WikiLeaks Cables Foreshadow Russian Instigation of Ukrainian Military Action

Now that Russia has sent troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, international politics are tense and frantic. An anonymous reader notes an article from Joshua Keating at Slate, which points out that some of the diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks illustrate how this situation is not at all unexpected. Quoting a cable from October, 2009: "... pro-Russian forces in Crimea, acting with funding and direction from Moscow, have systematically attempted to increase communal tensions in Crimea in the two years since the Orange Revolution. They have done so by cynically fanning ethnic Russian chauvinism towards Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, through manipulation of issues like the status of the Russian language, NATO, and an alleged Tatar threat to 'Slavs,' in a deliberate effort to destabilize Crimea, weaken Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine's movement west into institutions like NATO and the EU." The article points out another cable from a few days later, which was titled, "Ukraine-Russia: Is Military Conflict No Longer Unthinkable?"

Comments

"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

and now let's talk about the leaked documents involving the "pro-western forces in the Ukraine""

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Tablizer]

Just like the Cold War when half the world's nations were treated like nothing more than political footballs by both sides. It's partly why the Middle East is such a mess as both sides propped up dictators and fools and blowback fuel.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And so what? If Ukrainians decide to go west, that's fine with me. Certainly more fine than when Russia decides that Ukrainians will go east. If Ukraine tried to do the same to Russia, they'd get invaded too. In fact, whenever X has problems with Russia or Russia has problems with X, the end result is always that Russia invades X. We've seen this.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[arglebargle_xiv]

So wait: now EVERY country that has a Russian minority can expect to be invaded by Russia?

It'd never happen. I mean, that'd be like every country that had a German minority being invaded by Germany.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ilguido]

Well, it usually works. Don't fix it, if it ain't broken.

More seriously, Ukraine is a failed state at the mercy of the shenanigans of both western and Russian shills. And, more importantly, neither party, Russia and West, act for the better of the Ukrainian people.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the recent confrontation in Georgia. Some ethnocentric asshole took charge of the country, and attempted to reorganize the nation more to his liking, at the expense of ethnic Russians and Russian Nationals. The asshole unbelievably thought that he had the backing of the West. Asshole figured out to late that this supposed "backing" didn't go so far as committing money, troops, or hardware to the oppression of Russian people.

I see the same situation here, today, in the Ukraine. Who elected that chump president, again? More than a hundred thousand Ukes have already fled the Ukraine, seeking asylum in Russia.

Maybe it's just because I don't hear the full story here in Scotland, but from what I've seen, this seems to be quite different to the Georgia situation. There has always been ethnic tension in former Soviet states due to the Soviets' reliance on resettled populations to establish control, but Ukraine seemed to be relatively peaceful on that front. The only area with any serious ethnic tension seems to be Sevastopol. The current bunch of reformers are looking to westernise increase trade with the west, not "westernise" per se, whereas closer alignment with Russia does seem to imply becoming part of a larger machine -- Russia still appears very imperialist.

The circumstances leading to the Orange Revolution was arguably a disaster for Ukraine, because policies ended up taking a back seat to corruption.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[gmuslera]

Something like this document involving funding revolutionary groups? Or maybe could be explained with NSA/GCHQ manipulation in social networks? That the first report blames the owner of the site of the other report could give an idea of how complex is putting blame on someone lately, but in case of doubt, don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained with NSA's malice.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[wheelbarrio]

I'm sorry but that is just the weakest moral equivalence BS. The fact that both parties to a dispute have tarnished reputations has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of their current cause. Some details for you to think about, if you care to come off the fence:

* Ukraine has been pretty badly run since independence but it's hardly a "failed state" - at 117 out of 178 countries it's not even in the bottom half of the index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index) - the US is 159 if you want to know.
* The overt and covert hands of Russia are MUCH more evident in Ukraine than the West's. US foreign policy been incredibly inward-looking of late and not much bothered with the complexities of post-Soviet states' politics (a mistake). EU is in play but mostly economically - this is the proximate cause of this whole recent mess.
* The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.
* People who live in Ukraine should decide how they are governed. If that means some regions split off and join Russia leaving a rump that is European-looking, fine.
* The one certainty once Russia gets involved militarily is that people will needlessly die, many Ukrainians will lose the right to choose their destiny, and the West will look foolish for having dealt with Putin's Russia as anything except an nuclear-armed oligarchic petrostate, i.e. a bad actor. How European countries let themselves become dependent on Russian oil and gas supplies with no thought for exactly this kind of contingency is beyond me. What are they going to do now, threaten economic sanctions that involve turning off their own heating?

So let's be careful before casting judgement but don't just throw the hands up and say "pot, kettle". I blame FOX (because I can) for having destroyed the critical thinking faculties of a generation of Americans with their discovery/invention of the "Fair and Balanced" trope, even amongst people that don't watch the damn channel.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[cold fjord]

and now let's talk about the leaked documents involving the "pro-western forces in the Ukraine""

Got any links?

By the way, where are the "western forces" invading Ukraine? If you want to try playing the "reciprocal game," there should be Western military forces moving into Ukraine against the will of the Ukrainian government.

I haven't heard about the US Marines, British airborne, or German panzer divisions showing up. Do you have any news? Or is it all just Russian military forces moving into Ukrainian territory?

Alleged home video of Russian attack helicopers

I wonder who the AC is?

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ilguido]

The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.

I don't want to start a heated debate, so I'll answer only this point: saying that "the 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people" is the exact mistake that brought them at this point. The Ukrainian people is all the people that dwells Ukraine: Ukrainians, Russians, Hebrews, Romanians, Poles and Tatars. The opposition parties should have been more levelheaded: if they really wanted to keep Ukraine united, they should have tried to keep the people (all of them) united. Instead they let the nationalists take a big part in the whole process, including rejecting a reasonable deal mediated by the EU with a president that was actually democratically elected and had a lot of support in vast areas of the country, taking three seats in the government including ministry of defence, and removing the Russian language from the list of the official languages of the country.

I'm not saying that Russia is right, but that the revolutionaries acted quite stupidly: they should have tried to wheedle ethnic minorities, not stir them up.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

US foreign policy been incredibly inward-looking of late and not much bothered with the complexities of post-Soviet states' politics (a mistake).

Oh? Perhaps you missed the news that the USA is harvesting everyone in the world's communications, engaging in industrial espionage, poisoning online communications, inserting covert backdoors in electronics products, invading innocent countries, torturing "enemy combatants", tapping phone calls of world leaders, "discrediting in the media" people they don't like...

The USA has no right to any moral high ground here I'm afraid.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[argStyopa]

I have to admit, It's kinda cool that Putin posts on slashdot.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[loonycyborg]

Well, as a Russian citizen I don't consider the government to be in any way imperialist. Both Ukraine and Georgia issues are started by blatant cases of cultural imperialism. There was outright attempt of genocide in Ossetia. Ukraine isn't better. All former soviet republic countries are ruled by former soviet statesmen who want to justify their positions by encouraging local nationalism. Country borders are in many ways artificial because they were set during soviet times when there was no plans to make them independent states. Crimea itself was part of Russian 'Soviet Republic' in the past and later was passed to Ukraine to make the map look more beautiful or something. All ethnic russian people that ended up on territory of Ukraine due to those shenanigans are target of 'ukrainization' efforts by ukrainian nationalists. There's no other way to stop those radicals than armed force it seems.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[hey!]

and now let's talk about the leaked documents involving the "pro-western forces in the Ukraine""

OK, lets. The US government is far from lilly-white, but if it and allied governments were coordinating violent opposition to the Ukrainian government too, that would surely be in the cable leak.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Erikderzweite]

US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ” Nuland said the United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[pellik]

Did you read the part in the summary which clearly states these actions were done at the behest of Moscow in order to destabilize the region and justify their eventual invasion?

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ilguido]

Yes and it has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about Crimea, I was talking about Ukraine at large. You are a fool if you think that Putin is doing all this just for Crimea: this is not a battle for Crimea, that was already lost to Ukraine the moment that they let ultra-nationalists take a big part in the revolution, this is a battle for the whole Ukraine.

Let's get back to the point of my previous post. Things for the Russians would be much, much, much harder, I'd even say impossible, If there weren't these idiots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... (BBC Newsnight). In the moment of maximum weakness of an already weak country, they brought division and idiotic nationalist mumble jumble, when they should have cared about political and ethnic cooperation (you know, "United we stand, divided we fall"). That's a big fault and it's not a Russian fault.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ultranova]

Well, as a Russian citizen I don't consider the government to be in any way imperialist.

That's probably safest. Wouldn't want to accidentally eat polonium.

There was outright attempt of genocide in Ossetia.

Of course there was. And Winter War was started by the shelling of Mainila.

Some countries never change. But at least they act as efficient evangelists for Nato.

Both Ukraine and Georgia issues are started by blatant cases of cultural imperialism.

No, they were started by Putin trying to build a third Russian Empire on the ruins of Soviet Union. At this point the hope for Russia, the region and perhaps the world is that old age does its job before he can cause irreparable damage.

The truly sad thing is that it's saber-rattling like this that keeps Russia from assuming the place its size, population and natural resources would otherwise entitle it to. No one wants to deal with people who renege on their deals and send in the military the second they get - or manufacture - an excuse. Why do you think Ukrainians hated the very thought of "closer ties" - also known as chains - with Russia enough to revolt?

All former soviet republic countries are ruled by former soviet statesmen who want to justify their positions by encouraging local nationalism.

And Russia is the worst of the lot.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

The USSR and the rebranded Russian Republic has never made the slightest effort to hide their motivations or methods when subjugating it's neighbors. They want all of their cold war puppets to start towing the party line or else the gas gets cutoff and military exercises on their borders with the military using a broken GPS to maneuver the troops causing accidental border incursions. Europe is as feckless and weak as they were prior to WW2 and the US has caught a terminal case of the "I don't give a fuck bug" so Russia has a green light for anything they want to do. With China also convinced the US "I don't give a fuck bug" covers south east Asia they will be on their way towards Taiwan and the surrounding countries with only Japan to get in their way. The fun is about to begin and I have a feeling that all those who have spent the last 15 years demonizing the US for interfering in foreign affairs are about to look a little short sighted but maybe the next iteration of human civilization can learn from the mistakes that have led to the edge of WW3 where the 1% is no more protected from the collapse of the international framework that has kept the silo doors closed for the last 70 years than the remaining 99%.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[cold fjord]

It'd never happen. I mean, that'd be like every country that had a German minority being invaded by Germany.

You mean like in the Sudetenland crisis (1938) and Austrian Anschluss (1938)? (We won't include Russia's Volga Germans.) Do you want to include the "Aryan" peoples too?

Nothing like that could happen with Russia, right?

Russia Pressures the Baltic States

Nearly three years after all three Baltic States regained their independence, Russia continues to infringe on their sovereignty, intervene in their internal affairs and subject them to coercive diplomacy. Russia's failure to complete the withdrawal of its troops from Estonia and Latvia, a long and varied series of incidents involving the Russian forces, and allegations that Estonia and Latvia have violated the human rights of their Russian-speaking population, are issues that have acquired a particularly menacing aspect in view of Russia's characterization of the Baltics as being within the "near abroad," not as independent and sovereign as other European states--and the recently formulated military doctrine and activist foreign policy that reflect a resurgent Russian imperialism.

In Ukraine, Echoes of the Anschluss

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[loonycyborg]

No, they were started by Putin trying to build a third Russian Empire on the ruins of Soviet Union. At this point the hope for Russia, the region and perhaps the world is that old age does its job before he can cause irreparable damage.

The truly sad thing is that it's saber-rattling like this that keeps Russia from assuming the place its size, population and natural resources would otherwise entitle it to. No one wants to deal with people who renege on their deals and send in the military the second they get - or manufacture - an excuse. Why do you think Ukrainians hated the very thought of "closer ties" - also known as chains - with Russia enough to revolt?

That's a cute theory based on complete ignorance of current situation. Just look at the consequence: Georgia is still independent and many Ossetians were saved from getting killed. I'd say Russia did a better job at avoiding being imperialist than, say, US. Honestly, I'm a world citizen, and I'm for complete abolition of separate states. For now I think the less separate states there is the better. Especially those run by petty national radicals like Georgia and Ukraine. Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[sploxx]

Sorry, replying to you, because I accidentally moderated as off-topic.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[wheelbarrio]

The whole point is that you cannot speak of "the revolutionaries" en bloc - there were a bunch of people protesting Yanukovich's reject of the EU agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia, and their cause was jumped on by extreme Uke nationalists who were welcomed and in some cases invited to the party by the Russians - they aren't reflective of most Ukrainians' wishes but they do make the whole anti-Yanukovich crowd look extreme and can be used to justify an extreme response. This is classic false flag stuff that the Russians are so good at, much better than the West. Even if the nationalists were genuine home-grown idiots the level of their activity scarcely justifies an invasion by Russia, it's not like Russian nationals are being killed in the streets, or Russian assets being pillaged.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Raenex]

Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.

If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[wheelbarrio]

Did you actually what I wrote? Do you know what moral equivalence is? Hint: it's what you're peddling. At what point do I suggest there is any high ground to be had here, by anyone? The reason I can judge Russia's actions critically is the same reason I judged America's actions critically when they invaded Iraq in 2003. It's called intelligence, and partisanship doesn't play any part in it. I'm not even American.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[gmhowell]

That's exactly what he meant. I know, sarcasm can be hard to detect online.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[dimko]

Native russian speaker here. Before pointing finger at Russia, please tell me, how would minorities react to fact that in USA their language is made illegal in public places? I remember exactly that! When I was restricted to speak Russian in public places in Tallinn, Estonia. Later on Estonia got face slap for that, but what has been seen - can not be unseen. Law changed. Memories remain. In Ukrain just recently they were creating similar law. Many people there are dual lingual, but for many of those Russian is actually native, mother language. Also, historically, Crimea was part of Russia and not Ukrain. It became Ukrain in last 60 or so years. After USSR brake down, and many people disagreed with this back then, in both Crimea and Russian Federation. Tatar population participated in fight against Russian Emperia before. Tatars are mushlims. Hence all the tentions. I am not one bit amazed. For Americans to understand it - I don't think it's possible. Well, no, for native Americans - it is.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Anonymous Coward]

As Polish citizen I remember a long history of Russian "protection".

In XVIII Russia protected orthodox minority so well that Poland ceased to exist for 125 years.

In 1920 Red Army came to protect Polish workers in farmers - it was barely stopped in bloody battle near Warsaw.

In September 1939 Red Army was forced to protect the eastern part of Poland as Hitler protected the western part

Easter Europe was further protected in late 1940-ies, then in 1956 in Budapest, then in 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
In 1970 and 1981 Poland was "protected" by its own Yanukovych-like traitors.

But then USSR was busy protecting Afghanistan...

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Raenex]

The thing is that most of them weren't.

Pardon me if I don't take your biased word on any of this.

Some originally joined Russian Empire completely voluntarily like Georgia.

Annexed into the Russian Empire, then became independent, and then conquered by the USSR.

Some didn't even have a state when those territories were colonized and have them now simply because they weren't exterminated like American natives.

The native Americans weren't exterminated. Since we're talking about Crimea, you can draw parallels to the forced deportation of the Tatars.

Some are failed conquerors of Russia themselves, like Poland and Lithuania.

When did Poland ever try to conquer Russia? It's the other way around. They've been subjugated by Russian rule numerous times.

Most post soviet countries are artificial. Some of peoples that stayed within Russian Federation have more claims to sovereignty than those states. Making them independent was pointless. Many of them got even worse regimes than the past soviet one. Russian Federation happens to be one of more democratic ones. I think all of them would be better off staying in the same state and building their post-soviet future together.

