20 pro-Russian activists from the so-called Crimea self-defense squads had broken into the military hospital in the region's main administrative city, Simferopol, and thrown out its chief.
In a later statement, it said the hospital chief was back at work after negotiations but added the premises were being blockaded by the activists.
However a CNN team that traveled to the hospital found it very quiet, with no one around. A guard on duty said he had not heard or seen anything unusual and that there was no senior official to speak with as Monday was a public holiday.
Unless CNN were armed (always possible ), they appear to be observing in the territory of Crimea.
Corpsesarefun wrote: The BBC are being far more neutral than either CNN or anything Iron_Captain is posting, though they are still clearly biased against Russia.
To be honest, the facts are being pretty biased against Russia so its probably not BBC's fault.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled is over three times your age, he personally witnessed the events you have "spoken to your dad about".
And I'm still mystified by this deep seated rivalry that Britain is supposed to have with Russia.
But unless I am very mistaken, Frazzled is not Russian. So that makes his view kinda irrelevant, since I was talking about the Russian view towards America in the Cold War. If anything, Frazzled's (and many other's) comments here prove my point that the American view towards Russia hasn't changed much since the end of the Cold War.
chaos0xomega wrote: The Germans, overall, have a pretty negative view of Russia (interestingly, Russians tend to have a more positive view of Germans), but politically they have had no qualms over working together with the Russians when its in their best interest to do for. Realpolitik and pragmatism have seemingly always been the Germans approach to politics, even Hitler put aside ideology and beliefs to partner with the Soviets when it benefited him most to do so.
I agree. Germans may not like Russia's politics, but they do work together frequently. Meanwhile, Germany is one of Russia's favourite holiday destinations.
Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
Where did you hear me say that last part? Americans or anyone else can comment on the history of the Cold War just as well. It is just that I was talking about the Russian views, not all the others. I could tell you plenty of the Dutch views on the Cold War as well, but that is not relevant here.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
Well I did live through the public statements Da Kommie Pinkoes made to the world. Of course back then they didn't just say crap in Pravda. They 8 gazillion AK-s to every revolutionary between here and Antarctica.
"Fire, thpt, that fad will pass." -Frazzled.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nixon: "look this is something called a refrigerator." Khruschev:"We have refrigerators in Russia capitalist dog." Nixon:"This is a toaster." Khruschev:"We will bury you. Our toasters are size of car." "look, this is a prototype of something we call a microwave." Khruschev:"Does it come in red?"
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
He said that only a Russian is qualified to comment on Russian public opinion during the Cold War. Its telling that you're still twisting his words after he explained how you were twisting his words.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
He said that only a Russian is qualified to comment on Russian public opinion during the Cold War. Its telling that you're still twisting his words after he explained how you were twisting his words.
Wrong. A Russian is qualified to comment on their own perception of public opinion. They are not qualified to comment on Russian public opinion as fact.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
He said that only a Russian is qualified to comment on Russian public opinion during the Cold War. Its telling that you're still twisting his words after he explained how you were twisting his words.
Wrong. A Russian is qualified to comment on their own perception of public opinion. They are not qualified to comment on Russian public opinion as fact.
So you're finally responding to what he actually said rather than a straw man you made up? Took long enough.
Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin. Rebuff claims of anti semitism.
Spoiler:
Mr. President!
We are Jewish citizens of Ukraine: businessmen, managers, public figures, scientists and scholars, artists and musicians. We are addressing you on behalf of the multi-national people of Ukraine, Ukraine's national minorities, and on behalf of the Jewish community.
You have stated that Russia wants to protect the rights of the Russian-speaking citizens of the Crimea and all of Ukraine and that these rights have been flouted by the current Ukrainian government. Historically, Ukrainian Jews are also mostly Russian-speaking. Thus, our opinion on what is happening carries no less weight than the opinion of those who advise and inform you.
We do not believe that you are easy to fool. You consciously pick and choose lies and slander from the massive amount of information about Ukraine. And you know very well that Victor Yanukovich's statement concerning the time after the latest treaty had been signed that “...Kyiv is full of armed people who have begun to trash buildings, places of worship, churches. Innocent people have begun to suffer. People have simply been robbed and killed in the street...” are lies, from the first word to the very last.
The Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine are not being humiliated or discriminated against, their civil rights have not been limited. Meanderings about “forced Ukrainization” and “bans on the Russian language” that have been so common in Russian media are on the heads of those who invented them. Your certainty of the growth of anti-Semitism in Ukraine also does not correspond to the actual facts. It seems you have confused Ukraine with Russia, where Jewish organizations have noticed growth in anti-Semitic tendencies last year.
Right now, after Ukraine has survived a difficult political crisis, many of us have wound up on different sides of the barricades. The Jews of Ukraine, as all ethnic groups, are not absolutely unified in their opinion towards what is happening in the country. But we live in a democratic country and can afford a difference of opinion.
