Slashdot Mirror
Russians Take Ukraine's Last Land Base In Crimea
An anonymous reader writes "Firing shots in the air and using stun grenades, Russian troops captured the last Ukrainian military base in Crimea today. From the LA Times: 'Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian officials were carrying on talks on evacuating Ukraine's loyal servicemen and families from the peninsula, a top Ukrainian military official said during a briefing Monday in Kiev. "About 50% [of Ukraine servicemen stationed in Crimea] joined the Russian side," said Olexandr Razmazin, army deputy chief of staff, the UNIAN news agency reported. The decision has been made to carry out the evacuation, he said, "but we need to work out a legal way to do it."'"
Just like Last of the Mohicans. Magua knows how to get things done.
Try hitting Konigsberg and Karafuto.
I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians?
Were they just too scared?
"All your base are belong to Rus'"
Once Obama takes office, our respect and standing with the world will be restored!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
the internet told me so it must be true
There was at least one casualty on the Ukraine side.
That is because we need to make sure our friends in the military industrial complex get their kick backs and profits. So we must first bomb them to oblivion and back and then rebuild it in our broken image.
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away, that WWII would finally be over as though he was a good man, the death of that generation means the end of suffering for all those who not only fought in the war ... but had to come home and live with what they had done. Fighting a war, even for 'the good guys and reasons' still means you have to do things that no civilized man should be able to do in a healthy frame of mind, and none of them come up the same as they left. The winners are still losers.
Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.
Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?
I'm beginning to wonder if my father and his cold war hate weren't that unjustified.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
OK fine, one casualty. Iraq: at least ONE HUNDRED THOUSANDS.
Again, they have proven they are far more professional.
Germany had a decent chance at the time, having a very advanced military and being technologically superior. This is definitely not in the cards for Russia right now. Sure they have enough firepower to destroy a continent, but it's also a guaranteed mutual destruction. Sure, Putin may try to nab a few more regions here and there that are relatively low-risk, but a world conquest is out of the picture.
I think this is flame bait, but just in case...
To compare to America, I think you'd do better to look at Afghanistan or Chechnya. "Capturing" an island (peninsula?) that wants to be captured is not exactly the best example. You'd have to go back to the annexation of Texas, Hawaii, or something else in the 19th century to get a good analog on the US side.
And that is the point, the 19th century kind of sucked for all sorts of reasons, and it would be nice if Russia didn't take us back there.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
With the US (both red/blue) and Europe, we have lots of Chamberlains and no Churchills.
I would not be surprised to see Russian tanks knocking at West Germany's door soon. Yes... West Germany. The WWII treaty says the eastern part is Russia's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
I have found it the height of irony that Putin has been essentially mirroring the beginning of a conflict that killed millions of Russians (not to mention millions of people from other countries as well) in the name of protecting "Russians". Putin is playing a very dangerous game, especially when you consider that, for the last few weeks, whether or not Russia and Ukraine went to war was essentially dependent on some panicked soldiers not giving in to fear or uncertainty and pulling the trigger.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Finland mauled the Soviet Union's ass in the Winter War. There's no reason a properly-trained Ukranian force couldn't do the same.
Unfortunately we are in the very dangerous point of really needing lots of people to die to stop Putin. I am sure he knows this and knows that until he encounters a country
a) willing to commit to the loss of lives
and
b) expecting to be able to "win" should a) occur
Putin is going to be able to do whatever he wants.
After the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistian it is clear that the west is highly resistant to (a) and is uncertain if (b) is even possible. With those massive levels of innertia Putin is going to be able to march all over the Ukraine and likely several other "Soviet" regions as well.
That's all part of NATO now. Russia won't do anything to Germany or Poland or Lithuania.
Ukraine's goof was in voting to not seek Nato membership a few years back. While that was partly Russian influence, oh well.
Other remaining, non-NATO former Soviet bloc countries might wanna step on the gas.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There is, of course, the fact that whatever the legal status of the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not annexed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where on earth did Russia get the idea they could stir up political descent with spys, attack a countries network infrastructure then invade after there was a coup and have the people hold questionable votes for a new government that violate that sovereign nations constitution all while at gunpoint? Oh wait... that's right, we did. Shit.
The actual beginning of the end for the League of Nations as a meaningful quantity was when it stood by and let Italy seize Abyssinia without question. Once it became clear to Hitler that there were no real repercussions to forced annexations, he felt quite free to begin plotting his own.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
At the time France and England were both agreeing with Hitler that the Sudeten Germans were being oppressed by Czechoslavakians, unlike the current situation where the international community does not think the Russians in Crimea are being oppressed by the Ukranians. This time round the international community is doing nothing that should make the Russians feel emboldened as the Germans were pre WWII. I would think it would be unwise of Russia to make further claims given the account of history.
The human race needs to eliminate its tendency to allow dictators to rule over us. Until we solve that issue, this will happen over and over again.
But Kosovo was stolen from Yugoslavia and Serbia.