Sorry, your word on this is meaningless.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[painandgreed]

The thing is that most of them weren't. Some originally joined Russian Empire completely voluntarily like Georgia. Some didn't even have a state when those territories were colonized and have them now simply because they weren't exterminated like American natives. Some are failed conquerors of Russia themselves, like Poland and Lithuania. Most post soviet countries are artificial. Some of peoples that stayed within Russian Federation have more claims to sovereignty than those states. Making them independent was pointless. Many of them got even worse regimes than the past soviet one. Russian Federation happens to be one of more democratic ones. I think all of them would be better off staying in the same state and building their post-soviet future together.

However, despite years of being joined and with time to all become on happy family that work well together, once given the chance, they not only separated, but almost all of them put out feelers and looked at joining the EU and NATO. NATO, whose only real point is to protect people from Russia. In the European family of nations, it really does seem like Russia is the drunk uncle who likes to abuse his wife and kids and gets mad when they try to move out and go to a shelter.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[aplcomp]

As a Finn, I would not mind to say that to Estonians.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[ultranova]

In the European family of nations, it really does seem like Russia is the drunk uncle who likes to abuse his wife and kids and gets mad when they try to move out and go to a shelter.

http://satwcomic.com/the-boogeyman-comes-at-night.

And yeah, that's all too accurate. Except the boogeyman has nukes.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[loonycyborg]

However, despite years of being joined and with time to all become on happy family that work well together, once given the chance, they not only separated, but almost all of them put out feelers and looked at joining the EU and NATO. NATO, whose only real point is to protect people from Russia. In the European family of nations, it really does seem like Russia is the drunk uncle who likes to abuse his wife and kids and gets mad when they try to move out and go to a shelter.

Not countries themselves but only their leadership. That's all theater to paint Russia as old soviet bogeyman to justify their positions of power. EU and NATO are not in strict opposition to Russia, it's not Soviet Union ffs, just another post-soviet state. It could as well end up in NATO eventually. I just think that we could be better off with only one post-soviet state rather than several ones like we did. There were many horrible things done as part by Soviet regime, but it not in any way can be considered purely Russian. Personnel from all republics participated. Stalin for example is ethnic Georgian. Communism transcends nationalities.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Raenex]

The word "almost" was required.

The American settlers fought wars and drove the native Americans off their land onto reservations. But they were no more exterminated than were the Tatars.

If you were not indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, you would not have asked that ignorant question.

Maybe you mean if I was indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, in particular the Soviet Union era? And perhaps modern Russia, too? I don't know what they teach in their history books, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one-sided.

OP was referring to the most recent war before Soviet Russia invaded Poland for the last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...â"Soviet_War

You screwed up your link, but it seems you were trying to point here. Note it does not support the view that Poland was trying to conquer Russia. It explicitly says it wasn't:

"On the other hand, Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War[16] or of conquering Russia itself.[37]"

In the least favorable view of Poland, it was trying to do a land grab alongside its borders. In the most favorable view, they were trying to secure their country from an imperialistic Russia that was going to invade them anyways when the opportunity arose. It's all in the Wikipedia article.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[cold fjord]

...don't attribute to stupidity what can be explained with NSA's malice.

What do you think about attributing Russian invasion forces in Crimea, Ukraine, to Russia?

I'll assume you're opposed to that, but I'm curious as to what whimsical reason you'll give.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[Raenex]

Correct me if I'm wrong... Poland broke away and became independent from Russia during the Russian Civil War.

Poland's east was Russia. West is Germany.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You can read the history of Poland on Wikipedia just as well as I can. Like many countries and territories, it was ruled over and conquered by different countries, and at various times gained independence. What does any of this have to do with Poland conquering Russia, as was claimed?

That statement reads to me as though Polish forces tried to capitalise on the mayhem in Russia and took advantage of the situation.

Which says nothing different than what I already summarized in my last post, per "least favorable view" and "most favorable". Still don't see any evidence that Poland was out to conquer Russia.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[i.kazmi]

heh a Pakistani here :-) that's almost exactly how most Pakistanis feel about NATO in general and USA in particular ;-)

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[gmuslera]

The last visible reaction of a chain of events don't mean that the chain started there. Hit me in my knee and my leg will kick. That it implies more rational thinking don't mean that some rational reactions are as inevitable as that one.

Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea"

[q4Fry]

+1 Gallows humor

Sarah Palin

[Vinegar Joe]

Predicted the same thing in 2008.

Re:Sarah Palin

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because she could see them russkies from her backyard.

Re:Sarah Palin

[ahabswhale]

Understandable, given that she can see Russia from her house.

Re:Sarah Palin

[amiga3D]

Today Ukraine, tomorrow Alaska? They've been bitching about getting ripped off back in 1867 when they sold it to the US for 7.2 million dollars. After the discovery of Gold and Oil there it looks like they got fucked over. No wonder Palin is nervous.

Re:Sarah Palin

[sumdumass]

I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.

Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".

Re:Sarah Palin

[davester666]

Yeah, she totally loved going to the Russia House Restaurant just up the street from her home.

Re:Sarah Palin

[aliquis]

lol, I have to read up on it.

They should send an official "U mad bro?"

Re:Sarah Palin

[Runaway1956]

Really? I thought she had to at least go to an upstairs window in her house to see Moscow clearly.

Re:Sarah Palin

[sumdumass]

Ok, take it easy now. It's not like they have a choice in the matter.

Re:Sarah Palin

[SpankiMonki]

Predicted the same thing in 2008.

That wasn't Palin's idea, she stole it from Santorum (who in turn stole it from those Bible code dudes).

Re:Sarah Palin

[sumdumass]

Actually, it was a response to a reporter who asked what insights she can gain from being so close to Russia in connection with NATIONAL SECURITY not foreign policy, here answer was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics...

It was in response to a series of questioning about Russia invading another of it's neighbors Georgia. She also warns about Russia and the Ukraine in this same interview which she was laughed at. I would think in context, her comment on this was very rational where as yours is still completely ignorant of the facts.

Re:Sarah Palin

[Mashiki]

Yeah, a Mormon vulture capitalist and a insane mayor from bumfuck Alaska would have been much better.

Apparently they would. After all, there was recently a strategy meeting with regards to Russia and the Ukraine. And want to guess who blew it off to go see a film festival? If you guessed anyone but Obama, you're just a partisan hack.

Re:Sarah Palin

[_Sharp'r_]

Or, because she was smarter than her critics on foreign policy....

But hey, you can always check snopes for the actual context of her remarks on Russia...

Re:Sarah Palin

[Runaway1956]

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/marine...

I spent a year on Adak, and I flew into Shemya and Attu. From a few thousand feet up in the air, you can look westward, and see land. You did NOT see Soviet land while standing on the ground, due to the curvature of the earth.

I read a story not long ago, about Aleuts from the American islands going to visit kinfolk on the Soviet islands during the Cold War. Nowhere in the story do I remember any implication that they could SEE the islands of one side from the other. It wasn't a thirty minute ride on a fishing boat or anything like that. The visits were days long affairs.

Re:Sarah Palin

[_Sharp'r_]

I suppose I'd have mentally picked St. Laurence Island as a more representative example, as it's part of Alaska and only 36 miles from Russia. You'd have to have a mountain in the distance to see Russia from there, but it's feasible.

But more accurately, Little Diomede Island, is only 2.4 miles from Big Diomede Island, so you can easily see Russia from there and even walk between the two countries during the parts of the year it's frozen over.

Re:Sarah Palin

[sumdumass]

As the article you linked to spells out, Palin was asked what insight being close to Russia gives her about Russian actions in Georgia and she basically avoids the question by saying you can see Russia from parts of Alaska. Whether it is her back yard or somewhere else in Alaska she still had no insight to offer.

It takes a clueless person to not see the insight in noticing that when Russia invades it's neighboring country, then it says you should watch for Russia invading it's neighboring countries- which happens to be the US via Alaska when talking about national security. What insights into US national security would Russia invading a neighboring country give you other than we need to watch our border with Russia? and yes, you can essentially say we have a border with Russia and we patrolled it pretty heavily during the cold war.

When Gibson calls her out on her non-answer, she just goes into a diatribe about regan, not repeating the cold war and "can't we all just get along." But she STILL HAS NOTHING MEANINGFUL TO SAY. So the parody is really just a summarization of the meaning of her response because a couple of sentences of blather isn't as funny. But the meaning is unchanged.

Now I know why you posted AC.
Can you see Russia from your bedroom window?

NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[CassidyJames]

Kremlin had no other choices left with Ukraine. There can be only two reasons for not letting Ukraine into NATO: foreign military bases inside the country and insufficently demarkated (or conflicting) borders. So Putin made it both.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[WoOS]

> Kremlin had no other choices left with Ukraine.
Really? Like peaceful coexistance?

Putin is wagering it all. If he does not get at least Crimea from this (or even the whole SE of the Ukraine) he has a major defeat on his hands: Confidence in Russia fulfilling its contracts (they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons) will be severly damaged (also damaging their natural gas trade), the Ukraine will make life a hell for the Russian fleet in Sewastopol by subtle sabotage and the Ukraine now will definitely want to get into NATO as soon as possible.

With such high stakes he must be very sure, he can win this.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Russia can definitely win this. The question is whether Putin is willing to deal with the consequences.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Erikderzweite]

>they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons
The treaty in question was signed but never ratified, neither by Russia, nor by US or UK.

Besides, US has guaranteed non-expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe once. The Russians may be just learning from the world's leading democracy.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Runaway1956]

Really? How was that little fiasco in Georgia resolved, again? Oh yeah - Russia ensured the safety of ethnic and national Russians, and withdrew.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[AHuxley]

It depends how well Russia can play this with the worlds media.. let Ukraine be free to fail under a new far right gov.
Wait for the US to try a "Bay of Pigs" with local well funded freedom fighters :)
Russia just has to sit in its bases and wait, just like with Georgia :)

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[temcat]

Go salmon up some tuna, you footcloth.

CassidyJames is Putin's propaganda sockpuppet, and this is his first comment.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Zontar The Mindless]

Really? How was that little fiasco in Georgia resolved, again? Oh yeah - Russia ensured the safety of ethnic and national Russians, and withdrew.

Did they?

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Runaway1956]

This is the one I was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

But your article supports my assertion to some degree. Georgia has ethnic problems. And, the asshole who took over Georgia prior to the 2008 war only worsened the problems.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Zontar The Mindless]

Last I heard, Kosovo had nothing whatsoever to do with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Ukraine. Nor was it ever part of the USSR. Unlike Belorussia, which gives you a pretty good idea what Putin has in mind for Ukraine.

Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple

[Staale Nordlie]

The treaty in question was signed but never ratified, neither by Russia, nor by US or UK.

"This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

It was signed. It is binding.

Well ... what do you expect

[giorgist]

If the US could invade Iraq without UN support and under the pretense of the moral high ground as defined by the US, then so can Russia invade Crimea. If the Kosovo can leave Serbia and become it's own country under the support of the US even though it is historically Serbian but by population Albanian so can Crimea which has a Russian majority. The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it. Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !! Russia supplies 60% of Europe's energy and it will increase to 80% ... the US has nothing to stand on. If they apply sanctions, the Russians will increase the price of gas and oil and have Europe pay for them just for giggles.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[amiga3D]

Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[sumdumass]

Precedence is a bitch? So Russia was in a war with Crimea and ceased hostilities on the basis Crimea followed a few rules and then resumed hostilities when it was obvious they didn't follow the rules?

That is the precedence after all. the first gulf war was ended on the conditions of full disarmament of specific weapons and the halting of programs to create or develop them. That failed to happen time and time again and the means to verify it happened failed time and time again.

You are correct in your other assessments though. The US definitely has nothing to stand on- we have a president that leads from behind, trying to make every gaff a planned operation (red line anyone) as if he was some kid who fell down and tried to look cool when jumping back up exclaiming "I meant to do that". I'm just glad there are no red lines in the dirt this time for I fear China might broker a deal to disarm Ukraine or something to ensure peace and allow the pres to save face again.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it.

Wow, talk about ameri-centrism. This isn't about the US bro, this is about Ukraine and Russia. The US isn't suffering here, Ukrainians are. The US has nothing to do with it except the complaints of a whining president.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[bluegutang]

US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.

Russia invaded Crimea, and may soon attempt to annex it.

That's a big difference, legally and morally.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[AHuxley]

Re This isn't about the US bro
The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.

Russia invaded Crimea, and may soon attempt to annex it.

That's a big difference, legally and morally.

Well, to be fair, Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk). The majority of the people there identify with being Russian. Not saying Putin is right, but he is welcomed by many there.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[aliquis]

How is that the US problem really?

Also fine, do it, help give initiative to switch to better energy sources.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Now thats an unfair comparison. There were never that many interest or citizens of the US in Iraq as Russians in Crimea.

Since the revolution i hoped that Ukraina and EU do the most reasonable thing: Declare that Russia can keep the military base there (in the best interest of everybody), declare that the crimea is automonous in many aspects, and make an agreement that Russian is the second official language in Ukraina, and the first in the East part and the Crimea. Make a trade agreement and offer Russia Ukraina as a marketplace to access EU. Give Russia the prospect of becoming associated (not member, but free trade) with the EU via this way.

History has no rewind button. Russian speaking population is now living everywhere in the former Soviet union, and we have seen example of discrimination of Russians in other countries (Baltic states) before, where in some it was forbidden to speak russian.

The nationalist political games which the west does not keep a safe distance from are not good.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[TapeCutter]

You seem to have forgotten Bush's temper tantrum when the UNSC refused to endorse his invasion plans. The things you list were reasons to invade but they don't add up to a "right" to invade, to do that the US had to dump long held foreign policy, ignore existing treaties, and adopt something called the Bush doctrine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Half-pint HAL]

Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies. Hans Blix felt this was reasonable, the Americans said "hell no" and used their permanent security council status to block any agreement to carry on without any US presence on the ground. In effect, it was the US that stopped the inspections.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Half-pint HAL]

Sevastapol is largely Russian, but Crimea on the whole is ethnically Tatar. The problem is a hangover from the old imperial tactic of settling a privileged minority to try to make the local populace easier to control, and to try to trigger language change. Congo's crisis came because independence didn't do enough to start the process of returning land from the privileged settled whites to the native population, and then Mugabe gained power on the land reform ticket with no real plan on how to do it right -- because land reform clearly wasn't all that important to him. Apartheid in South Africa was a privileged minority brutally supressing the local population in order to maintain their own status. The settlement of Scottish Protestants in Ireland was aimed at the same goal, and the partitioning of Ireland was designed to keep the "loyalists" in the majority over the republicans, thereby maintaining British control. This led to decades of bloodshed and bitterness after the partition.

Now I'm not saying I have the answer, but the problem starts with the settlements, and Russia "defending" them under a banner of human rights is entirely disengenuous. They were planted there as a lever for Soviet Moscow to retain power, and they are being used by CIS Moscow to try to regain power (or control, at the very least.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[CSMoran]

Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !!

Precedence only matters in law, in places that use common law. In other legal systems, precedence doesn't matter at all.

It matters diplomatically and in propaganda.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[shia84]

Your example in the first paragraph isn't really applicable: imagine if the majority of Iraq's population were Americans... completely different context.

Also, keep in mind that the USA had several opportunities to resolve the WMD inspection problem (like allowing the EU to chose the inspectors) but they always chose the escalating "my way or the highway" option. IMO it's pretty hard to argue that the primary reason for the Iraq invasion was not oil and financial imperialism. Just look at who controls all of Iraq's oil exports right now.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[shia84]

Please elaborate a bit more on your first sentence. I don't live there, so I have to rely on Wikipedia etc., but the population of Crimea is around 2 million, out of which 58% (1.16m) are Russians and 12% (0.24m) are Tatars, with 24% Ukraininans.
If 100% of Sevastopol (population of 380'000) were Russian, that still leaves 780'000 Russians vs 240'000 Tatars for the rest of Crimea. I'd say if anything, Crimea on the whole is ethnically Russian.