They have tried to scare us (and are continuing their attempts) with “Bandera followers” and “Fascists” attempting to wrest away the helm of Ukrainian society, with imminent Jewish progroms. Yes, we are well aware that the political opposition and the forces of social protests who have secured changes for the better are made up of different groups. They include nationalistic groups, but even the most marginal do not dare show anti-Semitism or other xenophobic behavior. And we certainly know that our very few nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government – which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.
We have a great mutual understanding with the new government, and a partnership is in the works. There are quite a few national minority representatives in the Cabinet of Ministers: the Minister of Internal Affairs is Armenian, the Vice Prime Minister is a Jew, two ministers are Russian. The newly-appointed governors of Ukraine's region are also not exclusively Ukrainian.
Unfortunately, we must admit that in recent days stability in our country has been threatened. And this threat is coming from the Russian government, namely – from you personally. It is your policy of inciting separatism and crude pressure placed on Ukraine that threatens us and all Ukrainian people, including those who live in Crimea and the Ukrainian South-East. South-eastern Ukrainians will soon see that for themselves.
Vladimir Vladimirovich, we highly value your concern about the safety and rights of Ukrainian national minorities. But we do not wish to be “defended” by sundering Ukraine and annexing its territory. We decisively call for you not to intervene in internal Ukrainian affairs, to return the Russian armed forces to their normal fixed peacetime location, and to stop encouraging pro-Russian separatism.
Vladimir Vladimirovich, we are quite capable of protecting our rights in a constructive dialogue and in cooperation with the government and civil society of a sovereign, democratic, and united Ukraine. We strongly urge you not to destabilize the situation in our country and to stop your attempts of delegitimizing the new Ukrainian government.
Signed:
Josef Zisels Chairman of the Association of Jewish Communities and Organizations of Ukraine (VAAD) Ukraine, Executive Vice President of the Congress of National Communities of Ukraine
Alexander Suslensky D.Sc., Vice President of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, businessman
Andrei Adamovsky First Vice President of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, member of the “Hillel” Jewish Student organization Observation Council (citizen of Russia)
Rabbi Alex Dukhovny Head Rabbi of the Ukrainian Progressive Judaism communities
Rabbi Reuven Stamov Head Rabbi of the Ukrainian Traditional Judaism communities
Alexander Paskhaver Member of the VAAD Ukraine Coordation Council, economist
Leonid Finberg Director of the NaUKMA Center for the Studies of History and Culture of Eastern European Jewry, VAAD Ukraine Vice Chairman
Anatoliy Podolsky Director of the Ukrainian Center for Holocaust Studies, Vice Chairman of VAAD Ukraine
Igor Kuperberg Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Ukraine, Vice Chairman of VAAD Ukraine
Semen Belman Vice President of the Jewish Council of Ukraine, President of the Chernigiv Jewish Community
Alexander Gaidar Leader of the Union of Ukrainian Progressive Judaism Religious Communities
Vyacheslav Likhachev CNCU Chief expert in monitoring and analysing xenophobia and anti-Semitism, member of the VAAD Ukraine Coordination Council(citizen of Russia and Israel)
Michael Gold Editor-in-chief of the VAAD Ukraine newspaper “Hadashot”
Galina Haraz Engineer (citizen of Ukraine and Israel)
Igor Turov PhD in history, Director of the Jewish Studies Certificate Program of VAAD Ukraine, VAAD Ukraine Presidium member
Diana Gold VAAD Ukraine Presidium member
Alexander Roitburg Artist
Evgen Greben Director of the “Maccabi” Jewish Cultural and Sports Society (Kyiv)
Grigoriy Pickman “B'nei B'rith Leopolis” President
Igor Kerez VAAD Ukraine Trustee Board member, businessman
Artem Fedorchuk, Director of the Intarnationsl Centar on Jewish Education and Field Studies
Breotan wrote: In what parallel universe do any of the dots even allow you to draw a picture like that?
Iraq War - illegal. Stated justification apparently a fabrication. America's allegations that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda were never proven, and were later backtracked on.
Libya - Interfered in a civil war against a regime that was no longer a threat to the USA and (IMO) none of America's (and Britain's) business. Libya's status as a state sponsor of terrorism removed in 2006. If the invervention was humanitarian, then that creates a precedent for Russia's pretext of a "humanitarian intervention" to "protect ethnic Russians in Crimea. Obviously that pretext is bs as they're doing first and foremost to to protect their naval bases and strategic influence, but it remains that America's actions set a precedent that Russia could exploit.
Syria - failed attempt to supply and support known Muslim extremist organisations with weaponry, and an aborted attempt at an undeclared war "Limited Strike" against the Syrian Government.
Pakistan - use of drone strikes, violating a supposed Ally's national sovereignty and murdering civilians causing "collateral damage".
Yemen - ditto, minus the "supposed Ally".