Comparing the overthrow of a far inferior professional force by a far superior professional force is very different than dealing with an ongoing insurgent war. Ukraine did not have ongoing tribal warfare where everyone is happy to shoot anyone not of their tribe. In Ukraine combatant can be identified by being in uniform. In Iraq anyone could be a combatant. In the Ukraine all combatants were on military bases. In Iraq combatants could be anywhere. In the Ukraine the soldiers knew that they would be killed if they resisted and for no good. In Iraq death in battle means martyrdom and a place in paradise. In Ukraine both sides are professional. In Iraq only one side was professional. It takes two sides to fight and the Ukrainians did not because they knew it was futile. The Iraqis have been fighting and dying for decades. The Ukraine and Iraq are very different situations.
> invasion of Iraq is illegal too.
I hate you Republican trolls that lie to try to make sensible people look stupid. It was not an illegal war. Iraq broke the terms of their cease fire. Bush is horrible for deciding to murder hundreds of thousands of children, but it was not an illegal war. Please stop trying to get us to ignore murder by ranting incorrectly about a detail that doesn't have anything to do with the Republican's plan to kill children. You Republicans are all alike.
Germany is a member of NATO. While everyone may sit around dithering about what to do about a former Russian satellite being carved up, to invade Germany would enact NATO's mutual assistance clauses (ie. an attack on one member is an attack on all members). No matter what Russian demagogues may say, Russia does not have the military capacity to invade Germany, which still hosts US nukes.
Putin is bold, but not insane.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
By stolen, you mean liberated from genocidal fascists...
And Kosovo was not annexed either, but became a sovereign state.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Invasion of Iraq (like bombing of Yugoslavia and other examples of US foreign politics) was illegal from the international law point of view for 100%
It's much more convenient to just steal all natural resources, and leave the population to their own means...
You mean there's no oil left in Iraq?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
they have proven they are far more professional.
Professionalism has little to do with it.
The difference is that in Iraq we thought we'd be greeted with flowers as liberators.
In Crimea, Russia was greeted with flowers as liberators.
If they tried this on Iraq the result probably would be the same.
Your argument is flawed in that it assumes people are rational and make logical decisions.
The comparison of Crimea with Iraq is utterly moronic. Iraq didn't have a 65% American population, with a good half of the remaining 35% also expressing support for US.
The WWII treaty says the eastern part is Russia's.
The WWII treaty has long been concluded, with Russia (well, USSR) signature among others.
To further this argument it only took 1 month for the US to defeat the Iraqi army. April 19 to March 20th. It was the unconventional insurgent war that caused so many casualties.
As Latvian, I not give two potato about situation in Crimea.
I give one potato, but only because is very important issue.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Are we limiting the discussion to this Century? 'cause most of the United States would be a pretty good example.
Granted, not all the natives were per se "peaceful..." But they still got a raw deal.
We did fight some wars with Mexico, so maybe Texas doesn't count.
a very clean and professional job.
Mr Pink sends his regards
At. last. 50 percent thru before this came up haha
Maybe all the history books are wrong, either that or you are trying to rewrite a hell of a lot of history in a small little post. No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia. Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine, so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it. Hitler was building the most modern military at the time, Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
Be very careful with how you are trying to frame things. According to a very large number of Middle Eastern people, the US has been mass murdering Arabic speaking people for over a decade. "Yellow Cake" is pretty damning proof that the US is not above lying to pursue their own political goals, and numerous wars in the Middle East show that the US is not above killing innocents in furthering their goals. It also shows you that the media in the US is not really looking out for _your_ best interests, but the interest of politicians who are not necessarily telling _you_ why they are doing things.
Who's side is right in most conflicts are a matter of opinion backed by the winner. Are you going to suit up and go fight the Russians in the Ukraine? Send your kids over? Is it worth you or yours dying for, especially if you don't have all the facts?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Since Russia has more land than any other country, why don't the Russians in Ukraine simply move to Russia?
Too simple?
Russia's neighbors should send all their Russians back to Russia, or Putin will use them as an excuse to invade and steal yet more land for the glory of Mother Russia.
You are assuming the US might use nukes. That won't happen even in a Red Dawn scenario. No US CIC is willing to destroy the US due to MAD, even if it means Alaska is "sold" to Russia for 7.2 million.
I haven't been paying close attention to the news.
Are people making a big deal out of this because even though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, they believe that vote was coerced under the threat of violence ( Russian troops massing on the border )?
Why are some Crimerians fighting and not others? Different ethnic groups being for and against the merger?
I wasn't aware MAD doctrine had actually been abandoned and the US was now willing to sell its own territory out of fear of a nation whose military capabilities are inferior to its own.
The whole point of nukes is to never use them, and that means having them where an enemy might attack to prevent even a conventional war.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
According to CNN, it looks like the US and the other members of the G8 voted to kick Russia out. Russia's response to that should be interesting.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I haven't been keeping up with the close, at least closely.
Is the problem that though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, some people believe that vote was coerced with the threat of violence ( Russian troops on the border )?