Maybe you're referring to the historical development. But I don't see how 3 centuries of Tatar rule take precedence over 4 centuries of Bulgarian rule, 2 centuries of Kievan Rus' rule (both slavic) and all the others (Greeks, Goths, Huns, ....) before the Tatars arrived in the 15th century. And for the Russian rule since the 18th century, afaict the whole pretext for the subjugation was that the Crimea was slavic lands.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[sumdumass]

Your example in the first paragraph isn't really applicable: imagine if the majority of Iraq's population were Americans... completely different context.

lol.. not really applicable? The first gulf war didn't end, there was a cease fire with conditions that were not met to the satisfaction of parties to the war. You are correct it is not applicable to Russia invading Crimea which is why it isn't a precedence.

Also, keep in mind that the USA had several opportunities to resolve the WMD inspection problem (like allowing the EU to chose the inspectors) but they always chose the escalating "my way or the highway" option.

And the sanctions against Iraq would have been effective if France, Russia, and China hadn't scammed the UN oil for food program to get cheap oil in violation of sanctions they voted to put in place. OF course this wouldn't have been possible without the corruption in the UN also, Kofi Annan and his family made out pretty well on it too.

The only thing about the Iraq invasion that can be legitimately traced to oil is the strong opposition by the countries and people extorting Iraq for their oil before the invasion.

Just look at who controls all of Iraq's oil exports right now.

You mean China? After the US invasion, the UN still tightly controlled Iraqi oil and over the years released larger amounts to the control of the Iraqi government until finally, they lifted the restrictions on it. If you are going to imply the US controls it or at some time controlled it, you have absolutely no fact based evidence of such happenings. China moved in as soon as the oil became available and is purchasing the vast majority of it. The best you can do is somehow conflate a situation in which the US benefits and planned on benefiting from other countries buying up the Iraqi oil.

I'm sorry but your worldview on the subject simply does not match reality much.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Dachannien]

As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies.

No, Saddam didn't want the inspectors there because he didn't want actual evidence to get out that he didn't have WMDs. He was more afraid of Iran than he was the US, and he said as much after he was captured and before he was executed.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Estonia, Latvia have both laws in place which pose big disavantages to russian communities existing there. A quick google search would have shown you this.

"Forbidden to speak russian" was meant to be "Forbidden to speak russian on official purposes".

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[ganjadude]

actually it was the US with support of a large number of other countries....

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[ganjadude]

you seem to forget that the constitution trumps any UN treaty

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[ganjadude]

there are states in the USA now who dont want to be part of the USA should we allow mexico to "take texas back" for example?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback

Russia has spent a lot on separatism efforts in many countries after the Soviet Union, centered in Russia, had previously shipped ethnic Russians to live in many occupied countries, often after engaging in various flavors of ethnic cleansing or other mass killings. We can expect more "protection" to be needed by those Russian in years to come, and Russian aggression and occupation of those countries will always be a danger under the current Russian government.

US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

There is a great deal that the account you reference leaves out, including government election fraud and thuggery. Lets add some more background.

Ukraine's Orange Revolution

The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

Having regained its independence after a long, bitter period of foreign rule, Ukraine really, really wants to remain independent with its territory intact. By itself against Russia it is unlikely to do so given Russia's history and power, as we are seeing demonstrated now, and previously in Georgia.

You may recall that the Ukrainians have plenty of motivation to be free of Russia since a special word is used for the crime against humanity inflicted upon them by the Soviet Union, the heart of which was Russia: Holodomo. The Ukrainian terror famine killed perhaps as many as 10,000,000 people as the police, secret police, and army were used to confiscate food and prevent people from leaving.

The Soviet Story - trailer
The Great Famine

The Soviet Union had to be contained, Russia didn't ..... or are we seeing now that it does?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

The Soviet Union shipped ethnic Russians to live in many "Soviet Republics," including the conquered and annexed Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They did that as a means to pacify the annexed territory. Those populations are now serving as an excuse for Russian intervention and occupation. Can we expect to see Russia annexing those territories again due to the presence of Russian minorities? Is this the Sudetenland all over again? Does the world learn?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

It's still no reason to strip said Russians of their rights like Baltic countries did. The fear is that the new Ukrainian government would do similar steps and the fact that one of the first laws passed by the new government was to remove Russian's language "regional language" status is a strong indication for it.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

He is not. Although Russian was not forbidden per se, the use of the language was severely restricted including the law that forbade teaching children in Russian.

Not to mention the fact that the Russians were not granted citizenship based on their ethnicity alone.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

There are more Tatars outside of Sevastopol than in the city, but they are still a minority. Their history with Russia is pretty complicated and has many conflicts the latest being WWII where the Tatar community openly supported Hitler even after they were denied their own country. While most collaborationists themselves could escape with the retreating Wehrmacht, the common people were not so lucky: the Tatars were deported to Uzbekistan, many of them died. 1989 the Soviets acknowledged the deportation as a humanitarian crime and allowed the Tatars to return to the peninsula.

The area is a powder keg now. The Tatars share anti-Russian views with the Ukrainian nationalists and the Russians, who compose the majority of the people there feel threatened by the new government fearing Latvian-style discrimination.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Megol]

If they want to live as Russians they can move to Russia.

Unless Russian leaders want to have them as an excuse to pressurize the colonized countries instead and don't really care about them.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

The native language of 90% of the population in some city is russian, therefore there is a need that 90% of the employees talk russian mainly to the people. The native language of a city or people does not change by law. A law which assumes otherwise is just discrimination in slight disguise.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Megol]

Sounds reasonable. Why should the Russian speaking _minority_ be allowed to teach their children in _Russian_, something that only is done in order to promote the minority status of them instead of allowing assimilation into the community in large.

Russians still could speak Russian.

Russian children still could learn Russian from their parents and/or language classes.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

If Russia stops trying to take territory from other countries, it won't need to be contained.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Uberbah]

US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.

Your post seems to have been truncated. Because you left out the million dead, the four million refugees, infrastructure bombed into the stone age, Abu Garib and other tortures, shipping innocent people off to Gitmo for 10+ years, and the use of chemical weapons (phosphorus) and depleted uranium (causing an explosion in birth defects).

And all for WMD's and ties to Al Queda that didn't exist. Whereas this fascist coup in Ukraine is really happening, and the fascists are really threatening ethnic Russians.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Uberbah]

American Exceptionalism strikes again. How many invasions and regime changes has Russia performed over the last 10 years compared to your government? Is Putin asserting he has the right to have anyone murdered, anywhere in the world, based on his say so alone - and acting on those claims? How many military bases does Russia have around the world compared to the United States. Does Russia have special forces operating in more than half the world's countries?

Anyone with a half-functioning brain can see which country needs to have it's imperialistic wankers put in check first, and that it's not Putin.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[OneAhead]

Is it tasting good, that kool-aid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[microbox]

Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn.

The actual inspectors on the ground disagree with this assessment.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Uberbah]

You seem to have forgotten that people have functioning brains. Next you'll be whining about why we haven't invaded Iran yet, since they forced down one of our drones flying over their airspace in an especially heinous act of war on the part of Tehran.

Oh, and I see you managed to tap down that migraine long enough to post here after all, despite the cognitive dissonance that must be weighing you down. As a proud Brownshirt yourself, no doubt you feel an overwhelming urge to support this fascist coup that overthrew a democratically-elected government.

But on the other hand, many of these people are openly anti-semitic Neo Nazis, which must necessarily conflict with your own Ziofascism. It's the unstoppable hackery vs the immovable depravity...which will win? Nevermind, I can probably guess your answer: the Ukrainian Jews all move to some nice West Bank settlement, once those troublesome Palestinian villages that have been there for hundreds of years have been properly cleansed and bulldozed to make way for subsidized condos. Then the fascists in Ukraine can turn their eliminationism to the non-Jewish Russians in the country. Two birds killed with one stone!

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Uberbah]

you seem to forget that the constitution trumps any UN treaty

You seem to forget that very Constitution makes treaties the second highest law of the land. Treaties like the U.N. Charter.

Now, you were saying?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[phantomfive]

Uh, so lets talk about America when America does something? Even if America had just acquired Canada and Mexico, it still would have nothing to do with this situation. Comparing every international event to America is the sign of a juvenile mind, and trying to justify behavior based on American's behavior is the sign of juvenile ethics.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Nyder]

Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

Excuse me? If some big ass country was bullying me, I'd make what they were doing harder. Our invasion of Iraq was not only wrong, it destabilized the region into a big ass terrorist training area, something Saddam kept from happening.

And how many WMD's did we find? I know Bush said there were there, but how many did we find? Oh ya, None.

The biggest outrage of all of this is all the art and artifacts that got destroyed during this time, all that history lost.

 

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

American Exceptionalism strikes again.

Anti-Amercanism strikes again.

How many invasions and regime changes has Russia performed over the last 10 years compared to your government?

It is 2014. In the last 10 years Russia has invaded two sovereign countries - Georgia and Ukraine. It has also threatened nuclear strikes against NATO countries. I seem to recall that there have been other threats as well. The US hasn't invaded any countries in the last 10 years.

Is Putin asserting he has the right to have anyone murdered...

He doesn't "assert it," he just does it.

How many military bases does Russia have around the world...

A growing number, and they are seeking more.

Russia Seeks Access to Bases in Eight Countries for Its Ships and Bombers

Russia seems to have decided to play the part of the Soviet Union, what a pity. They are even rehabilitating Stalin. (I hope you can contain yourself.)

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Kharny]

yes, shocking, people who immigrated to a foreign nation finally had to learn the nations language, just like everyone else who does that.

Only in their case, they got to wait a bit longer than most people.

I'm sorry, but the fact is that the russians that lived in the former baltic states had the ability to learn the native languages for years, but refused in their imperialist pride.

Furthermore, there is always the option to leave the country they illegally occupied for years and move back to their own nation of russia.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk).

According to this it was a vote in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR that caused the transfer and not Khrusjtsjov alone.

By a decree issued February 19, 1954 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Crimea was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This decree was passed amid solemn circumstances. There were many speeches, which as far as one could tell had one purpose: to explain to the peoples of the USSR the reasons which made this act essential. According to the speakers the chief reasons were these: 1) The Crimea's economy is closely linked with the economy of the Ukrainian Republic; 2) The Crimea forms, as it were, a natural extension of the southern Ukrainian steppes.

The majority of the people there identify with being Russian.

Perhaps because most of the Tartars were exiled and may Ukrainians were starved in 1932 and 33. This followed by Russians moving to the area to support the Black Sea Fleet may be the reason for so many Russians on Ukrainian land.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

Did the new law strip Russians of the right to speak Russian? All they did was remove the Russian languages's special status within the Ukraine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[drolli]

Yeah. Imperialist pride. Sure. How about: Maybe they were sent there and did not like it, but after they lived in a purely russian city, where russuan language was demanded from the Soviet Union, newly built there for 50 years they are not welcome at "home"?

Never keep people living somewhere responsible for the political actions of their leaders 60 years ago.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

They want to live as Russians in the place they call home, then someone comes by and wants to strip them of their rights. Think again.
Wanna be part of Europe? Better come up with ways to integrate, not exclude them.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Just imagine that tomorrow Cherokee tribe gains control of the United States. Then they:

1) Strip your right to vote.

2) Force you to learn Cherokee.

3) Force you to educate your children ONLY in Cherokee.

4) Forbid English even as an _optional_ language for ANY official purpose. A true story: it's forbidden to translate text on official bills in Estonia, even to help elderly Russian-speaking citizens to understand WTF is written on them.

How would you feel? Still 'reasonable'?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

And as for your

The Soviet Union shipped ethnic Russians to live in many "Soviet Republics,"

They might have, but not in this case.
Besides, Ukraine-Russia ties. I'd say this is an internal matter, let them handle it.
Go fuck yourself with your Sudetenland non-argument. It's not occupation that's happening there. And it's not a minority. The Crimea has been Russian for the last 200+ years.

Does the world learn?

Do you ever stop trolling?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[del_diablo]

"Forbidden to speak X on official purposes" is very normal in all countries.
Just like any merchant inside their border have to accept the national currency. Usually enforced by law.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

it was a vote in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR

You mistake a vote there with a vote in a democratic parliament. You vote the way the general secretary votes, unless you're planning a coup.

so many Russians on Ukrainian land.

The Crimea has been Russian for more than 200 years.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

Ukraine is calling it an invasion. They are in a position to do that.

The presence of any local Russian majority population does not constitute an open invitation to invasion.

The Sudetenland is quite appropriate as a comparison. And yes, it is an occupation - by Russia. The Soviet Union transferred the Crimea to Ukraine, and Russia has recognized that in their treaties leasing the military bases.

Trolling? I think that's your job.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

It's still no reason to strip said Russians of their rights like Baltic countries did. The fear is that the new Ukrainian government would do similar steps and the fact that one of the first laws passed by the new government was to remove Russian's language "regional language" status is a strong indication for it.

That is no reason for invasion either. That is a fig leaf for Russian aggression.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[ganjadude]

And the consitution still trumps it, as I said...

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

Trolling? I think that's your job.

You're presenting a slanted picture (as usual). I'm just straightening it out.
You have no idea what is going on there as all your information is from news outlets, I have friends and relatives there. So please do yourself a favor and shut up.

With the same effect I can say that Ukraine is calling the current government a coup d'etat (financed by western NGOs, which were barred from Russia a while ago), and is welcoming Russia's presence.

Sudetenland was used as a staging board for further expansion, which would reveal you as a mad neo-con, if you would argue that Putin is doing something even remotely similar.

As far as I see it they (eastern Ukraine + Crimea) should have a referendum and split (Kosovo precedent), or hold general elections (for all of Ukraine), which should be overseen by (honorable) observers.
Until then, Russia is well within it's right to answer to the call of Ukrainian people (ethnic Russians or not) to secure the area.

The Soviet Union transferred the Crimea to Ukraine, and Russia has recognized that in their treaties leasing the military bases.

Ratified by? When? Thought so.
Go divide and conquer your own country and mind your own business!

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[cold fjord]

You aren't "straightening out" the picture so much as trying to confuse it.

The Sudeten crisis was Germany supposedly rescuing ethnic Germans from mistreatment. Does that sound familiar? That is what the Russian government claims they are doing - saving ethnic Russians from mistreatment. Just like they were threatening to do in the Baltic republics in the 90s.

Any place that has someone with Russian blood is apparently in danger of invasion by Russia to "save them."

Putin's War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine

... Russian ethnicity and citizenship trump national sovereignty. At the very least, they provide a convenient pretext for territorial expansion, as they did in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Russia was also ostensibly protecting Russian citizens—also newly minted for the occasion. Just this week, for instance, Russia introduced a law to make it easier for Ukrainians to get Russian citizenship—you know, to give Russia someone to protect.

If Russia is "well within its rights" to invade, then, I would say that NATO is well within it rights to come to the assistance of Ukraine at Ukraine's request, and Ukraine is well within its rights to rearm with nuclear weapons. Happy?

Why don't you complain about the USSR's actions to the Supreme Soviet. That would seem to be appropriate. It seems likely Putin will start reviving that once he is done rehabilitating Stalin.

Ukraine isn't Russia. Russia's current behavior is a menace to peace. If Russia was keeping Russian military forces in Russia instead of invading a neighbor we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, why don't you mind your own business and keep your country out of Ukraine?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

If the Crimea ia so staunchly Russian then why did they vote 54% in crimea and 57% in Sevastopol to separate from Russia? That was the last democratic vote on the issue

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[mdragan]

So, because you were pro US invasion of Irak, now you feel you also need to support the Russian invasion of Ukraina? Interesting logic, but clearly flawed.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

I guess, because the turnout was only 60%? The two districts dragging the average "yes" votes down are Crimea and Sevastopol'.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[CarbonShell]

Hey wait a minute, Powell had like a ton of Powerpoint Slides with proof he showed in his speech at the UN. And if the US says that, you KNOW it must be true. They would not lie to start a war. Not like those evil people that always come up with fake reasons to invade countries for their own goals.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

I guess ignorance is bliss, eh?
Fuck off with your Sudetenland bullshit. Again, it was used by Nazi-Germany as a springboard and is a whole different story.