America has a track record of ignoring international law and opinion when convenient in order to pursue and protect its national interests whether political, economic or strategic. Russia has seen how America gets away with it, and has decided "If they can break the law to protect their interests, we can too". Therefore, America's cries of outrage that Russia has broken international law by invading a foreign sovereign nation sound rather hollow.If America expects other countries to obey international law and refrain from invading other countries and launching wars of aggression without just cause then perhaps it should start by setting an example.
Right... because Russia doesn't have a history of being an imperialistic power predating the existence of the United States...
Hold on while I try to find my I'm not laughing my ass off at your idiotic assertion face.
Right, because America doesn't have its own history of launching illegal wars of aggression against countries that just coincidentally happen to have lots of natural resources like oil, and lying about the reasons for doing so.
Hold on while I face palm at your total lack of awareness of your own country's hypocrisy and Double Speak.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I was and remain bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, it compromised the US and allies military capacity to deal with Afghanistan and was carried out for reasons that appear to be total lies.
And you still think your own country's past conduct has no bearing on what Russia thinks it can and cannot get away with?
No-ones hands are clean and yet It doesn't make whats happening on the Crimean peninsula right. Morally, at least.
This back and forth over who did what to who is getting tiresome. I think most of us posting ITT have a passing familiarity with the errors of various world leaders and governments of the past.
And has been explained before MGS originally came from the UK. Not his fault he comes from the cornish tin mines though.
Mr. Burning wrote: No-ones hands are clean and yet It doesn't make whats happening on the Crimean peninsula right. Morally, at least.
This back and forth over who did what to who is getting tiresome. I think most of us posting ITT have a passing familiarity with the errors of various world leaders and governments of the past.
And has been explained before MGS originally came from the UK. Not his fault he comes from the cornish tin mines though.
What is happening on the Crimea is morally right. Legally not, but most Crimeans want to be part of Russia and support current events. That makes it morally right to me. The Crimeans have a right to determine their own future, something the Ukrainian state would have never allowed. I am grateful that Russia makes this referendum possible. The only thing I am worried about is what will hapen after the referendum. Whether the Crimeans choose to be part of Russia or Ukraine, there is probably going to be trouble.
Mr. Burning wrote: Do they? or do they want to be an autonomous republic? with recognition from Russia?
I get the feeling that Crimeans want to be Crimean.
They already are an autonomous republic. The option is between becoming a federal subject of Russia (likely retaining the same autonomous status) or restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution, in which Crimea is a part of Ukraine, but has even more autonomy than it does have now. In any case, Crimeans will still be Crimeans first and Russians second, just like it is now.
Unfortenately there is no option for making Crimea a completely independent country, but becoming part of Russia is probably the best option either way. Most Crimeans seem to be in favour of joining Russia, as most Crimeans are Russian-speaking and joining Russia is also likely to bring economic benefits. The West has already said they won't recognise Crimea becoming part of Russia, so that might cause long-term problems though.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
He said that only a Russian is qualified to comment on Russian public opinion during the Cold War. Its telling that you're still twisting his words after he explained how you were twisting his words.
Why on earth should you need to be Russian to comment on Russian public opinion in the cold war? In fact why should a Russian (even one that was there at the time) have a better understanding of the general public opinion at the time than a specialised non-Russian historian?
Corpsesarefun wrote: Frazzled's views haven't changed since the the stone age, let alone the cold war. Also it's telling that you believe only Russians can comment on the history of the cold war.
He said that only a Russian is qualified to comment on Russian public opinion during the Cold War. Its telling that you're still twisting his words after he explained how you were twisting his words.
Why on earth should you need to be Russian to comment on Russian public opinion in the cold war? In fact why should a Russian (even one that was there at the time) have a better understanding of the general public opinion at the time than a specialised non-Russian historian?
I also did not say that only a Russian is able to comment on Russian public opinion. A non-Russian who has studied Russian public opinions might in fact be even better qualified to comment on the matter. I would love it if people would stop twisting my words.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:What does the rest of Ukraine have in terms of resources, economic viability, etc without Crimea?
Crimea is one of the wealthier regions of Ukraine, but as long as the rest of the southeast does not secede, they should be fine. The Southeast is by far the wealthiest region in Ukraine, and it contains most of Ukraines industry. If the southeast does secede, the west of Ukraine would be left even poorer than it is now.
-Shrike- wrote: I believe Crimea doesn't really have anything, it's eastern Ukraine that has all of the industry.
That's all in the Crimea. The ports, the oil and gas lines, the industry. It's all there. That is why Russia is making their power play there instead of the rest of the "pro-russian" portions of the country. They just want the boost to their economy that it would secure, while crippling one of their neighbors.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: What does the rest of Ukraine have in terms of resources, economic viability, etc without Crimea?
As I understand it, nothing.