Russians Take Ukraine's Last Land Base
The only entities recognizing it are with Russia. The rest of the world sees it for what it is, Russian-occupied Ukraine.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You not say Ukraine weak!
are sitting in Odessa, discussing what is going on in Ukraine.
Man 1: I stopped speaking Russian.
Man 2: Why? Afraid the Ukranians will beat you?
Man 1: No, that Russians will come to protect me.
The post that was in response to did say "since the Vietnam War."
He was pro-Russia, but not pro-give-up-Crimea-for-free-pro-Russia. For instance a deal Yanukovitch would have taken would be 'Russia gets Crimea, Ukraine gets lots of money and gas for many years, and permanent leases for military bases in Crimea, just as Russia had the reverse when it was Ukrainian."
Right now, he has FSB following him everywhere. He is now Putin's bitch.
Let Texas be their problem - we sucked all of the oil out so why are we still interested in it?
To further this argument it only took 1 month for the US to defeat the Iraqi army. April 19 to March 20th. It was the unconventional insurgent war that caused so many casualties.
Isn't that like 11 months?
Although the US military may be superior in fire power, I think the US military in such situation would be inferior due to bureaucracy and partisan politics. In Russia, there is no split Congress that would block such expenditure or anyone that would bother with politics and image, Putin is the boss and if you're a non-compliant member of the Kremlin, you'll be shipped off to Siberia.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I cannot imagine any circumstances under which Congress would hamper the President's or the Pentagon's ability to fight a war if a fellow NATO ally were invaded. You're talking rubbish.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
the similarities are huge and terrifying
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it.
and again, something like that can not be called a vote, and yes, russia absolutely invaded a territory of another country. one that gave up nuclear arms in a promise to protect it's teritorial integrity... by russia in part.
Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
compared to ukraine ? haha
...US has been
don't change the topic.
russia is the aggressor here. they occupied their neighbour - actually, they have been doing this continuously for quite some time, georgia being the previous victim. russia spends a lot of money on propaganda, though - i don't know whether you are paid or just mislead by rt and similar media, but there oh-more-than-enough paid people, spewing bullshit about "vote" in crimea.
look at all the neighbouring countries of russia. they know what they are dealing with. they are very, very concerned.
popularising such lies is very evil. please try not to be evil.
Rich
It is actually pretty well known that the entire Eastern Ukraine is very much more Russian. If you want to argue that the Russians didn't *always* live there, we can continue this discussion with some American Indians if you like.
http://oi40.tinypic.com/tz581....
We are all original Africans.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Great. Now there will be a war to decide whether 'Rus' means Russia or the original Kievian Rus.
Amazing how the percentage keeps going up. Every decent source I've seen says 51% ethnic Russians. A poster here named etash claims it's 60%. You're claiming 65%.
Well I'm now claiming it's 104%! 104% of Crimea is ethnic Russians! 110% of them voted to join Russia! Vote is complete! It is fair and reasonable!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Another, even more important history lesson lies in Weimar Germany.
After the WWI, Germany was made a scapegoat, at the insistence of French. The conditions where the following:
huge reparations
ban of German submarines and airplanes
ban on German troops west of Rhine
ban on unification with Austria
ban on annexing Sudetenland
big swaths of land transferred to other countries (Poland, Austria, etc)
All of this imposed upon Germany even though Germans were lured to the negotiation table by the Americans promising there "would no losers". All of this led to rapid impoverishment of Germany and the rise of lunatic Hitler.
More recently, the historians labeled the 1990s Russia as a Weimar Russia. Even though Russia withdrew from East Europe unilaterally, the west has done nothing to help Russians deal with the turmoil following the transition to market economy and democratic institutions. When it came to loans, the west simply fleeced Russians. NATO also didn't waste time and move into Poland, and then former Soviet republics in the Baltics. NATO started the war in Yugoslavia and separated Kosovo from Serrbia despite Russian protests. All of this created great conditions for people to accept the autocratic Putin who nonetheless brought stability into Russians economy and politics, at the expense of rolling back the democracy and setting up a new police state.
At the same time comparing Putin with Hitler because of Sudetenland and Crimea is quite primitive. Hitler also advocated racial hatred and never made it a secret that he want to push the German nation to conquer Poland and Ukraine. With all its current problems, Russia is an multi-ethnic multi-cultural country with ethnic Russians constituting about 80% of overall populations. Even though, Putin used the nationalist rhetoric of helping Russians from abroad, the annexation of Crimea has broader goals. First, it's a demonstration of power, and a clear punishment of Ukraine for stepping out of line. Second, Putin just got another frozen conflict at the border, which means its unlikely Ukraine could join NATO any time soon.
Mexican-American War
Not so much. For years afterwards, the Nazis' best military hardware was the stuff they got from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia didn't just lose territory, they had to leave everything behind in the frontier defences.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
So Crimea did not ask for Russian protection on the first day of the uprising in Kiev? You are denying very recent history, or choosing to ignore events, to come to your conclusion.