Any place that has someone with Russian blood is apparently in danger of invasion by Russia to "save them."

Should I be awaiting Russian tanks in Berlin and Paris next then?

Take your bullshit neo-con sources and shove them up your ass. Putin did not "Declare war on Ukraine."

If Russia is "well within its rights" to invade, then, I would say that NATO is well within it rights to come to the assistance of Ukraine at Ukraine's request, and Ukraine is well within its rights to rearm with nuclear weapons.

First, that's not an invasion, if Russia would invade, the pictures would look different.
Second, NATO is not going to intervene, they're crazy but not total morons. As long as there is no official government that was elected by the Ukrainian people, the current nazi radicals can beg all they want. Btw, why don't you look at who got appointed as governors today?
Third, the IAEA as well as the EU would have a lot against the Ukraine arming itself with nuclear weapons.

Why don't you complain about the USSR's actions to the Supreme Soviet.

You seem to have missed the fact that Russia is the heir of the USSR? I could complain to the Duma deputies and it would have the same effect (none).

Russia's current behavior is a menace to peace.

LOL, look who's talking. HAHAHAHAHA Just like Kerry... LMAO!

So, why don't you mind your own business

That's what they do, actually.

keep your country out of Ukraine

Rather than having my own country, I'd like a world without borders, without banks and with abundance of everything as we mine other planets and explore space together.
Stop using Fox news rhetorics, and go check out Russia Today! Maybe you'll be able to figure out what's real by dividing one propaganda machine by the other.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[sumdumass]

No, crimea has been part of the ukraine since 1991. But even if it was as you believe, there still wouldn't be a precedance.

As for the rest of your dribble, it doesn't seem to match reality or matter much in the context of these posts.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Imazalil]

Seriously. Marching your military onto another country's territory without consent is a declaration of war. It's that simple, and yes, the US is just as guilty of this. If Russia is concerned about fellow Russians abroad they would not be sending in unmarked military to help 'secure' them. They would have also done this long ago, not a couple days after their favourite Ukranian gets run out of the country.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

I guess, because the turnout was only 60% [wikipedia.org]?

If you don't vote you don't count. It was the choice of the people not to vote and pure speculation on which way they would vote. Military might should never override a democratic vote. If they wanted to do it right they would have lobbied for a referendum to succeed from the Ukraine and not trump up an excuse for the Russian military to yet again violate the sovereignty of the Ukraine (Something which Russia guaranteed they would never do).

The two districts dragging the average "yes" votes down are Crimea and Sevastopol'.

But both votes were still over 50% which means that the majority who voted decided to leave Russia and join teh Ukraine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[portraitofsanity]

Mugabe had fun messing up Zimbabwe, not DRC or Republic of Congo. The issue with Zimbabwe after the land grab from the whites wass that you can't take a bunch of subsistence farmers who have no idea how to run large scale farms and put them in control. When you do a land grab like that, any company with any common sense pulls out, and everything went to hell like it did,.. Yes, during Rhodesia days, things were no good for the blacks and ammends and reparations needed to be made. It takes a special kind of stupid like Mugabe to collapse the economy the way it collapsed,

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

You got it right. The emphasis in on "without consent" which does not apply here. The Airforce, Navy and whole infantry and security forces divisions just defect like this to the Crimean authority?
The (legitimately elected) president, as well as the people of these areas called for help, which will leave (barring the military bases), once the situation is stabilized (or stay in the improbable event that Crimea decides to split from the Ukraine and become a part of Russia (again).

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

But both votes were still over 50% which means that the majority who voted decided to leave Russia and join teh Ukraine.

They decided to vote on the constitution. The question was not posed as "Would you like to be part of Ukraine, or part of Russia?" the question was "Do you want to be independent, or part of the USSR (not part of RSFSR)?" which is a completely different thing.

Trivia: RSFSR signed it's declaration of independence on the 12 June 1990, while the Ukrainian SSR followed on 16th of July. It's a complicated topic, but effectively, there was no USSR in 1991, even though it dissolved officially only in december.

If you don't vote you don't count.

Not in Germany. Here non-voters are distributed along each participating party. Besides these semantics, I wonder how many people at that time 1. knew what it meant to vote, 2. knew what exactly they were voting for (ok, that's a problem everywhere), and 3. understood the effect of not voting.
From the gut I'd say that on matters of importance, a majority of 2/3 is required. Maybe the other 40% thought, that not voting is a sign of protest?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

the question was "Do you want to be independent, or part of the USSR (not part of RSFSR)?" which is a completely different thing.

The actual question was "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" It seems to me that the independence is linked with being part of the Ukraine. They could have voted no and then they would have been in a good position to lobby for joining the Russian Federation. This referendum was voted on over a year after independence.

From the gut I'd say that on matters of importance, a majority of 2/3 is required.

Do you remember your statement "The majority of the people there identify with being Russian." You seem to think that identifying as Russian means they want to stay in Russia. 55% of those who identified as Russian voter for the referendum. The vote showed that the majority wanted to stay with the Ukraine.

Maybe the other 40% thought, that not voting is a sign of protest?

Maybe they didn't care. We can speculate all we want but without actual knowledge it is meaningless. All we know is that the majority voted to stay with the Ukraine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Half-pint HAL]

Apart from the stupid confusion of countries (oops... ignorant European that I am) that was my point. The power structures weren't dismantled in a controlled fashion, just hit with a wrecking ball, leaving a pile of rubble.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

You seem to think that identifying as Russian means they want to stay in Russia. 55% of those who identified as Russian voter for the referendum. The vote showed that the majority wanted to stay with the Ukraine.

They were not in Russia, how could they have voted to stay in it? They supported the independency of Ukraine from the USSR, not from the RSFSR. So we're talking about two different things here. RF != RSFSR != USSR.

All we know is that the majority voted to stay with the Ukraine.

Not quite. All we know is that the majority voted to be part of an independent Ukraine vs. being a Soviet republic.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[Erikderzweite]

Russians have founded the two biggest cities on Crimea in 18th century and have been living there ever since. Some families lived on the peninsula as far as they can remember. And now you'd like to force them out of their home or their identity because Crimea was given to Ukrainian SSR 50 years ago with the sole purpose of reducing bureaucratic overhead. That's exactly the attitude of the now-in-powers that led to this mess.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

Not quite. All we know is that the majority voted to be part of an independent Ukraine vs. being a Soviet republic.

Being a Soviet republic be the first step in joining the Russian Federation? Putin is trying to annex the Crimea into the Russian Federation right now. He is trying to do it by force and not democratic means.

Again, the way to do this is a democratic vote and not military force. Putin is again using the "protection of Russian citizens" as an excuse to use force. It is the act of a bully and extremely undemocratic. There has been no physical violence against any Russians before the troops were deployed therefore nothing to "protect" against. Yes, some language rights were curtailed but that is no reason for an invasion.

The facts are pretty simple;
1. The Crimea was given to Ukraine.
2. The Ukraine succeeded
3. The population of Crimea supported the Act of Succession.
4. The Russian Federation guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
5. The Russian Federation has now invaded the Crimea.
Do you see how points 4 and 5 do not match?

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

Being a Soviet republic be the first step in joining the Russian Federation?

Huh? What do you mean? How are those two things related?

4. The Russian Federation guaranteed the territorial integrity [wikipedia.org] of the Ukraine.

Please Joe, there's a difference between "assurance" and "guarantee", besides it being an unratified agreement.

5. The Russian Federation has now invaded the Crimea.

Repeat after me: this is not an invasion.

In case you're wondering about stationing the troops only on the bases,
- the *democratically elected* president of Ukraine asked Russia to use military force.

[Putin] added that deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych had no political future but asserted he was legally still head of state. "I think that he has no political future. And I told him this," Mr Putin said [...] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10669670/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.html)

- Russia was asked by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to aid them:

Sergei Aksenov, the [...] prime minister of the Crimea region, has declared that he is in control of all military, police and other security services in the region. But he appealed to Russia's president for help in keeping peace there.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10670827/Ukraine-live-Crimea-leader-appeals-to-Putin-to-help-as-Obama-warns-of-costs-to-Moscow.html)

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[jklovanc]

Huh? What do you mean? How are those two things related?

If the Crimea had voted against the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine they could vote for independence. Then they could vote to join the Russian Federation.

Please Joe, there's a difference between "assurance" and "guarantee", besides it being an unratified agreement

The difference being that in the case of assurances if one country breaks the agreement the other countries are not bound to come to Ukraine's aid. Had it been a guarantee they would have been. So you are saying it is ok to tell a country what you want to get them to give up their nuclear weapons and then ignore the agreement when it suits you. I don't agree.
How about this quote from the text of the memorandums

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

Repeat after me: this is not an invasion.

The Kariv pack is about troops on bases and not in the countryside. They may be justified in Sevastopol but not the rest of the Crimea. It became an invasion the second troops left Sevastopol.
 

the *democratically elected* president of Ukraine asked Russia to use military force

You mean the president who attempted to go against the wishes of the people in signing the trade deal with Russia instead of the one with the EU. The president who used troops to kill 83 Ukrainians. The president that was removed from power by the democratically elected parliament? The Ukrainian parliament has 450 seats of which 380 voted for removal. When the parliament removed him from office he had no authority to authorize foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected and democratically removed.
I also like how you edited the last quote. Here it is in full;

Sergei Aksenov, the pro-Russian prime minister of the Crimea region, has declared that he is in control of all military, police and other security services in the region. But he appealed to Russia's president for help in keeping peace there.

Hiding something? Maybe the Prime Minister is trying to take advantage of the turmoil to get what he wants but not necessarily what the people want. I doubt he was elected with Russian troop deployments in the minds of the voters.

By the way, here is a quote from one of your http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-...">referenced articles

Yeltsen also signed in 1994 the Budapest Memorandum, which was to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Re:Well ... what do you expect

[qpqp]

I'm growing tired of this argument, so I'll just pick on some things.

When the parliament removed him from office he had no authority to authorize foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected and democratically removed.

Please read this: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-wes...

You mean the president who attempted to go against the wishes of the people in signing the trade deal with Russia instead of the one with the EU.

Oh YEAH, it's MUCH better to sign a deal with the fucking IMF over loans than to get 16b right away!

The president that was unconstitutionally removed from power by the democratically elected parliament?

FTFY.

The president who used troops to kill 83 Ukrainians.

Please read this: http://rt.com/news/estonia-con...

The snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Maidan leaders, according to a leaked phone conversation between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister

Care to explain why the west prefers to deal with people that do these things? Oh right, the west doesn't care who to deal with as long as their interests are fulfilled.

Hiding something?

Leaving out the irrelevant information. It's a democratically elected PM of a region with predominantly Russian-speaking population. Doesn't fit your narrative? Tough.

Yeltsen

The puppet Yeltsin can go and fuck himself. That document was not ratified. The RF has a parliament, you know? Amongst its duties are:

[...] the ratification of international treaties [...]

.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

Who did that?

The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

I don't care who is right or wrong in the Ukraine, I don't care who is more manipulative: EU, USA or Russia. I don't care who has stolen more: Yanukovych or Tymoshenko. I pity those who died in this conflict, but I don't even care who has started the bloodshed.

There is one thing that I care about though. On one side of this conflict are Nazis. The "Right Wing", one of the main pushing forces in this uprising, are Nazis. They use Nazi symbols and slogans, they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes, their leader Yarosh (now the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine) said that Russian people will never give up their ethnics and culture and therefore have to be eliminated.

So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other. No corruption can justify aligning with Nazis. I don't give a fuck how decent the majority of the protester might be. They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mc6809e]

Well the Russians joined the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 17th, 1939, so there's that, too.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

They even had non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. A mistake that the Russians have ultimately paid for with 20 million of their lives.

Therefore the Russians in power don't praise the Nazis. The Ukrainians do.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

You say this as if the other side doesn't have its own Nazis. Here is what the synagogue in Simferopol looks like, a day after its takeover by the local pro-Russian "self-defense force". The text says "Death to Jews".

Also, Crimean Tatars are not happy about Russian takeover for a good reason stemming from their own recent history. You might want to look it up on Wikipedia.

Oh, and the guy they've put in charge of Crimea? He has statues of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky in his work cabinet.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Zontar The Mindless]

I see. So it's fair to say that whenever some right-wing shit happens to come out in favour of something you also favour, you'll instantly disavow it?

Oh, yes, that is very sensible.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[jklovanc]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[amiga3D]

After Stalin caused the death of millions of Ukrainians I can see why they would prefer the Nazis. The lesser of two devils.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Except the synagogue was not taken over by "pro-Russian self-defence forces". According to the Jewish association director someone climbed over the fence and made this "graffiti". I saw no claim that pro-Russian forces are behind this.

A singular act of an unknown individual is a far stretch from openly praising Nazis and using their insignia.

Crimean Tatars were known Nazi collaborators during WWII. Nonetheless, they still live on the peninsula.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[amiga3D]

I got the feeling that Czechoslovakia didn't feel all that liberated. Nor Hungary, Romania, Poland or Yugoslavia. Swapping one mad bastard for another isn't liberation.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Anonymous Coward]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

Yarosh and his ilk are bad news. They are not representative of the majority of Ukrainians in the western half of the country. Given what Stalin did to the Ukrainian population, it's understandable that there are present-day extremists who have adopted their positions from those who welcomed the Nazis as liberators. (That was a really bad decision, by the way. After Stalin had starved millions of them to death, they got stomped on by the Nazis, and then got stomped on again by Stalin towards the end of the war. They were fucked either way, but the way things worked out, they got fucked three times.)

There are lots of "they" in the movement to depose Yanukovych. There are hard-right elements within the Maidan, but they are not representative of the Maidan. (The closest American political analogies would be that the KKK is not representative of conservatism, let alone the GOP, and that Occupy Wall Street is not representative of the progressive movement, let alone the DNC.)

For what little it's worth, I think the most reasonable solution is to divide the country. Most of the land mass of Ukraine leans towards Europe, but some of that land mass, specifically Crimea, leans towards Russia. (This is in large part due to Stalin-era resettlements, but WW2 is long over, and so is the Holodomor, so it ought to be a moot point.) If Putin wants is a port for his fleet (he does), and if the Crimean region wants to ally itself with Russia (it does, by as large a margin as Western Ukraine wants to ally with Europe), then they should probably be free to leave.

The interesting question is how much more Ukranian territory Putin wants as a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. (Having a buffer zone is kind of a Russian thing. I can't say I blame them, given the history of invasions from Europe...) A partitioned Ukraine shrinks that buffer zone considerably. Taking all of Ukraine by force back into the Russian fold would, at the moment, imply a war whose costs could well exceed the worth of the natural gas reserves and the fleet. The question is -- how much territory is enough for Putin, and will the rest of Ukraine cede it?

I think this all ends diplomatically. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the rest of Europe, has much to gain from a civil war. Maybe all that needs to happen is Ukraine extends the lease on the port for a decade or two on the cheap. Or something to do with gas royalties. This is the sort of problem that is best solved by bankers and ballots, not bullets.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[ZarathustraDK]

So what you're saying is that if Russia occupies South Carolina then you'll support russia because the US has a bunch of nationalistic patriots who view their territory as "historically american", and don't want foreigners occupying them for the reason of it being none of their damn business.

Their reason for opposing russian rule may be flawed, that doesn't mean that russian rule is a flawless idea, nor that opposing it is the wrong idea.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

Except the synagogue was not taken over by "pro-Russian self-defence forces". According to the Jewish association director someone climbed over the fence and made this "graffiti". I saw no claim that pro-Russian forces are behind this.

The point is that the graffiti was not there the day before (when, presumably, those "Nazis" were in charge), and now it is.

In any case, there's plenty of Nazi-like talk coming from Russia and easily seen in comments on YouTube and elsewhere on the Net. How about Sergei Lukyanenko: "There is no such country as Ukraine, and what's there is destined to be either a part of Russia or a Polish protectorate". And there's plenty of far cruder stuff out there if one cares to look.