Quite a few IT jobs, apparently a number of computer software companies here in the UK have been outsourcing to the Ukraine. Although, I have no idea what part of the country they are based in.
I can't wrap my head around the concept that "Most of Crimea wants to be Russian, so they should be Russia and screw the minority that don't want to be Russian." So if you ever get 51% of the vote you get to completely ignore the needs and desires of the other 49%?
You can literally change yourself into another country with a history of and vested interest in marginalizing and subjugating minority peoples - because of rumors that if you don't do that, you will be marginalized as a minority people.
I assume there are at least a few towns/villages/districts/ what have you in Crimea that are majority ethnic Ukranian or Tartar? How is forcing them to go along with the rest of Crimea better or different than forcing Crimea to go along with the rest of the Ukraine?
That's all in the Crimea. The ports, the oil and gas lines, the industry. It's all there. That is why Russia is making their power play there instead of the rest of the "pro-russian" portions of the country. They just want the boost to their economy that it would secure, while crippling one of their neighbors.
That's not true. The majority of Ukrainian mining production is outside Crimea. Specifically, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporhizia, and Dnipropetrovsk. And none of the major gas pipelines pas though Crimea either.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Pakistan - use of drone strikes, violating a supposed Ally's national sovereignty and murdering civilians causing "collateral damage".
Yemen - ditto, minus the "supposed Ally".
Is it really a violation of national sovereignty if the government of the country in question has approved it?
The mind-bending level of ignorance displayed in this thread (from multiple posters) keeps me from wanting to engage in debate. Seriously, people, stop drinking the Kool-aid. Russia has been pulling crap since WWII. They never needed to use America as an excuse before and they don't need to do it now. Putin wants to rebuild the glorious Soviet Union, pure and simple. Even if America was pure as the wind-driven snow, he'd still be doing this crap in Ukraine.
Breotan wrote: The mind-bending level of ignorance displayed in this thread (from multiple posters) keeps me from wanting to engage in debate. Seriously, people, stop drinking the Kool-aid. Russia has been pulling crap since WWII. They never needed to use America as an excuse before and they don't need to do it now. Putin wants to rebuild the glorious Soviet Union, pure and simple. Even if America was pure as the wind-driven snow, he'd still be doing this crap in Ukraine.
And yet here you are, engaging in debate and "...drinking the Kool-aid." as you are wont to do.
Putin probably would be "...doing this crap..." in the Ukraine, provided there happened to be a revolution there. The US is not relevant in this situation.
RT just posted this statement from my favourite Russian political party: Fair Russia (sometimes also called A Just Russia in English.).
So I thought I'd post this here and see what the esteemed members of DakkaDakka think of their stance on the conflict.
The Russian center-left has sent foreign allies a memorandum blaming the Ukrainian opposition for an anti-constitutional coup, and warning the European stance towards the Ukrainian extreme right can only aggravate the situation.
The document was prepared by Fair Russia- the socialist parliamentary party which is a member of the Socialist International – the association of 156 leftist parties that endeavour to establish democratic socialism in 126 countries in the world.
Fair Russia said that the decision to prepare was because of the need to counter the blatant anti-Russian approach in Western media coverage of the Ukrainian events.
According to Russian socialists, Viktor Yanukovich really had demonstrated his inability to cope with the turmoil and had de-facto ceased to be president, but at the same time, de-jure he remains the lawfully elected leader of the state because his ousting took place outside the constitutional impeachment procedure.
This circumstance makes the Kiev events an anti-constitutional coup and Fair Russia blames the Ukrainian opposition, in particular Vitaly Klitchko,Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnibok, for breaching the agreement they signed with the authorities on February 21. Foreign ministers of Germany and Poland as well as the head of the European Department of the French Foreign Ministry must also share the blame as they acted as guarantors of this deal, but applied no pressure to the opposition for withdrawing from it, the memorandum reads.
It was the inaction of the European officials that instigated the activities of the Right Sector radical group manned by nationalists and neo-fascists whose primary motto is Ukraine for Ukrainians, the Russian message reads. According to Fair Russia, the Right Sector controls about 15,000 well armed extremists who used threats and violence to force the authorities in several regions into cooperating with the "Maidan" movement. The Russian party told its foreign allies that the leaders of Ukrainian rightist have called on the eviction of Russians and Jews from the country or even physical extermination of these groups.
The nationalist Liberty party headed by Tyagnibok has already pushed through the parliament the cancellation of the law ordering punishment for fascist and Nazi propaganda as well as the law that allowed Ukrainian regions to introduce additional national languages spoken by large minorities of the population.
Russian leftists claim the real power in Ukraine belongs to the militants representing the Rights Sector and the legitimate opposition leaders who hold talks with foreign governments have little political weight.The attacks on regional authorities in the eastern and south-eastern parts of the country directly threatened the rights and security of the population, and all this left Russian leaders no other choice but to state their readiness to protect ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers in the neighboring country.