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
Wow, just wow. Armed gangs take over a government and it's not a coup to you, nothing like changing a word to fit your means I guess. Do I need to give a LMGTFY link so you can find the definition of "coup"? Say so if you can't find the definition of the word.
Interestingly what is lost by you, and US media, is that on when the protests started even US media said the uprising started not because of an evil tyranny, but because the Government of the Ukraine didn't want to become a member of the EU. Considering how every country that has joined has gotten butfucked by global bankers, I am not sure that decision was wrong. It had nothing to do with Russia, until someone needed a villain. Wholly shit this is still in Google, go figure out how to use "Search".
compared to ukraine ? haha
Ahh, selective thinking. No, not compared to the Ukraine but compared to the US and EU allies of the US.
Learn to spell and use your caps key, I refuse to respond further to a person that lacks common courtesy with communication in addition to a critical lack of facts..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
60% is at least supported by Ukrainian 2001 census (58%, actually).
Do provide some of your "every decent sources" - just being smug is cheap.
It depends on which year you're looking at census for. Per 2001 census, it was at 58% (I hope Wikipedia is a sufficiently "decent source" for you, especially when it cites its sources?), which is usually rounded up to 60%. 65% is from 1989, so that's my mistake.
Also, if you really believe that Crimea wouldn't have voted the same way in a fair referendum (note, I'm not saying that the one that took place was fair...), you just don't know much about that place. Russians were the most populous group there for something like two centuries, and were a majority ever since the deportation of Crimean Tatars after WW2 (who were the second most populous group).
Also, understand that these demographics are based on a poll where the question asked was "which ethnicity are you?". This does not necessarily correlate to language and cultural self-identification - most people would basically claim their parents' ethnicity (in USSR, this was sort of set in stone as there was the "Ethnicity" entry in internal passports, and you could take either your mother's or your father's), but in practice a large number of nominally Ukrainian population of Crimea is strongly russified, speaking Russian exclusively and self-identifying with that culture. The same 2001 census has also asked another question, "which language do you consider native?" - in Crimea, 77% said it's Russian. Going even further, when a 2004 poll asked "which language do you speak at home, with the family etc?", 97% of respondents in Crimea said it's Russian.
So, no, the percentages are fine, or close enough for the point of my post.
Mexican-American War
You mean the war that started after the US legally annexed Texas and Mexico refused to abide by the terms of the Treaties of Velasco between Santa Anna and the Republic of Texas, by not recognizing the agreed upon border of the Rio Grande and thereby claiming land that legally belonged to the US as Mexican? Huh, similar to the situation in the Crimea after all, since Russia gave the Crimea to the Ukraine back in the 60s and just now up and decided to change their mind.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia.
Would you prefer a comparison to Austria and their rigged election backed by the threat of German invasion to allow annexation by Germany?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Oh, really? Are you saying that those obese, alcoholic "heroes" were only able to "defeat" a completely unarmed "army" (and with hundreds of casualties on their side in one month), but couldn't cope with some groups of fourth-world analphabetic "insurgents"?
That's a GREAT point!
Shrug, I'm more making a statement that the "good" guys is an extremely subjective view. How much of Momar Ghadaffi and Libya had to do with him trying to get rid of US currency vs. him being such a "bad guy" for example. Sure, he was bad but we tolerated him pretty well until he decided to do away with global bankers. We can say a similar thing for Sadam and Iraq. None of them were good guys, but when the evil that gets ignored for decades (and even aided) gets played up you should start looking for other motives.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Funny that someone who just says the blatant truth gets modded down.
Americans are told every day that they are supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, and finally they lose a war against a fourth-world army in Afghanistan. And they don't want to believe that. That's what happens when people have their brain filled with hot dogs and trashy TV shows.
Seriously, the west thought that the cold war was over, but Chinese leaders, along with Putin, remain in the cold war mind set.
The west needs to re-think their energy, along with how we handle commerce. In particular, the west, esp. America, keeps transfering tech. to China and Russia. America gave up all of our thorium technology to China. INSANE.
This is while both nations are massively spying on the west seeking to steal military technology.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
So Crimea did not ask for Russian protection on the first day of the uprising in Kiev?
there are no sources claiming anything like that, even not russian ones. the first thing happening in crimea was invasion by an army wearing no insignia.
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
Wow, just wow. Armed gangs take over a government and it's not a coup to you, nothing like changing a word to fit your means I guess. Do I need to give a LMGTFY link so you can find the definition of "coup"? Say so if you can't find the definition of the word.