Don't kid yourself. The Russian tricolor and the orange-black striped ribbon are now as much Nazi symbols as swastika and SS runes.

Crimean Tatars were known Nazi collaborators during WWII.

What, every single one of them? You're trodding awfully close to nazism yourself.

Nonetheless, they still live on the peninsula.

Well yes, they were allowed to return there in 1989, shortly before Ukraine gained independence, which is the only reason why they're there now. To remind, Stalin - you know, the guy whom the new prime minister of Crimea is apparently a huge fan of - resettled all Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan in 1944, with almost half perishing in the process.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[phantomfive]

The "Right Wing", one of the main pushing forces in this uprising, are Nazis. They use Nazi symbols and slogans, they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes,

If that is true, it's the most bizarre cross-cultural meme I've ever heard of. Someone didn't get the memo that Nazis are evil incarnate.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[hydrofix]

They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

You would be surprised to hear that many democratic countries in present-day Europe apart from the Nazi-Germany itself fought alongside the Nazis in WWII, including Italians, Finns, Romanians, Bulgarians and Norwegians. And these were the real-deal WWII genociding, totalitarian, Führer-hailing Nazis – not some modern-day, nostalgic Neo-Nazis, who don't even know how to genocide. And apart from those countries that fought alongside them, in the 1930s Nazis had large amounts of supporters in every Western country, and their policies were widely regarded as progressive, modern and necessary. Nowadays we know that the Nazi policies led to ruin, but the masses of the 1930s did not and thought they were behaving rationally. Do you think human thinking has changed much in mere 80 years?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

> The point is that the graffiti was not there the day before (when, presumably, those "Nazis" were in charge), and now it is.

2009, for example, a German synagogue was defaced with swastikas. Does that make Merkel a Nazi? She was in charge of the country, after all.

>In any case, there's plenty of Nazi-like talk coming from Russia and easily seen in comments on YouTube and elsewhere on the Net. How about Sergei Lukyanenko: "There is no such country as Ukraine, and what's there is destined to be either a part of Russia or a Polish protectorate".

You're comparing a writer to a Deputy Secretary of the National Security. Do you really fail to spot a difference?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The protest leaders did nothing to banish Nazis from their midst, they relied on them heavily and made their leader Deputy Secretary of the National Security. So yes, in this case I don't care how noble their goals were. I sympathise with the Ukrainian's struggle for a fair government, but I will not support this uprising.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The famine was not in Ukraine only, parts of Russia and Belarus have suffered as well. The matter is highly disputed, it didn't help that the Ukrainians ones used the photos from US Great Depression to illustrate the atrocities of the Russians.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Kjella]

I think this all ends diplomatically. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the rest of Europe, has much to gain from a civil war. Maybe all that needs to happen is Ukraine extends the lease on the port for a decade or two on the cheap. Or something to do with gas royalties. This is the sort of problem that is best solved by bankers and ballots, not bullets.

Don't underestimate the power of someone making sparks in this powder keg, for example some of the 40% non-Russians in Crimea. When you've got soldiers from two different countries standing toe to toe a few armed hardliners could set off a firefight that makes both sides think the others are attacking. For that matter, one of them might want to stage such an "incident" as an excuse to either take over or throw them out, except it spirals out of control and once they start shooting back, well then nobody's going to care much how it started. World War I had one assassination to spark the whole war, even if it's not directly a shooting escalation imagine an incident, an ultimatum to leave, refusal, boom. P.S. You can hardly call it a civil war when it's Russia invading Ukraine, that is war plain and simple.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

The writer was an example, and with as many examples as can be seen right now, it's clearly the attitude of the nation as a whole (which stands very much in contrast to Ukrainians, of which "Right Sector" and other fringe right-wing groups are a minority - which is also clear from their comments online and videos from Kiev).

Anyway, do you really want me to give more examples of people in power in Russia who hold similar views? Rogozin, perhaps? He is a deputy prime minister, after all. Also the guy who was made famous in Moscow by the "let's clear our city of trash" political ad which featured Central Asian migrants.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mc6809e]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe. Do your point is ?

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies. The entire world would have been better off if the Soviets and Nazis had just been allowed to kill each other off. They were made for each other.

Communists, Nazis -- how anyone could pick one as better than the other is beyond reason.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

They also took parts of Belarus and Ukraine in 1919-1920.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Czechoslovakia's strong production was providing a great deal of war supplies to the Germany (one in three panzers were produced there), both Hungarians and Romanians were part of the Axis as well not to mention Ustase in Croatia. You may consider marionette governments as a form of penance.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[guacamole]

There were also Russians fighting on the side of Nazis. Many of those collaborators did not view themselves as Hitler's subordinates. Their goal was to liberate their countries from Communists. Vlasov's Russian army wanted to create a free and independent Russia, while Ukraine's Stepan Bandera wanted to create a free and independent Ukrainian state. For this reason, Hitler had a quite uneasy relationship with them since he had other plans for conquered territories.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The famine took part in Belarus and Russia as well, the Ukrainians claiming it a genocide against them is not justified. At least they stopped using Great Depression photos from the US to illustrate their point (not joking, they've been trying to after the orange revolution).

Keep in mind, the protester's leaders made a Nazi Deputy Secretary of the National Security. That's representative enough for me. The protesters themselves were fucked, of course. Many thought they were fighting against corruption, but they still didn't do anything to banish the Right Wing from their midsts. That's what led to Hitler's takeover in Germany: people either doing nothing or considering the Nazis to be useful idiots against the Communists.

As far as buffers go, I couldn't agree more.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Hell, if the US makes a known Nazi Deputy Secretary of the National Security I'd be leaving Germany and joining Russia's army.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[hydrofix]

The point is, there are no Nazis in power in those countries nowadays (some Baltic countries may be considered an exception though).

What on Earth are you talking about? There are definitely no Nazis in power in any Baltic country (Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia) – they are all lead by liberal-democratic, conservative, social-democratic or centrist governments.

Fidesz, the ruling party of Hungary, has links to Nazi-like groups, but it is still half a Europe away from the Baltics.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

Huh? I'm not the guy who's blaming Maidan for being Nazis, OP is.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

I talk about SS parades and monuments in Latvia. Supported and mandated by the government. I talk about the discrimination of ethnic Russians who were refused the citizenship and were stripped of some rights there. Lithuanian government pursuits the use of Soviet symbolic but does not do the same to the Nazi insignia. All of the above routinely ignored by the European Union.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

As said, I don't care how noble their goals were. Siding with Nazis is an excuse to nothing. Vlasov and Bandera were used by the Nazi regime and whether they genuinely believed that they are fighting for noble cause is irrelevant -- both were sentenced to death for a reason.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Chris Mattern]

And Hitler was not really German, he killed lots of Germans, and he's dead. What's your point?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Chris Mattern]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe.

Really? REALLY? Ask the Poles how "liberated" they were. Ask the Czechs how "liberated" they were. Ask the Slovaks how "liberated" they were. Ask the Hungarians how "liberated" they were. Ask the Bulgarians how "liberated" they were. Ask the Romanians how "liberated" they were. Ask the East Germans how "liberated" they were. Ask the Baltics how "liberated" they were. Yep, that's a lot of liberation, there.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

> any more Ukrainians were killed by communist than by Nazis

Interesting... Ukraine 1941: 41 Mio. people, Ukraine 1945: 27,4 Mio. people. Ukraine 1993: 51,8 Mio. people.
Hint: 1941-1945: Nazis, 1945-1993: Communists.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Half-pint HAL]

... they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes,...

So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other.

Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

All the evils we see from the Nazis were evils that Soviet Union had been visiting on its population for a good decade before Hitler rose to power. Knowing what Stalin was doing to them already, and not knowing that the Nazis were equally dangerous as Stalin, it was perfectly logical for them to side with the Nazis.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Half-pint HAL]

And the UK and US sold lots of weapons and military training to Saddam Hussein and the Afghan warlords. Did we invade ourselves to punish ourselves for supporting our enemies and install puppet governments ruled by our governments?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Chris Mattern]

I'm willing to be fair about this; the Soviets have enough to their account that we don't need to add things that aren't their fault. Yugoslavia's tyranny was mostly on Tito; he successfully resisted Soviet occupation of Yugoslavia (mainly because Yugoslavia's eviction of the Axis was mostly accomplished by his own Partisans, with little Soviet involvement).

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Ukraine 1941: 41 Mio. people, Ukraine 1945: 27,4 Mio. people. Ukraine 1993: 51,8 Mio. people.
Hint: 1941-1945: Nazis, 1945-1993: Communists.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[CxDoo]

As much as I'd be prone by education and origin to go with this (as someone born & raised in ex-Yugoslavia), that is just not true. There was a bloody civil (&ethnical) war going on and none of the sides involved were willing (or able) to cause significant trouble to Germans.

* Germans were kicked out of Belgrade by Russians* in 1944.
* Some 20,000 people died on Srem Front in late 1944. on partisan side unsuccessfully trying to breach Axis defense. Russians were the ones who smoked that too.
* Partisans were more interested in hunting down retreating Ustasha and Chetnik forces (and did some 'good killing' in Austria when they caught them) than fighting retreating but still formidable Germans.

Yugoslavia was left out as part of Churchill-Stalin agreement (50-50) and not because of any local capability to resist Russian occupation.

* When I say Russians I mean mostly Ukrainian (for whatever value of Ukrainian) sourced forces.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[ganjadude]

that would be the roman way actually

Re:The only thing I care about.

[X.25]

I got the feeling that Czechoslovakia didn't feel all that liberated. Nor Hungary, Romania, Poland or Yugoslavia. Swapping one mad bastard for another isn't liberation.

How can you even debate a topic, when you get one major thing wrong at the start?

Do you even realize what is horribly wrong/inaccurate in your silly statement?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[MightyMartian]

Without Lend Lease, the Soviet regime would almost certainly have been pushed east of the Urals. Churchill published numerous letters and cables between Stalin and himself showing Stalin doing everything from demanding more equipment destined for Britain be redirected to Russia, and constantly begging for the US and Britain to open a western front.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

Sadly, no.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The war would be bloodier and take more time, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Lend Lease shipments happened after 1943. Prior to 1943 the Allies delivered much less than promised, e.g. only about one fifth of arranged trucks. The western front also happened in 1944, way after Stalingrad and Kursk.

The Soviets could successfully move their war production east to the Urals and defend the country till the production was running at full speed. The Germans simply didn't have enough resources to push further.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

They got marionette governments to act as a buffer for Soviet Union. Because, you know, Czechs made a third of Third Reich's tanks, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians were actually fighting along with Nazis. Poland, too, has happily participated in the division of Czechoslovakia (after capturing parts of Ukraine and Belarus in 1919-1921). And Germany, well, started the whole mess. Besides, the Germans should be really thankful for the GDR: without it US and UK would carry on with the plan of destroying Germany's industry and reducing the country to an agrarian one. Instead, the Western Germany got Marshall's plan, become the showcase of Western way of life and is now the locomotive behind the whole EU.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

The famine did not actually care about the ethnics. The Russians were the backbone of the Soviet Union and they suffered greatly as well. The matter is highly politicised in the Ukraine, to the point where no actual discussion is possible. Sadly, the Yushchenko's government did many blatant falsifications about that matter: apart from using the US' Great Depression photos to illustrate the Holodomor they also made a book of the Holodomor's victims where they put everyone who died in the affected regions, including very elderly.

Interesting fact I recall reading is that the US ambassador to the USSR praised the government's effort in fighting the famine.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Megol]

I don't care who is right or wrong in the Ukraine, I don't care who is more manipulative: EU, USA or Russia. I don't care who has stolen more: Yanukovych or Tymoshenko. I pity those who died in this conflict, but I don't even care who has started the bloodshed.

There is one thing that I care about though. On one side of this conflict are Nazis. The "Right Wing", one of the main pushing forces in this uprising, are Nazis. They use Nazi symbols and slogans, they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes, their leader Yarosh (now the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine) said that Russian people will never give up their ethnics and culture and therefore have to be eliminated.

So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other. No corruption can justify aligning with Nazis. I don't give a fuck how decent the majority of the protester might be. They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

Right... There are some right wing extremist in Ukraine (a _small_ part of the current government) but why should that make any difference when Russia also have nazis in leading positions? Nazis that don't acknowledge the split of the Soviet union and consider the ex-USSR countries as part of Russia? Nazis that think that only Russians should have leading positions _and_ promotes genocide on certain non-Russian people?

Fuck you.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Megol]

Replying to myself (in order to inform others): That poster seem to be a pro-Russian Communist or at least Soviet-admirer judging by his posts.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

Ergo you're a dim-witted demagogue that needs to brush up on his logical fallacies, starting with the False Dichotomy.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

Let me summarize your repeated argument:
The famine, caused by Stalin, that killed millions of ethnic enemies of Stalin in the Ukraine and Belarus ALSO killed millions of ethnic enemies of Stalin in Russia, therefore it's OK. Not reason for the Ukraine to fear the Russian government at all.

Let me sum up your repeated trolling: you're a tool attacking straw men. Hating Hitler means supporting or excusing Stalin on what planet? And Stalin's been dead for 60 years - but an open Nazi is head of the "interm" governments security right now.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

Replying to myself (in order to inform others): That poster seem to be a pro-Russian Communist or at least Soviet-admirer judging by his posts.

Megol seems to be pro-Nazi or at least Fascist-admirer, to throw his judgmental crap back in his face.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

I'd ask about your level of self-awareness, given the fact that the U.S. and England set up all the governments in Western Europe - with copious amounts of military bases - to act as a buffer against the Soviet Union.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

Your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired (probably because you're some sort of Western Imperialist apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies.

Are you out of your mind? The Western Front, Africa, and the Pacific combined were a sideshow next to the Eastern Front. Western nations counted their casualties in the thousands to hundreds of thousands. Eastern Front casualties were counted in the tens of millions.

If there was no Soviet Union crushing German forces by sheer will and numbers, you could have forgotten about liberating France because Germany would have made short work out of Great Britain. Then it would only be a question of if the French and British fleets would return home, or flee to the United States in exile. But noooo, it was the Americans swooping in, suffering paper cuts in comparison, that saved the day and deserve the credit!

Morans.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Uberbah]

The non-aggression treaty was just as much serving Stalin as it was Hitler- if not more so. Stalin needed the time for the war to start and to build up his forces (not that the Russians really did well anyway, but they had even less when the pact was signed).

True. Stalin was expecting it would take Germany the better part of a year or longer to push through Western Europe, not a matter of weeks.

Even the name Nazi is an acronym for an abbreviation for the party - it's a socialist workers party.

Classifying parties via etymology instead of the positions they hold is an automatic fail.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[jklovanc]

Yes there was famine elsewhere but the Russian policies exacerbated the issue. According to Encyclopedia Britanica :

Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.

Why such a high proportion from the Ukraine? Because Russia took the grain to feed Russians and let the Ukrainians die.
Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry;

He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were "counterrevolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate).

So Russia stole the grain, didn't allow people to move and didn't even ask for aid from other countries. It seems that Russia is to blame for most of not all those deaths. Just because something is disputed does not mean that it is false. How many countries do you know who readily admit they committed atricities and if they do admit it it usually takes a long time. Look at this map. Those are the nations that consider the Holodomor to be genocide.

It does not even matter about the fine details. In the Ukraine at that time the belief was that Russia killed millions of their people and they acted according to that belief. You try to tell starving people who are watching trains loaded with grain leave their farms that their plight is not caused by the people taking the grain.

The matter is highly disputed, it didn't help that the Ukrainians ones used the photos from US Great Depression to illustrate the atrocities of the Russians.