Fair Russia holds that it was only because of the Upper House’s decision to allow President Vladimir Putin to use military force in Ukraine that negated the threat of ultranationalists seizing power in the eastern and south-eastern regions.
The Russian party called upon all of its partners from the Socialist International to deliver aid to the Ukrainian people and also expect them to publicly denounce the nationalist ideology of the Ukrainian opposition as well as the actions of the rightist extremists. According to Fair Russia only the free, honest and universal elections can now restore the legitimate state structures in Ukraine.
Breotan wrote: The mind-bending level of ignorance displayed in this thread (from multiple posters) keeps me from wanting to engage in debate. Seriously, people, stop drinking the Kool-aid. Russia has been pulling crap since WWII. They never needed to use America as an excuse before and they don't need to do it now. Putin wants to rebuild the glorious Soviet Union, pure and simple. Even if America was pure as the wind-driven snow, he'd still be doing this crap in Ukraine.
I'm shocked, just shocked you would say such a thing.Shocked...
Hungary
Czechloslavakia
Afghanistan
Chechnya
Georgia
Ukraine
Hungary freely agreed to that nuclear deal.
Czechoslovakia isn't a county.
Russian relations with Afghanistan are adversarial at best.
Chechnya is RF territory.
The relevant region of Georgia and the Ukraine are dominated by ethnic Russians.
Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
Frazzled wrote: Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
Since 1900:
Philippines
China
Mexico
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
(WW1)
Russia
(WW2)
Puerto Rico
Korea
Vietnam
Laos
Lebanon
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Cambodia
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Haiti
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Than maybe you should not read it, if you can't handle divergent opinions. I do not post propaganda, I give my opininion on the situation in Ukraine and react to (sometimes nonsensical) posts by other people here.
Alternatively, you may consider actually posting something useful and contributing to the discussion.
Frazzled wrote: Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered. Russians invaded Georgia in 2008 Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)? Since 1900: Philippines China Mexico Nicaragua Haiti Dominican Republic (WW1) Russia (WW2) Puerto Rico Korea Vietnam Laos Lebanon Cuba Dominican Republic Cambodia Grenada Panama Iraq Yugoslavia Haiti Afghanistan Iraq Libya That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around? Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
False comparison. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Russia developed its empire from conquering other countries. Just because there have been other empires doesn't make them any better. Thats like saying, just because Russia conquered the Baltic states Nazi Germany was ok dokey. Russia is an empire. It failed and lost many of its subjugated territories (but not all). Its trying to get some of them back now. Do I care? Not really. I just don't want to play Cold War II.
I didn't list all the guerilla campaigns the USSR was involved in. There's a reason the AK is by far the most common weapon in history just this side of the spear.
Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Put him on Ignore. It helps except when others quote the Ignored Party.
Frazzled wrote: Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
Since 1900:
Philippines
China
Mexico
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
(WW1)
Russia
(WW2)
Puerto Rico
Korea
Vietnam
Laos
Lebanon
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Cambodia
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Haiti
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
Frazzled wrote: Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
False comparison. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Russia developed its empire from conquering other countries. Just because there have been other empires doesn't make them any better. Thats like saying, just because Russia conquered the Baltic states Nazi Germany was ok dokey.
I agree with you here, but the list you posted also has little relevance here. The only previous conflict Russia was involved in which may be relevant is the one in Georgia, which had some similiar circumstances.
As I am writing this article, Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoğlu is still in Ukraine to discuss the situation in the Crimea region. The persistent political disorder in Kiev following the collapse of President Viktor Yanukovych’s government – and his subsequent flight to Russia – are creating broad repercussions in the Crimean Autonomous Republic. After the Chairman of the Crimean Parliament Volodimir Konstantinov’s statement that they would seek to secede from Ukraine if tensions grew worse, the situation has deteriorated swiftly, including direct Russian military intervention in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In an article in last week’s Russian Pravda, it was noted that if Ukraine was divided, then the status of the Crimean Peninsula – returned to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Kruschev, would be open to discussion, and that would include Turkey having a say in the future of Crimea.
Russia gains control over Crimea
The reference to this claim is the “Küçük Kaynarca” (Karlowitz I) signed 230 years ago. As per this agreement, signed by the Russian Tsarina Catherine II on April 19, 1783, the Crimean Peninsula was taken away from the dominion of the Ottomans and handed over to Russia. However, one of the most important provisions of this treaty was the debarment of independence for the Peninsula and outlawing its submission to a third party: Should any such attempt be made, then Crimea would automatically have to be returned to the sovereignty of Turkey.
When Ukraine appeared as an independent nation following the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, Turkey acquired the right to claim the Peninsula back based on the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca; however, this was not brought up by the Turgut Ozal administration of the time. Turkey was content with advocating for the rights of the Tatar minority living on the Crimean Peninsula.