Interestingly what is lost by you, and US media, is that on when the protests started even US media said the uprising started not because of an evil tyranny, but because the Government of the Ukraine didn't want to become a member of the EU. Considering how every country that has joined has gotten butfucked by global bankers, I am not sure that decision was wrong. It had nothing to do with Russia, until someone needed a villain. Wholly shit this is still in Google, go figure out how to use "Search".
not sure what the usa media did - don't think i've seen any detail on ukraine from them. not sure what media you follow, but it seems to be heavily cremlin controlled. your account of the events is wrong - either on purpose or not, that determines your evilness.
yanukovich cancelled eu cooperation (not even close to membership !) agreement, taking a loan from putin instead. a small group of students and like-minded protested in kyiv, got brutally beaten. as ukrainians said, "we are not used to citizens being beaten up" - so next day kyiv was full of protesters, this time majority of them brought out by the oppression from the special forces. more brutality, murders, kidnappings, torture... further events are more popularised - and eventually it was the rada that voted to remove yanukovich, even members of his own party ("party of regions") were leaving the party - there were dozens of deputies who left it...
compared to ukraine ? haha
Ahh, selective thinking. No, not compared to the Ukraine but compared to the US and EU allies of the US.
Learn to spell and use your caps key, I refuse to respond further to a person that lacks common courtesy with communication in addition to a critical lack of facts..
i apologise for my spelling, here in eastern europe we learned english as our third language. and we know this neighbouring country too well to see who's the aggressor.
you are either quite delusional or financially motivated to whitewash the actions of russia - which, despite there being many really great people in there, is a monster that endangers all of it's neighbours and whole world.
if you refuse to respond, that's good, because such propaganda, based on lies, can lead tu huge suffering.
Rich
Really? Canada? Grenada? Cuba? Texas? New Mexico? tell me when you want me to stop.. because I can list a few more, I just have to look them up.
In the comment sections of news articles I noticed a lot of support for Russia, mostly talking about the "fascists" in Kiev (yes there's a few shady characters but that had been hugely overblown) and even endorsing the "referendum". It's not entirely unsurprising since Russia is a big country with a lot of ex-pats and people with Russian ancestry who might be sympathetic.
However, I noticed two curious things, first there was very little support for Russia on /. which has a more cumbersome account creation process (it's obvious if you're new). And secondly, unlike most people who have a strong opinion these commenters, when someone replied to them, very rarely replied back.
My gut tells me that Russia has engaged in a very widespread online astroturf campaign, targeting major news sites. I'm wondering if that has affected the degree to which news sites have been reluctant to directly criticize the 96% result in the referendum.
I stole this Sig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_rico#United_States_colony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mexico#History
Claim any pre-text you want (oh, we were at 'war') but the reality is that most wars are justified and started by an invading power looking to expand their economic influence/control.
Google "Ukraine crisis timeline" you inconsiderate prick. A failure on your part to use a courteous level of communications skills is because you are a liar and nothing type is truthful. See, two can play toddler games and since I'm not a toddler I'll win.
Further, it's hilarious that you call me names and invent things never said and then attribute them to me. Go back and read my post again you illiterate sod! I never said any party was right or wrong, I said that the comparison someone was making was wrong. I further stated that the US has made some horrible decisions and many people in the world no longer see the US as a magical cowboy rushing in to save them from the evils of the world, they see the US as the biggest evil in the world that they need to be saved from.
Try to read and comprehend what I wrote instead of inventing your own material. I do realize that reading something other than porno and comic books does require a smidgen of thought, so maybe you should not volunteer for such a task.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_mexican_war
Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.
Ahem,
Spanish American War.
Thank you. You are welcome.
The actual beginning of the end for the League of Nations as a meaningful quantity was when it stood by and let Italy seize Abyssinia without question. Once it became clear to Hitler that there were no real repercussions to forced annexations, he felt quite free to begin plotting his own.
That and the fact Japan pretty much ran headlong into china and when scolded about it, said F**k you- thank you very much and just walked out. No consequences.
Useful in what way? The US and it's allies don't have any need to use the UN. It's a useless debating society. Anything we need to do can be done with our allies.
It had nothing to do with Russia, until someone needed a villain.
Russia seems to have volunteered for that role by invading Ukraine, your friends not withstanding.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Nah, it's not dangerous for Russia at all. Hitler's concentration camps provided a lot of political fodder for other countries to initiate war with Nazi Germany. If Russia doesn't make that mistake, keeps their conquests slow and reasonably managed (i.e. one front), it would not be too difficult for all of the "West", in particular Russian-dependent Western Europe, to overlook their advances into former Soviet territory.
The U.S. is never going to move, as it would lose all of its Asian interests (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) if it commits to fighting against Russia. U.S. moving against Russia is going to spell MAD, maybe not nuclear MAD, but MAD nonetheless, and there isn't enough political capital in the U.S. to want to risk that.
Western Europe is by and large going to do nothing, since they're heavily dependent on Russian natural gas (by Russian design). They've pretty much alienated everyone else who can provide them with natural resources, except maybe Turkey. And it would be a long, protracted war, as history has told us time and again, which they aren't going to initiate if they don't feel sufficiently threatened, and which won't happen if Russia only moves against countries in the former U.S.S.R. Hell, some people in the U.S. probably couldn't tell you the difference between Russia and U.S.S.R.