Are you really basing the voracity of a genocide claim on one poorly planned PR campaign? Millions died during the famine and that is a fact. Whether or not Russia made it worse is pretty clear. Perhaps they used that photo because they could not find a good photo of the real situation. Remember it was Stalinist Russia and anyone with a camera could be a counter-revolutionary and summarily executed.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[the gnat]

Czechoslovakia's strong production was providing a great deal of war supplies to the Germany (one in three panzers were produced there)

There was no "Czechoslovakia" any more by the time the war actually started - the Czech half of the country had been invaded by Germany (with Slovakia left as a puppet state). You're blaming the victim here.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Infomative? Uh, how many 'propaganda' comments here were voted 'informative', and 'insightful'? ...And you 'truthfulness' came from a photo!???
Don't make me laugh, from this photo, the SYMBOL was of Svoboda, the ultra-right party that participated the Maidan, their leader met J. McCain during the "revolution".
Now, you try to tell me that these Svoboda on the "Russia-side" huh?

You can see the symbol everywhere in the articles following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
http://voiceofdetroit.net/2014/03/02/is-the-u-s-backing-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/
http://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests
http://www.infowars.com/us-backed-neo-nazi-party-given-key-roles-in-ukrainian-government/

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Chris Mattern]

I'm sure deGaulle would've been surprised to learn that the US and Britain set up his government. Also that there were US or British military bases on French soil after they asked us to leave, which we did. They must have been invisible.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

Please calm down. Calling people who express opinions you dislike Nazis is a pathetic and cheap failure.

You're right, disagreeable opinions do not make one a nationalist bigot. But assigning blame on the basis of ethnic identity does.

. I believe the quoted material is crude and invokes criticism though i can only find the quote and not the original

Here is the original.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

No, I'm trying to tell you that the graffiti was not there while Svoboda was, presumably, free to do whatever the hell they want. Then, when Russian forces took over, suddenly that graffiti appears. That makes perfect sense, right?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

Because they are representative of the overall attitude of most Russian citizens.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Half-pint HAL]

Would that Venn diagram include the important data that the UK, US etc were never going to intervene on the Eastern Front? To the people of Ukraine, the only member of the Alliance that mattered was the USSR.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Half-pint HAL]

History showed though, that the Soviets did stop the Nazi's genocide. As someone who's ancestors were on the receiving end of it, I am indeed grateful for it and would side with Stalin any time, thank you very much.

Six-and-half-a-dozen. Stalin's genocide was based on different racism. Clearly your ancestors weren't Cossacks or Tatars.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[radarskiy]

It was the quoted Erikderzweite that invoked the dichotomy "So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other." Half-pint HAL was pointing out the problems of such a false dichotomy.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[qpqp]

Fuck you.

You should look up what a Nazi is.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm inclined to believe that they were hacked. For one thing, the page where they've posted this was down for a few hours shortly before that. For another, while I don't trust them even one bit, they're not idiots - they're not going to praise a guy who has been declared a terrorist leader by both Europe and US when they sorely need help from the latter.

In any case, even if true, the "Right Sector" is not in power in Kiev. They don't have any people in the new cabinet of ministers, nor in the parliament. All they have is a bunch of guys on the streets, and even there they are a minority by far.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[guacamole]

As said, I don't care how noble their goals were. Siding with Nazis is an excuse to nothing.

I beg to differ. It's only ex post, with all of our current knowledge of the full extent of Holocaust and other Nazi "accomplishments" and future plans, we can say TODAY that siding with Nazis back then was bad. In reality, back in the 30s, the Soviet union was regarded as just as bad and just as evil as the Nazis. So a lot of smaller nations were effectively choosing between two evils. Finns for example saw no difference between Nazis and Soviets, but sided with Nazis at the beginning of war hoping to recover territory lost to Soviets in the Winter War. Poland was partitioned between Soviet Union and Germany, and then the Soviets round up every single Polish officer, tens of thousands, execute and bury in a mass grave in Katyn. Millions Ukrainians die from the policy of starvation before the WWII. The was plenty to hate the Soviet Union for.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Meanwhile, here in the real world... We don't always get to choose our friends.

But then you started out saying that you don't care about right and wrong in any case, so why are we even having this conversation?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[mjwx]

And later went on to liberate almost all of Europe. Do your point is ?

You exaggerate (probably because you're some sort of Soviet apologist).

The Soviets were doomed without the help of the rest of the Allies.

And here you're exaggerating.

The outcome in WWII would have been the same, except that all the conquered German territories would have been in Soviet hands. So France, Norway, Holland, Greece and so forth. It would have cost Stalin another 10 or 20 million people (most of them to starvation, disease and non battle related causes) but he would have succeeded.

The sad fact of the matter is that even if the British had acceded to Hitler's peace offering in 1941, he still would have fallen to the Russians because he would have made the same mistakes in the Crimea, at Kursk, Stalingrad, freezing near Moscow. Stalin didn't win the eastern front as much as Hitler lost it. In the mean time, the industrial base of the Soviets had been moved into the Urals outside the longest ranges of Nazi bombers and could produce T34 tanks in staggering numbers.

In 1944 it took the combined power of all the allies to make Stalin blink enough to agree to split Europe at Yalta. The full power of the US, the British and the dominion (India, Canada, Australia, et al.).

Re:The only thing I care about.

[gr8dude]

> Romanians were actually fighting along with Nazis
It should be pointed out that Romania was originally a neutral state. The country was forced to enter the war after the Entente failed to keep its promise.
Romania joined the war on the side of the Axis because at that time the Soviet army occupied the Eastern part of the country (the region known as `Basarabia`) and had no plans of leaving.

So your statement is true, but I think that another reasonable person would've done the same, had they been in the shoes of the Romanian government at the time.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'm Polish. The general consensus among Poles is that if you're stuck choosing sides between Hitler or Stalin, you go with Hitler, hands down.

This may be a surprise to many Americans. I was raised in America and went through the public school system. There is an overwhelming focus on the atrocities committed by Hitler but comparatively little time spent studying Stalin. Americans are much more keenly aware of the Nazi Holocaust than the Soviet Holomodor.

I'm not trying to make any claims about which side was worse. I'm merely pointing out that Americans tend to vilify Hitler more, whereas the Poles (and I'd imagine many other folks in that neighborhood, like the Ukrainians) are more focused on Stalin. Whether that's because the Slavs of eastern Europe shared Hitler's beliefs or if the firsthand experience that they suffered gives them unique insights is anyone's guess.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[hydrofix]

I talk about SS parades and monuments in Latvia. Supported and mandated by the government.

I follow developments in the Baltics somewhat, and I have never heard of this. I found a story on RT about a Latvian Waffen SS veterans' march, which was accompanied by an anti-fascist counter-demonstration. I could imagine that some Latvians view the SS as heroes even though Nazi Germany occupied Latvia, because the Nazis fought the Soviets, and the Soviet occupation that followed was much more brutal than the Nazi occupation. I don't think the police or the government is taking sides here, even though RT (which is known for its propaganda stories) tries to spin it that way: in a democratic society, everyone has the right to assemble and express opinions, and one job of the police is guaranteeing that right – even if it means protecting someone paying tribute to Nazi history from an angry mob.

I talk about the discrimination of ethnic Russians who were refused the citizenship and were stripped of some rights there.

I understand some people of Russian ethnicity who moved or were moved to the Baltics during the Soviet occupation do not have a citizenship of the Baltic state that they reside in, among others because the Baltic states require a proficiency in the official state language – which is not Russian – and the state views those Russian-speakers as being citizens of the modern-day Russian federation. However, since these people have no Russian citizenship either, they are not citizens of any country. Living as a non-citizen can be difficult, but every day more and more ethnic Russian receive the citizenship through successful assimilation.

Lithuanian government pursuits the use of Soviet symbolic but does not do the same to the Nazi insignia. All of the above routinely ignored by the European Union.

I was not able to find a source, but I don't find this at all surprising. Displaying Nazi insignia is banned in Germany and Israel, because Germans and Jews suffered tremendously from Nazism. The people of the Baltics suffered tremendously from the Soviet occupation, so it is understandable that they in turn do not tolerate Soviet symbols.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Xest]

It may have simply been easier for you to point to Russia's current assault on homosexuals as an example of the Nazism that is rife in Russia.

There's a strong parallel between Hitler's persecution of minorities in the 1930s as a populist blame target and Putins use of them nowadays. Putin is using them in the exact same manner - a scapegoat for his own failings as a leader, a target to focus hatred onto to distract from the real problems Russia has.

At the end of the day, minorities in Russia face far greater persecution than Russian minorities in the Ukraine which is really I suppose the point you're making and the point the GP seems utterly oblivious and ignorant to no?

Re:The only thing I care about.

[shutdown -p now]

I don't think that the assault on homosexuals is a Nazi-specific thing. All kinds of authoritarian regimes need scapegoats like that, and this particular one was chosen by Russian government because they have also set a course on a more conservative and traditionalist society.

No, what I wanted is specifically to illustrate nationalist-driven bigotry. The reason why I quoted Lukyanenko specifically is that he pretty much laid the cards out on the table for everyone to see, which is somewhat unusual for a person that visible. A lot of people think the same way, both common citizens and high-ranked officials, but the latter will generally not put it in words.

Re:The only thing I care about.

[Erikderzweite]

That is true, I have simplified the matter a bit for the sake of brevity. After the Munich Agreement the Czechs were betrayed again by the Brits who had a military pact with Czechoslovakia but refused to act because of a legal loophole: Slovakia has declared independency and there was no pact with Czechs.

Still, though reduced after the Munich Agreement and the loss of Slovakia, the Czech's industry was formidable at that time and the army well-equipped and was more than capable to put up with Germans: German generals later spoke very highly of Czech's defence structures and were delighted that they didn't had to take them. With the right amount of the political will, the Czechs could make at least what the Finns did to Soviets in the Winter War.

Re:Still far from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, jokes on him, You can't destroy mass.

Why not just give up?

[hydrofix]

Why shouldn't Ukraine just give up Crimea for the sake of national unity? Ukraine as a whole seems to be flying from one crisis to another, and it is seems to be torn between the pro-Russia and pro-West factions. Maybe Ukraine should just focus building its future as a Western country, and give up those territories where the population wants to live under Russian rule. Maybe later those areas can then join Ukraine if they so wish, like happened with the unification of West and East Germany.

Re:Why not just give up?

[amiga3D]

Why do you think that would satisfy Putin?

Re:Why not just give up?

[hydrofix]

Russia has at least a superficially "legitimate" claim for Crimea, since some 60% of the population are ethnic Russians. Making claims for any other parts of Ukraine is a whole other deal, since every other region of Ukraine is ethnically mostly Ukrainian.

Re:Why not just give up?

[Meditato]

It wouldn't satisfy Putin. He took South Ossetia from Georgia and is likely still engineering a wider pro-Russia coup in Georgia. He engineered this situation in the Crimean Peninsula, and he's probably engineering other such incidents in other former soviet republics.

Re:Why not just give up?

[ZarathustraDK]

Actually not a bad idea.

If Ukraine ceded control of Crimea it would gain more unity, and have less trouble separating itself from Russia and foster its ties with the EU. Crimea is an autonomous region with its own government, so Ukraine stand to lose very little from there other than having a national minority there (they still have access to the Black Sea from the mainland). Russia OTOH gains very little: They already have a fleetbase there, and a national majority that'll follow their whim, that wont change with annexation. They will, however, have to contend with a large ukrainian minority that will be none too happy of their new overlords, and who can get reinforced from their homeland easily. Also, they'll obliterate any chance of moving at Ukraine as a whole, because this action will fan anti-russian sentiment.

All in all, the move on Crimea is a provocation from Russia trying to destabilise Ukraine. They may end up getting Crimea, but if they fail to throw Ukraine into chaos, then they come out of this the loser.

Re:Why not just give up?

[AHuxley]

A split would work well. The pro Western faction can be happy under US protection. The EU can rush in with loans (banker bail in) and generations in the region return to having laws passed from EU vs Soviet Union.
New pipeline deals with a new, split, weak Ukraine start to look amazing to the EU :)
The US gets NATO very near Russia under the cover of a new, split, weak Ukraine "invite".
Other parts go to Russia, Russians in the area feel safe, Russia keeps its mil happy with vital areas still been in Russian hands.
Win win win win for bankers with new 'loan' energy contracts, the USA, Russia, EU .... Ukraine escapes the horror of the Soviet Union only to be occupied in parts by the USA, EU and Russia.
Fun and years of extra funding for CIA, FSB and MI6 too.

Re:Why not just give up?

[guacamole]

I wonder the same. Crimea is historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It was populated by Tatars who constantly launched attacks against everyone north of them. Once they burned Moscow to ground. It was conquered by Russian Empire in 18th century culminating a rivalry that lasted for centuries. Crimea was defended by Russian Empire in the Crimean War of the 19th century. A lot of Russian blood was spilled there, and nationalist politicians in both Russia and Ukraine constantly manipulate the popular sentiment. It's a big problem for Ukraine.

However, I can see one reason why Ukraine may be reluctant to part with Crimea. It could only be a beginning of further partition of Ukraine. For example, once in control of Crimea Russia and its brethren in Ukraine could start a new campaign now to transfer the cities of Kharkiv and Donentsk to Russia, again both heavily dominated by Russians, and so on. The nationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky has said many times that he sees a division of Ukrain where the west Ukraine has capital in Lviv, surrounded by 4-5 west Ukrainian provinces. No matter what happens, this conflict will go on for a LONG time...

Re:Why not just give up?

[Tough Love]

Russia has at least a superficially "legitimate" claim for Crimea, since some 60% of the population are ethnic Russians.

Only because Stalin deported 100% of the Tatars in 1944 (killing half of them)

Re:Why not just give up?

[Tough Love]

Why shouldn't Ukraine just give up Crimea for the sake of national unity?

Putin has already stated "if the violence spreads further in the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, Russia reserves the right to defend its interests and those of the Russian-speaking population that lives there." IOW, no intention of stopping at Crimea. It does not require much imagination to understand the implication for other former USSR vassel states.

Re:Why not just give up?

[freya_bacchus]

No matter what happens, this conflict will go on for a LONG time...

Unless it escalates into nuclear war.

Re:Why not just give up?

[Erikderzweite]

Because the Tatars openly supported Hitler hoping to get their own country from the Nazis. As usual, the collaborators themselves escaped with the retreating Wehrmacht and the common people had to pay the price for them.

Re:Why not just give up?

[cold fjord]

Basically you're affirming the Sudetenland model of international relations. Based on that, anywhere there is a Russian minority can expect to be rejoined with Russia. Soon the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia may have to cede territory, and perhaps other nations too. Russia is slowing regaining control of the old empire, and the lands formerly under Soviet control. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Why not just give up?

[jez9999]

I dunno, ask Tony Blair, who gave Scotland a parliament and an option for a referendum on independence when he didn't have to.

Re:Why not just give up?

[Tough Love]

Because the Tatars openly supported Hitler hoping to get their own country from the Nazis.

You're willing to take Stalin's word for that?

Re:Why not just give up?

[Tough Love]

It was 1944, the Nazis were already in retreat. Crimea was no longer strategic, except for Stalin's Russification program.

Re:Why not just give up?

[qpqp]

The Tatar population was nowhere as abundant.

Re:Why not just give up?

[qpqp]

Please stop derailing valid discussions with your Sudetenland argument. This just doesn't apply here. Go fix your own country and what it's doing.

Re:Why not just give up?

[cold fjord]

It does apply, and Russia is applying it. How about this, you have Russia pull its forces out of Ukraine and then we talk about it, or get the UN or some other organization involved?

Re:Why not just give up?

[qpqp]

How about this, you stop your dollar imperialism and *then* we talk about further actions.

Re:Why not just give up?

[jez9999]

I think my point stands. Labour still didn't have to give them a referendum. What were the SNP gonna do - have an armed uprising? If you think that would've happened you're delusional.

Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[msmonroe]

Isn't this what the U.S. did in Grenada?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Thatcher sent a message to Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable. (The full text remains classified.)

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[qpqp]

Why don't you go look up (in no particular order) Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Serbia, Kosovo, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Congo, and many more and go fuck yourself?