What Turkey needs to do at this point is to make efforts to calm down both parties in order to preserve the unity of Ukraine
Ceylan Ozbudak
That being the case, we may acknowledge that Crimea has always been a particularly indispensable region for Turkey on account of the close relations of the Ottoman State with the Crimean Khanate and the presence of the Crimean Tatars there. In addition, Ukraine is one of the foremost neighbors of Turkey, and in terms of the balance in the Black Sea region, it is important. Just as the name “Crimea” implies the largest Russian naval base at Sevastopol for Russia, the same “Crimea” connotes brotherhood with Turkic Muslims from the Ottoman times. For that reason, both Russia and Turkey have excluded the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from their policies related with Ukraine.
Stalin’s genocide of Crimean Turks
On top of that, for the majority of Turkish people who are well-read in history, the Crimean land has a distinct place when compared with other Turkic Republics, because similar to Hitler’s “holocaust” against the Jews, Stalin carried out atrocities against the Crimean Turks. Stalin’s campaign of forced ethnic cleansing and the relocation of the Crimean Turks is still well-remembered.
The Crimean Tatars and the Noghai were peoples of the Crimean Khanate and amongst the largest groups who emigrated to the Ottoman State and the Republic of Turkey. The settlement of hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars and Noghai made dramatic changes in the demography of the Ottoman State and its successor, the Republic of Turkey.
While the Turkish population in Crimea in 1783 was 98 percent, following the Russian invasion this was reduced to 35 percent.
The Crimean People’s Republic, which was founded following the Bolshevik Revolution, was brought to an end with the martyrdom of the president, Numan Celebi Cihan. The “Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” established in 1921 under the supervision of Moscow did not grant the Crimeans any freedom; the Crimean intellectuals who opposed the propaganda of the Communists against Islam and Turkish identity were deported to Siberia and the Ural mountains (mostly to die in GULAG camps).
The period following WWII was perhaps the most difficult for the Muslim – Turk community in the region. When Crimea was seized by the Russians, the entire Turkish population living in those lands for the last 1,500 years was promptly exiled. By means of a decree issued in 1945 by the Soviet government, the “Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” was abolished. The Crimean land attained the status of a state which belonged first to Russia, and then under the Kruschev government was transferred to Ukraine.
While a struggle for independence was going on for the Crimean Turks who had been ruthlessly deported from their nation, the homeless Russian population was made to settle in the very same land. The nearly 40 years of exile of the Crimean Turks was partly ended in 1987 when their rally for independence in Red Square turned into a major display of political power. The Soviet regime, unable to resist, subsequently allowed the Crimeans to return to their homeland. While about 20,000 Turks were living in Crimea in 1989, this figure increased to 150,000 by 1991. Today, their population is estimated to be around 300,000 and growing.
Today, the part of Crimea that strives for closer relations with Russia - and even aspires to annexing itself to Russia once full independence is achieved - is comprised of the ethnic Russians who settled in the Crimea post-World War II.
What should Turkey do?
Obviously what Turkey needs to do at this point is to make efforts to calm down both parties in order to preserve the unity of Ukraine and help them find a solution to their disagreements. Despite the obvious advantages for Ukraine in being a part of the European Union, there is no point in being surprised at Russia’s insistence that Ukraine should be part of its Customs Union and planned Eurasian Union.
Under these conditions, what Turkey should do is strive to calm the parties in order to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to help Ukraine remain a state that enjoys fruitful joint relations both with the EU and with Russia by solving their domestic problems through dialogue. It must not be forgotten that Ukraine is very important for Russia in transferring its energy resources to Europe. Turkey and Azerbaijan constitute the basic axis of the South Gas Corridor (SGC). The possibility of Israel getting involved in the energy business and getting connected to the SGC, not to mention Iran’s demand to join this energy axis raises the possibility of Russia cutting off this south passages completely. Let us not also forget that Russia attaches great importance to the Sevastopol naval base and doesn’t want to see it under any strategic threat.
How can Turkey set an example to Ukraine?
Crimea rests at the epicenter of all this and does not have the power to resist, neither economically or sociologically, such strong pressure. Under these conditions Turkey should get involved more deeply and help the region by adopting a policy that embraces all Ukrainians and all the Crimean population.
Just as Turkey has been able to maintain both internal and external balances despite standing in what may well be the biggest intersection in the world, Turkey should lead the way for Ukraine as well. Anatolia sits at the junction of Europe, Asia and Africa, on prolific agricultural lands that are simultaneously poor in energy resources; yet ironically, Turkey is a hub of energy resources, as well as air and sea transportation. Turkey is also a melting pot of various ideologies and hostilities. She is the intersection of the European understanding of modern democracy, the old leftist ideologies of Russia and the Eastern Bloc, Arab nationalism and Islamic denominations. She holds a position that has been able to establish equal relations with Israel and Iran, Russia and the Gulf Countries, and has still been able to peacefully harbor all these factors inside the vastness of the Anatolian Steppes.