Nobody's successfully taken over Russia except for the Mongolians. The Chinese/North Koreans will not move against Russia without significant concessions, at which time they will take over the rest of East and Southeast Asia first before aiming their guns towards Russia if at all, since Russia is more of an ally to them than any "Western" country. In fact, I'd say that if Russia does move against Western Europe, and the U.S. is dragged into a long and protracted European front, that it will be more likely Russia+China+North Korea vs the West rather than Russia vs. the West+Asia.
Putin knows this, and that's why he's able to move against Ukraine now and other parts of Eastern Europe later. There's almost 0 chance of war, and if there is, it will be Russia vs. Ukraine, and no one else. Maybe when it was still the U.S.S.R. 30 years earlier, there was enough political capital to commit to a war with the Soviets, but the West is war-weary and the "Western" populace in particular is disinterested in fighting someone else's war at this point.
If things go this route, I suspect it'll be Estonia, and Latvia since there's a sizeable Russian population there. I'm pretty sure it'll be Lithuania, and Belarus after that, to make Kaliningrad contiguous with the rest of Russia. Or, we could be hopeful that Putin will stop with Crimea. I wouldn't count on it though.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
The Mexican-American War. Try harder.
I guess you are throwing the right of self determination out of the window dude. What sort of international law are you talking about? It's funny because in Kosovo, there was no referendum at all, it became independent just by bombing. The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
Ironically, Alaska was sold to the US in part** to help pay for Russia's war debt incurred during the Crimean War (and in recognition that it would likely loose the territory anyways in a war with Britain as well) ...
The reason it took so long to close the Alaska deal (1859-1867) was that the US was fighting its own right-of-self-determination referendum (aka US Civil War) and that temporarily interrupted negotiations. I don't remember how that referendum turned out... ;^P
Fortunately for the US, we kicked out most of the 700 Russians in Alaska shortly after annexing (a small part of the off-color history General Jefferson C. Davis), so there would unlikely to be a vote similar to Crimea the matter of rejoining Russia...
On the other hand, I'm sure some high ranking democrats would be happy to support Alaska going to the other red team to make room for Puerto Rico, so you never know...
** the other part was to pay the debts associated with the 1861 Russian Peasant reforms...
The Bay of Pigs Invasion certainly qualifies as "invaded a peaceful neighbor", whether the US would have "invited" Cuba to join the United States had this invasion been successful has to remain speculation. Grenada is another example where a nearby country was invaded to overthrow a regime disliked by the US government. Usually, the US is fine with "changing regimes" to one made of string puppets after invading a company, and so is Russia - they just offer "rescued" regions to "join the Russion federation".
Bay of pigs?
"Covert United States foreign regime change actions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The USA usual backs some band of freedom fighters, military staff or political leader until they win.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If a large-scale crisis would really cut the Russian gas supply to Germany, alternatives would be found.
Be more concerned about Bulgaria, who import almost 100% energy from Russia and have much less alternatives.
Re Who's side is right in most conflicts are a matter of opinion backed by the winner. Send your kids over? Is it worth you or yours dying for, especially if you don't have all the facts?
Thats going to be the sock puppet war option, do big powers in the US and EU go in to undo a vote in a region?
The EU votes to allow your region in, you don't get to vote to stay out?
If so Gibraltar, Guantanamo Bay, 1980-90's Yugoslavia, other parts of Spain, parts of the UK, South Sudan, Tibet, Ireland, Falkland Islands start to look legally as interesting.
Some 'declaration of independence" by locals voting is then lost on the wider community?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Interesting how people will falsify information to suite their needs. I believe you meant to say "Crimea", which is not the Ukraine and who was going to be autonomous in May by democratic process. This vote was scheduled long before the coup in Kiev, and was scheduled for the same reasons that the coup expedited. They were not pro-western, and were pro-Russian.
This is the same Crimea that asked the Russians to protect them from the Euromaidens on the same day the coup happened in Kiev, and the same Crimea that just voted to leave the Ukraine and join the EU.
If you claim to be pro-democracy but only if the democracy does what you want it to do, it is not a democracy.
I do realize that you don't let "facts" get into the way of your opinion, but that just means you should not be spreading your opinion. You have a history of repeating false information so this today is no big shock.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Thats going to be the sock puppet war option, do big powers in the US and EU go in to undo a vote in a region?
Depending on who you believe, it just happened in the Ukraine. Considering that the US paid for their Orange revolution I don't think they were happy with the Ukraine voting to stay out of EU economics.
The EU votes to allow your region in, you don't get to vote to stay out?
Eastern nations have wanted little to do with the EU and seem to be able to stay out, so I'd need some better basis for this statement. Seems like you are saying "EU" but meaning "NATO", can you clarify?
Some 'declaration of independence" by locals voting is then lost on the wider community?
I'll ask for clarification here also, Crimea was slated to be autonomous in May. The coup expedited the process, but is not really a surprise to anyone that spends a few minutes studying the region.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The locals have voted, is the US and EU going to go in and undo a local vote? Will the locals be happy about been reintegrated back into the EU and NATO after their vote? :)
The other option is for NATO and the US to revert to backing all kinds of regional freedom fighters and turn up regional tensions over vast areas with the tame press watching.