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[cold fjord]

And how many of those did the US annex or take territory from? Zero (0). None, from those that it was even in.

And how many of my list were annexed or territory stolen from them by you know who? All of those, and more.

Your post is a load of bull. Many happy returns to you.

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[msmonroe]

Why don't you go look up (in no particular order) Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Serbia, Kosovo, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Congo, and many more and go fuck yourself?

too busy fucking your wife to look those up! Next time your kissing her, let me know how I taste! ASSHOLE!

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[msmonroe]

And how many of those did the US annex or take territory from? Zero (0). None, from those that it was even in.

And how many of my list were annexed or territory stolen from them by you know who? All of those, and more.

Your post is a load of bull. Many happy returns to you.

My post is the truth not bull. Believe what you want.
Yeah the US doesn't really annex territories we just install brutal dictators (puppet governments). Too much implied responsibility to take or annex other countries territories; harder to sleep comfortably at night I guess.

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[msmonroe]

Why don't you go look up (in no particular order) Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Serbia, Kosovo, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Congo, and many more and go fuck yourself?

too busy fucking your wife to look those up! Next time your kissing her, let me know how I taste! ASSHOLE!

Yeah please ignore me I am a dumb fuck! Sorry!!!!!!!!!

Re:Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone

[qpqp]

were annexed or territory stolen

You're using some strong words here, but Finland used to be Sweden.
And as for the Baltic states,

The three republics, formerly autonomous regions within the former Russian Empire [...] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_Baltic_states)

Estonia and Latvia, wouldn't even exist if it were not for the Russia and the USSR. Now, Lithuania is a different story, having occupied a huge territory over the course of the last millenium. That was a *long* time ago, though.

I won't bother mounting a counter-offensive, since you seem to be fond of arguing about semantics as opposed to the effect of your country's actions my list.

So, kindly, shut up, and stay at home!

What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the US could invade Iraq without UN support and under the pretense of the moral high ground as defined by the US, then so can Russia invade Crimea."

are you trying to be funny or are you a paid russian propagandist? the UN hasn't "supported" any kind of military action save for relatively small police actions since the korean war and that was mostly because the soviet union at the time was boycotting the UN. as it were, the only reason that there would be no UN resolution here is because of russia's veto.

let's look at your words: the US invaded "under the pretense of the moral high ground." they were not irredentist land grabbers. after their 'mission' was done, they left. the russians here are simply imperialists.

"kosovo": serbia had achieved "world pariah" status after its recent aggressive wars, additionally, the "independence" movement of kosovo was a drawn out process involving internal discussion and grassroots movements, not tanks of a foreign power rolling in.

Re:What does this mean?

[AHuxley]

Re 'not irredentist land grabbers"
Covert United States foreign regime change actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The US basically swaps out a gov, installs a weak new gov, or supports a gov and then gets a "request" for a shared or join facility (base, covert listening station).
No need to used the term land grabbers, when a term like research facility, partnership, joint military facilities, radar base, camps, air station, facilities, installations sound so much more normal.

Re:What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am european, not russian, and certainly not from an eastern block country, and I can say the same. If the US does at it pleases, why not Russia? The "mission" of the US was to invade a foreign country to take down a ruler they didnt fancy, and grab control of the oil supplies. Then about kosovo, nobody cared about two ethnic groups killing each other because there were no resources involved, and UN only intervened when the public outrage was already getting out of control.

Re:What does this mean?

[cold fjord]

A., since the topic of the day is Russia, you wouldn't by any chance have a list of the many invasions and annexations by Russia / Soviet Union, would you?

You know, places like: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Finland, Afghanistan ... ??

Why always beat the US to death when you leave others out of the fun? Who benefits from that?

Re:What does this mean?

[cold fjord]

You are claiming that any action the US takes is okay as long as someone else did it in the past ... starve millions to death like the old USSR ... exterminate Germans

No, that is nonsense, and ethically retarded.

Oh, and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was a Russian counter terrorism campaign.

Wrong again.

...you'll need to do better shill ...

I was just thinking the same about you. The question is, what kind of shill are you? Pro-Russian? Anti-Cold Fjord? Or something else?

Re:What does this mean?

[giorgist]

I will use simpler words for you. There are precedences that have disarmed the US and are the result of US actions. The US made a call under it's own reasoning to bomb the crap out of Iraq. It did not use the UN. Why should Russia not be able to do the same thing. Russia is simply protecting their interests. Kossovo voted out of Serbia even though it is historically Serbian but the population of Albanians are pretty high. I am not making a judgement on the ethics of that action, just of the precedent set. The ex-government of Ukraine was ousted which was popularly elected. Russia sent troops in to protect their interests. Whole divisions and war ships are switching sides to Russia. It seems to me that the south is Russian by a big majority.

Re:What does this mean?

[rastos1]

In last decades military forces of USA entered various countries in order to "protect interests of USA" in the said territory. It was openly said many times. It was not based on resolution of UN or for humanitarian purposes. It was to "protect interests of USA". Economic, political and other interests. And the world quietly watched that, not daring to speak up.

And now the world is surprised that Russia uses the same excuse.

Re:Still far from...

[davester666]

A minimum of two people must be able to be injured [and/or killed] by the device [including the attacker] for it to be a WMD. So, a large rock meets their definition. Or a stick.

Croats for example

[Anonymous Coward]

... who killed more then 1.5 million people.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

hmm.. when did this happen?

As for a sovereign country, Iraq was still in a cease fire with the US under the conditions it followed certain rules. They weren't following those rules. And yes, it did matter if Iraq had WMDs, their promise to dispose of them and allow verification was the heart of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked the US to help them.

Ukraine defense relationship with NATO ..

[DTentilhao]

"ASD Vershbow reaffirmed the Administration's message of support for Ukraine, underscored Ukraine's importance as a strategic partner, and commended the defense relationship, highlighting Ukraine's contributions to NATO and coalition operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. ASD Vershbow stressed the need for Ukraine to stay on track with defense reform efforts"

The reality is, and that goes for the other former Soviet republics, that NATO (USA) is not going to go to war to defend the Ukraine. Your prime function is as a forward missile platform used to threaten the Russian Federation. In the event that either the US or Russia launch an attack on each others territory, you'll give the Americans prior warning. As such you'll have to be taken out first by the Russian military.

Re:Ukraine defense relationship with NATO ..

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'd just like to point out that 3 former Soviet Socialist Republics are already members of NATO, and have been for a decade now.

The primitive division of both sides is appalling

[guacamole]

Why couldn't Ukraine become a model of a bi-ethnic state? Russians and Ukrainians are so similar. They have almost the same food, religion is majority Orthodox in both cases, language is similar, both proud of vodka, etc. Why do the West Ukrainian nationalists need to stomp all over the right of the Russians, when in power, and why do Russian-speaking Ukrainian politicians always fall under the influence of Russia trying to partition the country? There has always been "us vs them" attitude in Ukrainian politics, always divided along ethnic lines. However, both sides do not realize that there is one great thing that sets Ukraine apart from Russia, and this is why its worth saving: Democracy. Don't laugh, human rights and the "democratic process" in Ukraine may seem primitive at times, but at least they're trying. They had four different presidents representing different factions in the last 15 years and that's something remarkable considering Putin's one-party state right next to them in Russia.

Re:Soviet Union

[guacamole]

There was no need to bribe Ukraine. Ukraine was 100% under Soviet control. No one knows why exactly the transfer happened. I believe it was meant to represent a display of friendship between Ukraine and the Soviet leadership. Back then no one would have imagined that the republics could split some day. For example, Russian nationalists are crying crocodile tears because of some territories lost to Kazakhstan during the partition of USSR, though Crimea is the most hurtful thing for them.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.

It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.

Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.

Re:Still far from...

[nogginthenog]

A rock falling from orbit would be a WMD!

Ob

[Hognoxious]

Politics are singular.

The world might appear to be in the early stages of destroying itself (almost exactly 100 years after the war to end all wars started) but that's no excuse for sloppy grammar.

Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli

[Zontar The Mindless]

Because Putin is a neo-Soviet gangster, perhaps? And he's pissed off because the Ukrainian people have tossed out their dictator-in-waiting after the latter's sudden volte-face revealed him to be Putin's creature, maybe?

Paul the Octopus for president!

[golodh]

Take any issue at all. Take a random sample of of possible outcomes. It's statistically unavoidable that some of them will more or less hit home.

Even better, take Paul the Octopus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... ), who correctly predicted the outcome of several soccer matches and was offered a job by a UK bookmaker for his performance.

I fear it makes as much sense to credit Paul for deep psychic insights into soccer as Mrs. Palin for an astute grasp of international politics. Perhaps I'd rather take my chances on Paul.

Re:Paul the Octopus for president!

[Charliemopps]

Or maybe the behavior of a man like Putin is fairly predictable, and Sarah Palin might not be the semi-retarded trailer trash her opponents tried to paint her as.

Re:Paul the Octopus for president!

[ericloewe]

Well, the guy certainly is predictable. It was 100% obvious that he was going to invade as soon as the "local militiamen" (who managed to organize themselves and acquire somewhat modern military equipment and uniforms in two days!) started showing up.

Re:Paul the Octopus for president!

[ganjadude]

then how come our oh so great president didnt see it coming when everyone else did?

Re:Paul the Octopus for president!

[ericloewe]

Whoever your "oh so great president" is, how do you know he didn't?

What're you going to do, preemptively strike Russia causing WWIII?

They cannot stop with Crimea

[Freultwah]

Crimea's only freshwater source is the Dnieper River in Ukraine via the North Crimea Canal. The peninsula is not connected to mainland Russia in any way, only to Ukraine via the Isthmus of Perekop, a 5 to 7 km wide strip of land. Without the canal, there is no water on the peninsula if you discount bottled Evian. Desalination is too costly and only possible in coastal cities. Therefore, in order to secure water supply to the newly re-grabbed piece of land, Russia needs to secure the canal and the Kakhovka Reservoir in mainland Ukraine, which means occupying, well, more land.

Re:They cannot stop with Crimea

[Chris Mattern]

This is overstating things. Water rights are an old story in many places. People work out having other countries upstream of them, even unfriendly ones. Hell, even India and Pakistan manage. And the only *land* access to the Crimea is over the Isthmus of Perekop, but it is quite accessible across the Kerch Strait, which is very narrow (less than three miles wide), and is serviced by frequent and regular ferries. There are proposals to bridge it as well (it's been bridged in the past).

Re:Still far from...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not really, This law [cornell.edu] defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.

On what do you base your idea that a BB gun or a rock in a slingshot are WMDs, even according to this ridiculous law?

Re:Still far from...

[Half-pint HAL]

You can convert it to energy though. Which he didn't do. Ergo the only weapons of mass destruction are atomic bombs.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

lol.. I'm forming my basis on the law and my extensive knowledge of a BB or pellet guns in use today. I exaggerated a bit but there are air riffles on the market which have a .51 inch barrel diameter (.50 cal) that would make it fit this definition.

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; You can find videos of them on YouTube if you are curious about them.

Slightly off topic...

[Sla$hPot]

...But...

Regarding the nuclear weapons situation.
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Peak stockpile 1,080 warheads (1992)
Current stockpile 0 total
Maximum missile range NA

So.. no current stockpile. Sounds good to me.

But also according to Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Notice third column

"Satellite Orion", "Midrange Orion", "Super Orion"
Ship diameter, 17–20 m, 40 m, 400 m
Ship mass, 300 t, 1000–2000 t, 8,000,000 t
Number of bombs, 540, 1080, 1080
Individual bomb mass, 0.22 t, 0.37–0.75 t, 3000 t

This can't help one speculate, even with all this Megatons to Megawatts program going on.
What happened to those 1080 Ukraniean warheads?

Uhm?
Above numbers are based on available technology and materials from 1958
Both factors have improved somewhat since.
Of cause, as usual all the people that would be capable of pulling of such an accomplishment are either retired or dead.
Including one that have actually piled up enough money to actually do it, with some help of cheap Ukranian Megatons, making SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Armadillo Aroespace look like wooses. http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/16/...
Did he actually do it?

Re:Slightly off topic...

[Xest]

Ukraine was part of the USSR prior to the 90s, so:

"What happened to those 1080 Ukraniean warheads?"

They were sent back to Russia in return for a guarantee that Russia would respect their independence.

Turns out only one of them kept their end of the bargain, I guess the Ukraine should've kept hold of those nukes.

Re:Slightly off topic...

[Sla$hPot]

>I guess the Ukraine should've kept hold of those nukes Now thats an interesting thought. However, I'm pretty sure that was taken care of before it became a real option for the Ukranian government.

Re:Slightly off topic...

[Sla$hPot]

>I guess the Ukraine should've kept hold of those nukes

Now thats an interesting thought.

However, I'm pretty sure that was taken care of before it became a real option for the Ukranian government.

NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Vladimir Putin has been trained as a KGB officer to serve the Russian people. He does that in an exemplar fashion, at least compared to the thug and alcoholic Jelzin, who sold out his country to Jewish-Anglosaxon interests, while his compatriots suffered from hunger.

That pisses off the Jews who run the west. And abuse it to the limits.

Long live Vladimir, a true patriot and hero to his people !

Me ? I am a German who is fucked over by his own elite, who care about everything except the interest of the average German man and his family. Vladimir Putin demonstrates that patriotism has not been completely killed off.

Long live Free Russia ! Keep your nuclear swords nicely maintianed and sharp !

Re:NOT

[MightyMartian]

It's amazing how any mention of Russia brings out the lunatica

Re:NOT

[Zontar The Mindless]

Vladimir Putin was trained as a KGB officer to serve the interests of the Soviet state. And yes, he does that in an exemplary fashion.

Re:NOT

[paazin]

Trolls are out in force today! *clap*

Re:NOT

[guacamole]

Vladimir Putin has been trained as a KGB officer to serve the Russian people. He does that in an exemplar fashion, at least compared to the thug and alcoholic Jelzin, who sold out his country to Jewish-Anglosaxon interests, while his compatriots suffered from hunger.

Sadly, this is one of the best one-sentence summaries of the Russian history in the 90s. Yeltsin was a drunkard, bad and inept leader who was completely unprepared to deal with the extreme challenges of his time. He gave away the key state assets to a bunch of cronies, creating the now famous class of the Russian "Oligarchs". And yes many of them are Jewish. Reading the list of Russia's Oligarchs (specially the past ones, now banished by Putin) is like reading "who is who in the Russian Jewish Congress". Yeltsin was responsible for starting the bloody Chechen War at the time when peaceful negotiations were possible. Russian soldiers came in like a bunch of drunken sailors completely unexpecting the hard resistance that was awaiting them. The Maiko Motor Brigade brought its tanks into center of Grozny thinking this is how you subdue Chechens. (They were all mostly incinerated hours later). After conquering all of Chechnya, at the cost of tens of thousands of Russian and Chechen lives, Yeltsin reversed everything and signed a peace with separatists undoing everything the military accomplished, and setting up the state of the second Chechen War (now handled by Putin). Russian people were so mad at Yeltsin that Communists almost trumped him during his second term re-election. Communists needed just a few meager percent to beat him, which underscores how badly Russian people regarded him, they almost brought communists back to power.

At the same time, the west views 90s as the "golden time" of the new Russia. They loved the weak, inept, poor, and chaotic Russia of that time. They're still in denial about the fact that Putin's Russia back, big time.

Re:NOT

[Zontar The Mindless]

Gee... You don't project much, do you?

Who wouldn't have predicted this?

[swb]

Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.

The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).

Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.

The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.

Re:Still far from...

[ganjadude]

oh, the war was a lie response. because that hasnt been played out forever at this point. When the entire world signed on for the war, its hard to fault it.

either bush was an idiot, or the biggest evil mastermind in the history of the world according to liberals, its hard to make the argument yet you guys do it oh so well...

When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Kartu]

Most western government thoughts were actually "oh, how do we spin it to continue business as usual with Russia".