When we evaluate all these factors, it would be a grave mistake to expect Turkey to adopt a policy that would harm the territorial integrity of Ukraine by making a claim in Crimea. As I have stated above, Turkey should help create a situation that would preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity with Crimea, one that would see Ukraine approach the European Union, yet not completely break away from Russia. The situation should also finally help in establishing a solid democracy with the norms of the European Union. We need a new policy approach in Europe with a model which will leave the Twentieth Century’s bi-polar world behind and keep alliances on the back burner. We need neighbors that can act in a more integrated manner by ridding themselves of obsolete worldviews, leftovers from the era of the Cold War. We need mature and wise statesmen who can hold the hands of parties in conflict in order to make them meet in the middle and make peace instead of picking sides or cowering behind barricades at the slightest complication. Turkey has been able to hold on to its moral values and has been able to stand tall and stand strong, even in the perennially restless Middle East, and can thus set an example for Ukraine.
Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.
Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...
Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Than maybe you should not read it, if you can't handle divergent opinions. I do not post propaganda, I give my opininion on the situation in Ukraine and react to (sometimes nonsensical) posts by other people here.
Alternatively, you may consider actually posting something useful and contributing to the discussion.
What discussion? You are not having a discussion, you are engaging in the international version of "my daddy can beat your daddy".
And you don't post propaganda yet you are equating the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? You are comparing the UN intervention in the former Yugoslavia with Czechoslovakia? And pretty much every other example you gave of American "invasions" with the sole exception of Iraq is also garbage.
Stop doing it or go play with the other kids and let the grown ups talk.
Frazzled wrote: Soviet troops invaded Hungary in the 50s
Soviet troops invaded Czechloslavakia in the 60s
Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in the 70s
Chenya was conquered by the Czars, then freed then reconquered.
Russians invaded Georgia in 2008
Russians invaded Crimea in 2014.
So what is the purpose of this? Shall we also list all the places the US has invaded (not counting the World Wars)?
That list is a lot longer than the Russian one, and most of those invasions are of highly dubious legality. Can you imagine that the US sounds very hypocritical when accusing others of unlawfully invading and bullying smaller nations around?
Also, Soviet Union ≠ Russian Federation.
False comparison. If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you? Russia developed its empire from conquering other countries. Just because there have been other empires doesn't make them any better. Thats like saying, just because Russia conquered the Baltic states Nazi Germany was ok dokey.
I agree with you here, but the list you posted also has little relevance here. The only previous conflict Russia was involved in which may be relevant is the one in Georgia, which had some similiar circumstances.
Thats cute.
Russia conquered the territories now comprising Chechnya, and these states:
Ukrainian SSR
Belorussian SSR
Uzbek SSR
Kazakh SSR
Georgian SSR
Azerbaijan SSR
Lithuanian SSR
Moldavian SSR
Latvian SSR
Kirghiz SSR
Tajik SSR
Armenian SSR
Turkmen SSR
Estonian SSR
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):
nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain
whembly wrote: Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.
Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...
I very much doubt that a treaty made between the Russian Czars and the Ottoman Empire is binding since neither of those nations exist in the modern world. Otherwise, give us back our half of the planet, biatches!
But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...
Frazzled wrote: [quote=Frazzled 575622 6621724
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):
nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain
Didn't we invade Cuba? Japan? Korea? Maybe it wasn't specifically for land, but we definitely got it in return
whembly wrote: Basically, if Crimea attempts to break away... there is one potential wrinkle in this plan. When Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) ceded sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula to Russia in the late 18th century, the treaty explicitly stated that Crimea would revert back to Ottoman control if it attempted to become an independent state.
Is this treaty still binding? I can't see Turkey going after this...
I very much doubt that a treaty made between the Russian Czars and the Ottoman Empire is binding since neither of those nations exist in the modern world. Otherwise, give us back our half of the planet, biatches!
:thumbs nose: come and take it yo!
But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...
That's what I figured... I just didn't think Turkey had any "modern" interest in the region.
Could you, pretty please, stop posting nonsense in this thread? Pretty please? I would actually like to follow these news without being constantly bombarded by your Russian propaganda and blatant ignorance of world affairs...
Than maybe you should not read it, if you can't handle divergent opinions. I do not post propaganda, I give my opininion on the situation in Ukraine and react to (sometimes nonsensical) posts by other people here. Alternatively, you may consider actually posting something useful and contributing to the discussion.
What discussion? You are not having a discussion, you are engaging in the international version of "my daddy can beat your daddy".
And you don't post propaganda yet you are equating the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary? You are comparing the UN intervention in the former Yugoslavia with Czechoslovakia? And pretty much every other example you gave of American "invasions" with the sole exception of Iraq is also garbage.
Stop doing it or go play with the other kids and let the grown ups talk.