Its the perfect storm of soft loans, hard currency deals, coups, gas, huge backing for color revolutions, future regional pipelines, the interests of Russia, UK, EU, USA and NATO.
Add in contractors selling advanced weapons and long term mil support systems to needy nations via new loans.,, everybody is winning but the locals who just wanted to vote.
Since Peter the Great Russia has always understood the need for its own ports and the value of exports from Russia by Russians on Russian ships. How the world responds to Russia trading on its own terms with its own raw materials, setting its own prices is very well known historically.
The other aspect is regional politics with leaders been seen as willing to help NATO or Russia just to out pace their rivals and get a part of big soft loans, gas deals.
They can find nationalism and flip sides with the next big loan or energy deal
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I have an idea.
How about Finland proposes a self-determination referendum for Karelia (since it was part of Finland before WWII) and see how the Putin likes it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
"If our Western partners believe the format [of the G8] has exhausted itself, we don't cling to this format. We don't believe it will be a big problem if it [the G8] doesn't convene"
~ Sergei Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister)
I think a shorter translation might simply be a middle finger.
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Several decades ago you would also not imagine any circumstances where Congress would hamper the government's ability to pay it's own workers (Government shutdowns), hamper it's ability to get and give credit (raising the debt ceiling), hamper laws that protect the equal rights of all it's citizens (recognizing non-traditional unions), create laws that take away a women's right to choose (anti-abortion legislation), create laws that hamper science education (considering creationism) in school or hamper laws against large companies effectively buying out both law enforcement (DMCA) and democratic elections (Citizens United).
Our government has been co-opted by religious zealots with the end goal of creating the Christian version of Sharia/feudal law where the rich and religious leaders have and maintain all the power (you keep them dumb, we'll keep them poor).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
russia is the aggressor here. they occupied their neighbour - actually, they have been doing this continuously for quite some time, georgia being the previous victim. russia spends a lot of money on propaganda, though - i don't know whether you are paid or just mislead by rt and similar media, but there oh-more-than-enough paid people, spewing bullshit about "vote" in crimea.
look at all the neighbouring countries of russia. they know what they are dealing with. they are very, very concerned.
popularising such lies is very evil. please try not to be evil.
Ok then I'll give you the straight truth.
Following the end of the Cold War, Russia gave up the Ukraine in exchange for returning all the Nukes they used to have there, AND an essentially permanent lease to keep their most vital Naval Base on the Crimean Peninsula.
Recently, the Ukraine had a lot of unrest and kicked out the existing government, and replaced it with a more pro-NATO one. Russia got freaked out that they would lose their Naval Base, and that's why they are there right now. They did not spend billions upon billions in Energy Subsidies to the Ukraine out of the kindness of their hearts- it was done specifically so that they could maintain their Naval base and renew their Lease perpetually.
You can rant about the recent "elections" being bullshit, and you're more or less right, but the "government" which was there prior to the Russians stepping in really had no more legitimacy, if you really want to nitpick the details. And while I do agree that the "vote" was not nearly as real as Putin has been claiming, it's a hell of a lot more real than people like you seem to think.
Calling people who don't agree with you "Cremlin Media" doesn't change the fact that this is not a simple matter of Putin/Russia deciding to go wheeling around Europe gobbling up territory, which is what you're claiming.
England - 1812.(Canada...yes, yes, minor conflict at sea with England and all...)
Spain 1898
Mexico 1846
1813 – West Florida
1813–14 – Marquesas Islands
1814 – Spanish Florida
I started to list everything but it got a little boring. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_war
So technically it might not be part of the US, but you are a fool if you belive they don't have a very pro western/american goverment now installed.
Rocket Surgeon.
Mexico?
Or how about the several attempts on Canada? Granted, we got our butts kicked back across the border, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
Hell - the entire west of the United States was taken at bayonet point. Or do red people not count as people?
I agree, it is interesting how people falsify (and distort) information to suit their needs. I in fact meant to say "Ukraine" because Crimea was legally part of Ukraine when Russian forces invaded. Russia has previously acknowledged Ukraine's control over Crimea since Russia leased military bases there. You don't lease someone from someone that doesn't own it. You can tell it was an invasion since the national government did not authorize Russian troops to take control of Crimea. A referendum that is scheduled for the future is not effective today. Where is your usual outrage about not obeying the rule of law? Instead you are making excuses for Russian aggression and obfuscating the truth. It appears that you are willing to abandon logic when it suits your needs.
You have a history of outrages against the truth, crank theories, and foolish notions. Now you are proving to be an apologist for Russian aggression. No wonder you are so disaffected against your own country.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The Bay of Pigs was an attempt by Cuban exiles at a counter-revolution supported by the US, not a US invasion and annexation. Grenada was a US invasion, but the territory was not annexed and US forces left.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Sorry A. The Bay of Pigs was an attempt by Cuban exiles at a counter-revolution supported by the US, not a US invasion and annexation. You may consider it splitting hairs, but the details on this one matter.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The stipulated period was since the Vietnam War. Do you have any of those?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The Mexican-American war had us 100 miles from the Mexican Capitol with a pretty decent chance of victory if so desired. Read the wikipedia article on the Mexican-American War if you want to know more.