Tagliavini commission was created, and as it included 2 German "experts" who had upfront declared Russia had right to invade, so it was clear what kind of task was assigned to them, (thank you Ms Merkel)
Commission has come to surprising conclusions, that Georgian government did not have right to defend it's own people on its own territory (which was bombed by heavy artillery on daily bases), yet Russia had right to defend it's "peacekeepers", (even though there is no evidence that any attack on Russian "peacekeepers" whatsoever has been carried out by Georgians), but just overreacted a bit. (on top of it 2 Georgian peacekeepers were killed on 6th of Aug 2008, somehow neither that did justify actions of the Georgian government (it was actually a mixed Russia-Georgian peacekeeping operation))

Now, Russia is AGAIN getting premium treatment, for just being aggressive. You can clearly see that in most messages (and even journalist comments) in the West.
Oh, there are interests, you know. Old USSR junk that is even remotely usable only vs former USSR republics absolutely has to be stationed in the Ukraine. Oh and there are Russians on the peninsula. And oh, there are interests of Putin there. Oh dare not make him angry, or it is all your fault.

I recall a guy called Chamberlain had similar, as well as extremely successful, approach to aggressors about 70 years ago.

Re:When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[DoofusOfDeath]

I could be wrong (obviously), but isn't Germany dependent on Gazprom for a lot of their heating gas? If so, it sounds like Russia has Germany by the short-curlies, if you know what I mean. Especially in winter.

Re:When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Erikderzweite]

> I recall a guy called Chamberlain had similar, as well as extremely successful, approach to aggressors about 70 years ago.

Why? It has been indeed a success -- pushing the Germany to the East via Munich Agreement and Sitzkrieg aka doing nothing when Germany invaded Poland. Eventually Hitler did attack the USSR and everyone was happy for a while. Except the France who got occupied in the process.

Re:When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Kharny]

Without gazprom sales, russia will be hurting a lot more than germany without the gas.

Maybe if it was the start of a very nasty winter, but not at the start of spring with a good reserve.

Re:When Russia invaded Georgia back in 2008

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, Britain had treaty obligations to defend Poland. But more importantly, maybe starting to arm then would have resulted in a much shorter WWII.

Disagree

[residents_parking]

Given the recent history of Ukraine and also of Russia, this is not unexpected.

And if you've been paying attention *at all*, it's entirely expected.

Re:Still far from...

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.

You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.

And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.

I don't know who told you that the UN was the government of the world but they are not. It exists in order to have avenues for diplomacy instead of wars and had treaties it administrates, but you are completely wrong in thinking the US needs or needed permission from the UN.

Also, I don't really care about what Kuwait promised or not. They weren't the aggressors, they were our friends and had been friendly with the US since it's beginning. Kuwait even allowed Jefferson to stage his operations and preparations to invade the controlling authority Tripoli when both were under the ottoman empire control.

I miss Jay Leno

[PPH]

Right now, he'd be doing his "man on the street" interviews, asking Americans if they know where the Crimea River is.

Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's pretty obvious that Plan A (draw in Yanukovych) has backfired and we've now gone to Plan B (foment unrest as an excuse to intervene).

Ron Paul: Leave the Ukraine alone!

[Erikderzweite]

It is a must-read, IMO. Some very insightful points from the old congressman.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/ar...

Re:Ron Paul: Leave the Ukraine alone!

[Xest]

Ah yes, Ron Paul, the guy who refuses to condemn massacres. What a lovely piece of shit he is.

Soulskill doing cold fjord's propaganda...

[Uberbah]

...in his place instead of mindlessly accepting his submissions now? Did fjord go on vacation or something?

What's going on in Ukraine isn't a revolution, it's a fascist coup overthrowing the democratically elected government because they couldn't stand losing the last election. Same as what the right wing of Venezuela is trying to do right now.

Specifically, neo-nazi fascists hating both ethnic Russians and....Jews. Maybe cold fjord's got a splitting migraine with the cognitive dissonance: he's a proud Brownshirt himself, but on the other he's also a Zionist troll, so he can't decide what to do.

Re:Soulskill doing cold fjord's propaganda...

[Xest]

"What's going on in Ukraine isn't a revolution, it's a fascist coup overthrowing the democratically elected government because they couldn't stand losing the last election."

Um, no. The president was impeached by the democratically elected parliament due to the fact he was no longer representing the interests of the democratic majority. This is a case of democracy in action I'm afraid, not some kind of subversion of democracy.

If you don't support what the protesters achieved in the Ukraine then you don't support democracy, it's as simple as that.

Yes he won democratically, but that doesn't give him a right to stay in power indefinitely, or even for his whole term if the other elected house decide to support the will of the majority who have now changed their minds about him.

Ethnic Russians are a minority in the Ukraine, he won by getting the support of all the ethnic Russians and some ethnic Ukrainians. He lost the support of the ethnic Ukrainians plunging him into minority support by reneging on previous promises that he got elected on, and he lost his position as a result.

Just because he screams and cries and calls it a coup doesn't make it so, parliament voted to impeach him by 328 votes to 0 through standard due process. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to your pre-determined bias. The whole point in impeachment is that it's for getting rid of elected representatives who the population no longer have any faith in, but who wont step down of his own accord, so exactly the right thing was done here, this was a 100% legitimate ousting of him:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Re:Soulskill doing cold fjord's propaganda...

[Uberbah]

Um, no.

Um, yeah.

The president was impeached by the

But illegally removed from office. Ukraine's constitution requires a 2/3 vote to impeach a president, but a 3/4 vote to remove him from office. 328 votes is well short of that 3/4 majority. An analogous situation would be if Republicans forced Bill Clinton out of the country if they had 60 votes to convict in the Senate - but the Constitution requires 67.

If you don't support what the protesters achieved in the Ukraine then you don't support democracy, it's as simple as that.

You're so far off-base you're off-planet, it's as simple as that. The United States has spent five biiiiiiiilion dollars propping up the pro-West faction of the country. The first thing the "interm" government did was to strip Crimea of it's autonomy while starting to crack down on ethnic Russians. Oh, and installed the founder of a neo-nazi party as head of the country's security. Like the right wing in Venezuela, they are trying to do by force what they failed to do at the ballot box.

By supporting this coup, you are opposing democracy.

Re:Soulskill doing cold fjord's propaganda...

[Xest]

"But illegally removed from office. Ukraine's constitution requires a 2/3 vote to impeach a president, but a 3/4 vote to remove him from office. 328 votes is well short of that 3/4 majority."

Well short? did you actually fail maths as well as politics or something? 73.3% is about as far from well short as you can get, especially given the law was put in place by him in the first place. It's also a firm democratic mandate, but again, you apparently don't get what democracy is either because you seem to think it's a thing where only your personal opinion matters in spite of the view of the majority of the Ukranian population.

"Oh, and installed the founder of a neo-nazi party as head of the country's security."

Oh I see, so instead it's better they all just submit to the neo-nazi Russian leadership, yes, neo-nazi, or did you miss all that stuff about using homosexuals and foreigners as scapegoats in Russia. In case you missed it it was kind of a big thing in the run up to Sochi. There are nazis on both sides of the equation.

"By supporting this coup, you are opposing democracy."

You really really need to learn how democracy works, again, I'll make it clear to you, it's not a thing where a minority gets to dictate to the majority. What you're asking for is dictatorship. It simply doesn't matter how you try and spin, whilst yes, there are some ethnic minorities in the Ukraine who support Russia, Putin and Yanukovych, the vast manjority are against them. What is it you find so utterly hard to understand about this?

"Like the right wing in Venezuela, they are trying to do by force what they failed to do at the ballot box."

Unlike the Ukraine, Venezuela can't even claim it's elections were free and fair, they were deemed not to be. I guess you're just one of those fools who loves to support dictatorships, the sort of person that was the reason the likes of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin could get away with what they did. You must be very proud of yourself and your support for dictatorship.

I'll make it abundantly clear to you that you're completely wrong if you think there is anything whatsoever undemocratic going on in the Ukraine (apart from Russia's occupation of Crimea):

Pre protests, support for EU is by far the biggest block vote, 45% vs. 14%:
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Not a single area, including the Russian majority Crimea support reunification with Russia with a total of only 13% supporting the Russian cause overall:
http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/ne...

51% of Ukrainians support democracy, post protest 58% now support a union with the EU instead of Russia:
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinio...

The facts are there, this whole situation has the support of the majority, again, if you do not like this that's fine, but you're saying you do not like democracy. You can't pretend you're for democracy and against what's happened in the Ukraine because the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed - you must accept you're either for Russian dictatorship and against democracy, or for democracy and against Russian dictatorship. The numbers, the facts, just do not back any kind of assertion that what's occurred in the Ukraine is not a popular uprising by a majority against Russian interests.

You obviously hate cold fjord, christ, I do, I think he's wrong on almost everything, but everyone's right sometimes. This is one of those rare times, you're letting your personal hatred for someone put you on completely the wrong side of the argument. You may hate US imperialism, but in the Ukraine they've been victim of the equal and opposite Russian imperialism for a long time. Since 2004 we've seen events like this

Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli

[hey!]

Why couldn't Ukraine become a model of a bi-ethnic state? Russians and Ukrainians are so similar.

There's your answer right there.

It's a bit like the uncanny valley. People who are very different from you are interesting and exotic; you know it takes some effort to understand them. People who are just a little bit different from you are too incorrigibly stubborn to bring themselves up to snuff and think and act the right way.

That's why civil wars are so bitter and inhumane. In some ways it's harder to see humanity in someone who is culturally similar but irreconcilably different than in someone who is alien. Rudyard Kipling could wax lyrical about the noble savages in "Gunga Din" and "Fuzzy-Wuzzy", but he never once penned a poem in praise of the Liberal Party.

Re:Soviet Union

[cold fjord]

I'm sure that based on the Sudetenland precedent this will be Putin's "last territorial demand."

Re:Still far from...

[jopsen]

Forging evidence of and publicly lie about mass-destruction weapons in order to make a case to invade a country...

Hey, I'm no fan of the crimes the US have been conducting over the past decade... But at least the US issued a declaration of war, and gave both Iraq and Afghanistan the option of negotiating their way out of the conflict without deploying troops on the ground.

Here the Russians haven't issued an ultimatum, they haven't given proper notice, nor have they tried to resolve their issues through neither direct negotiations or the UN. And as of right now, they do not seem open to retreat in favor of a UN peace keeping force.

This is an old school imperialistic land grab, seems like the Russians might get away with it because they don't care about sanctions. And sanctions won't last forever anyway, does anybody still remember Georgien? That wasn't so long ago, and more or less equally unprovocated.

Re:Still far from...

[ultranova]

You can convert it to energy though. Which he didn't do. Ergo the only weapons of mass destruction are atomic bombs.

Incorrect. Any release of energy means converting mass to energy. The only thing that makes nuclear reactions special is that the energy released is so great that the corresponding mass loss becomes easily measurable.

Re:How many parties, other than Svoboda, call them

[shutdown -p now]

FWIW, Svoboda doesn't call itself national socialist, either. Some of their rank and file can be NS, as evidenced by discussions on their forum, but it's not the official platform.

Re:Still far from...

[Richard_at_work]

The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.

If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...

And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.

That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bi...

While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.

Re:Soviet Union

[radarskiy]

The Ukranian SSR was one of the founding members of the USSR. The Crimea was not transferred until 31 year later.

Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli

[radarskiy]

"Why couldn't Ukraine become a model of a bi-ethnic state? Russians and Ukrainians are so similar. "

Ask the Serbs and Croats. Heck, ask the Irish and the Northern Irish.

Re:US destroyed almost half of the wold

[qpqp]

Well, someone has to stand up to the constant opinion swaying of cold fjord and phantomfive ; )

Re:Soviet Union

[qpqp]

I'm sure that the Kosovo precedent is more appropriate here.

Re:Still far from...

[Rich0]

A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't.

Which just outlines just how stupid the the law is.

The whole point of the term WMD was to draw a line where an attack using anything beyond the line would be considered as being equivalent to a full-scale nuclear attack, with a corresponding retaliation. Back during the cold war the US/Russia/etc were saying that they really didn't care about just how big a nerve gas/biological/nuclear attack you hit them with - they would turn your country into a glass parking lot. It made sense as a policy - once you get to the point of launching mass-casualty attacks that kill people by the tens of thousands a full-scale war was inevitable, and with mounting escalations it would end up being nuclear. When one flies they all fly, or so it goes.

Using the same term to describe common crimes just doesn't make any sense. If some nut shoots a few people with a machine gun you're not going to level entire cities in response. You might just do that if a state actor arms a nut with an atomic bomb and sets them loose on NYC.

Seriously, though, I can't believe we're actually talking about NATO-vs-Warsaw Pact all over again...

More Recently - Tom Clancy

[dave562]

Tom Clancy's most recent and last book (Command Authority) also predicted this. Just as one of his previous books anticipated terrorists using airplanes to attack America. (Clancy had them running it into Congress, not the WTC, but close enough).

Re:More Recently - Tom Clancy

[Imazalil]

So Clancy is the mastermind behind 9/11, do the truthers know this?!?

Re:More Recently - Tom Clancy

[dave562]

No, but the truthers do know what most everyone else knows. The government's claims that "Nobody could have seen terrorists using airplanes as weapons." was a complete load of crap.

Re:Still far from...

[mjwx]

A rock falling from orbit would be a WMD!

Depends if the rock was falling due to natural means or artificial intervention.

If it's natural, it certainly isn't a weapon (you've still go the mass destruction part, but we all saw that movie and well I'm not that attached to Paris anyway).

Re:Still far from...

[sumdumass]

Sorry it took so long to get back, work took me out of town for a bit.

If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...

No, you can still be outraged over the actions of another country.You do not have to accept anything you do not like. The Geneva convention has some provisions in it describing when it is legitimate to go to war but the UN doesn't give or rescind permission making it legal and illegal.

That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states

No, I'm not wrong. You simply got lost somewhere. A resolution autorizing an action or broad set of actions does not in any way constitute the UN giving orders. It is saying we will not object. Korea on the other hand was a UN action and they gave specific orders like take this area or launch this offensive. Granted, the specifics on how that happened was left to the generals in charge but the UN took a direct part in coordination and orchestrating it.

While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.

Again, no. First, there are multiple bodies that deal with treaties. Some of them are under the UN control but most of them are not. I think WIPO has the most active treaties at the moment. But Russia as part of UN charter, has a permanent seat with Veto power at the UN. That means they cannot be booted (neither can the US, France, UK, or China) for any reason and they retain veto power over any actions the UN might try including security resolutions and sanctions. Now UN charter does say stuff in chapter 1 article 2 that makes an invasion for regime change illegal under UN charter but there are no penalties for it. Nothing is prescribed by charter or treaty concerning it. It's no different then your mom telling me to go to my room and me telling her to kiss off. The UN could vote on allowing other countries to address the problem or even take military action themselves like with Korea but with Russia's veto, nothing can be done.

But it gets even worse for your case. Any court can claim anything is illegal, it's a matter of jurisdiction and enforcement. I just held a kangaro court that said you posting was illegal and a violation under international law. Of course they also didn't say there was any penalties and even if there was, they do not have jurisdiction or the ability to enforce any of them. About all they can do is get outraged and have someone claim that outrage is superfluous.

And to make it even more obnoxious, Russia didn't invade Crimea, they went to the assistance of the sitting leader who was unconstitutionally and illegally deposed by a mob of people using force and the threat of force. So forget about what you think you know and watch the spin. Russia said the Viktor Yanukovych is still the only valid president and blames the uprising on influences from the west. "People are being persecuted for language and political reasons.". So not only is Russia helping the legitimate elected president who was unconstitutionally removed from under the threat of violence, they are the humanitarians in the mix. All of that seems to be completely in line with UN charter and international law and it seems to provide valid excuses for all the so called violations in the process. Interestingly, the talking heads in the west want to ingore and dismiss that without mention.