I didn't equate the UN involvement in Korea with the Soviet invasion of Hungary. You are twisting my words. I posted a list of US invasions without regard to legality or any other involved parties. It is undeniable that the US indeed did invade Korea. Now instead of posting US propaganda and engaging in age-based discrimination, you could actually adress some of the points people made earlier in this thread.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. Russia conquered the territories now comprising Chechnya, and these states: list of Soviet Republics Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only): List of native American tribes and Spain
I still don't get the point of it. Russia did not become the largest country in the world by being peaceful. Russia started out as a single city on the shores of Lake Ilmen, everything else is conquered. That is the way nations grow, and it is the same for the US. I still fail to see how this list of past invasions has any relevance to the present situation in Ukraine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: But that article compounds on what a lot of people are saying in this thread, the Russian ex-pats that live in Crimea have exactly 0 rights to demand a Russian annexation of their territory when it comes at the expense of the native Tartar population wishes. Population that is only a minority in the region due to Soviet measures that can be compared to genocide...
Land belongs to the people who live there in the present, not to the people who lived there in the past. Otherwise Turkey should return all its land to Greece, because the Greeks are the 'native population' in Anatolia that was ethnically cleansed by the Turks.
Seriously though: Right of self-determination trumps treaties, at least in theory. And I'd rather not have Erdogan involved if it can be helped at all - the guy is just as bad as Putin.
Frazzled wrote: [quote=Frazzled 575622 6621724
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair: tribes or nations defeated by the US to get its territory (off top of my head only):
nations of the Iroquois
Huron
Comanche
Cherokee
Lokotah
Dakotah
Apache
Pawnee
Arapaho
Hawaiians
Hopi
Kiowa
Tankawa
Mexico
Seminoles
Spain
Didn't we invade Cuba? Japan? Korea? Maybe it wasn't specifically for land, but we definitely got it in return
Cuba. We invaded the Spanish posession of Cuba. Then we freed Cuba.
Japan. We didn't have to invade Japan, thank God. We didn't keep Japan.
Korea. We invaded North Korea as a flanking operation on their army which had invaded South Korea. We didn't keep either Korea.
No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.
Er it is. With the exception of the Muscovy region, its all conquered territory.
If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...
If your point is that the Soviet Union built its empire by conquest, then the obvious reply is "no gak" because all empires are, ultimately, built by conquest. Russia, however, is not an empire and is not empire building.
If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...
It would be the British Empire, and then the American Empire.
No it isn't. The Soviet Union was an empire, but Russia is no more an empire than the US is.
Er it is. With the exception of the Muscovy region, its all conquered territory.
If you go by that logic then so is the US... except it would be the British Empire since they that started the whole "conquering North America" business...
Ok, we are in agreement. I'm not going to wordsmith as it doesn't mean gak to the people we wacked to get the land from.
Check your facts again. Both countries had Soviet troops enter and put down democratic efforts POST WWII.
If your point is that the Soviet Union built its empire by conquest, then the obvious reply is "no gak" because all empires are, ultimately, built by conquest. Russia, however, is not an empire and is not empire building.
Its an empire. You saying its not doesn't mean gak to the people they killed to get the land. There's never been anything peacable about Russia since they threw off the yoke of the Golden Horde.
Its an empire. You saying its not doesn't mean gak to the people they killed to get the land. There's never been anything peacable about Russia since they threw off the yoke of the Golden Horde.
So, you agree that the USA is also an empire? And Texas as well?
In the 50"s and 60"s Hungary and Czechoslovakia (sp) were seperate coutnries int eh Eastern Bloc in the Soviets sphere of inlouence. When things got a bit too radical and the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian version of Socialism was not approved by the Soveit Union, they rolle din the tanks.
It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.
Didn't say it was (ok giving up most of the world after WWII was a mistake I'll grant you), just throwing water on the strange argument that Russia is some sort of peacenik nation historically. You don't get that big by being peaceful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: In the 50"s and 60"s Hungary and Czechoslovakia (sp) were seperate coutnries int eh Eastern Bloc in the Soviets sphere of inlouence. When things got a bit too radical and the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian version of Socialism was not approved by the Soveit Union, they rolle din the tanks.
It was an invasion since both countries were technically seperate political entities from the USSR.
Exactly. Really cool black and white film of Hungarians throwing molotov cocktails onto Soviet tanks from three or four stories up.
When your tanks are trying to crush their government you betcha.
That doesn't make it an invasion. At worst tank crushing (assuming it actually happened) renders the military in question oppressive in the same way any use of force would.
dogma wrote: That doesn't make it an invasion. At worst tank crushing renders the military in question oppressive in the same way any use of force would.
History agrees they were both invasions.
History also agrees they did not occur in the '40s.
Are you just trying to save face here or something?
.
... quite how many people who were investigating or critical of the regime have met with unfortunate accidents. Or committed suicide or etc etc