The slow death of President Mr. Barak Hussein Obama now an accomplished fact.
As the USA President fucks World "Leaders" may be know his own fate is at hand for all to see.
Nahh- they just overthrew those they didn't like and installed governments that they hoped would be more to the US's liking. ie Afghanistan & Iraq come to mind as the most recent examples. There may be others I'm not thinking of at the moment.
i still think the multiple military operations of the US are worse, whether you classify them as legal or not.
It's hard to believe that the United States HAD to invade either country. Iraq and Afghanistan were never a real threat to the United States. Anybody whose not biased simply has to compare the numbers. 2000 people died on 9/11, but millions died because of the US's reaction to 9/11. Lets not forget Iraq either. A complete lie fed to us that most still believe we invaded because of terrorism and/or weapons of mass destruction.
Long before the Vietnam War as stipulated in the OP. Try again.
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the population there WANT to join Russia? And where do you get off thinking that you have some Divine appointment to resolve this matter according to how YOU think the border arrangements should look?
This is not a Western fight. We have no right to intervene in conflicts which do not involve us.
When will we learn?
The previous president was NOT a Russian loyalist, he was a typical populist who came into power using a pro-Russian rhetoric but later backed off. He maneuvered between the EU and Russia but his latest swing towards Russia proved too big and he was toppled by the radical nationalists.
How about a compromise? Snowden assassinates Putin and the whole treason/espionage/whatever charges are dropped and Snowden can return to the US. It's a win, win, as I see it.
President Butthead Ohblahblah begs Putin to stop, even as Putin rectally savages him. Putin is reported to have laughed at the request and started pushing harder.
So great. We get get a Russian Anschluss. Because these spineless, balls-free western politicoes have ZERO grasp on historical perspective and why what's going on out there in Crimea is appallingly bad.
My disgust for these sons of bitches knows no bounds.
Many of us have no problem with guns or with gun owners as long as they adhere to our mostly reasonable laws. There are millions of law abiding firearms owners in Canada. We have mostly sane gun laws that occasionally get carried away by hysteria or Statist power grabs (LGR, attempts at a Toronto handgun ban, abuse of police powers that exceed legal authority, etc).
On the issue of the Ukraine and Russia:
Russia may have had a historical claim to Crimea and a practical need to protect their access to Sevastopol. The West's allies in the new Ukrainian government threaten that. I give that much to Russia as a pressure. And for the most part their forces have been fairly restrained.
On the other hand, they did invade another nearby nation. They aren't the world's policeman and even if the legitimate government of the Ukraine was ousted (I don't believe this as mass protests to me are a signal of loss of legitimacy of the ruling government), they have no LEGAL right to be in the Crimea.
No, they cannot argue protecting Russians because Crimean nationals who are Russian speaking ARE NOT RUSSIANS.
I think what Russia could have done if it was a bit smarter and didn't want to create a confrontation and assert Putin and the Russians as strongmen to be feared (which I think is their goal) is moved in, established security, even forced the Ukrainian bases to disarm, and claimed they were simply securing a currently ungoverned space (which could be true given the inefficacy of the new provisional government). Then they could have asked for the UN's help to setup a secession vote for the Crimea to determine what the will of the majority was there. If they had a FAIR and SCRUTINIZED vote, they would likely still have gotten a majority, it would simply have taken longer, and the Ukrainian government would have little basis to complain nor would outside observers. In this instance, the Ukrainian government wouldn't have a valid complaint about invasion and could have negotiated for most of their fleet back, etc. (a part of it could be argued as belonging to Crimea as a portion of Ukraine that was separating).
The Russians also have a terrible record in their treatment of the Tatars. They likely don't want to be absorbed and the Russians should let them go but I forsee them not doing this as they are a significant minority and it is unclear where they would go... so they will get the short end of the stick again from Russia likely. And this community may end up being a long term insurgency start point if the Russians aren't careful. The Chinese have discovered having big minorities who have been abused enough to be willing to kill and die has exposed them to an internal insurgency. The Russians could find the same with the Tatars if they aren't at least neutral towards them.
By setting up what was effectively an unfair vote then by fiat annexing Crimea, Purin and his government have a) rebuked the international community and b) attempted to show their strength and that they are beyond anyone's power to deter and c) to sew fear in other nearby neighbours about the risks of thwarting Russian intentions and interests. This makes sense given Putin is an old-school Soviet dictator at heart, in bed with organized crime, and perfectly happy having people he does not like killed off. (General Russian murder resolution rate: About 80%... Resolution rate for homicides of Russian journalists (of which there are surprisingly many): 2%..... does that seem like 'no official effort' or what?).
What America has done in terms of its own foreign policy and losing any moral high ground is unfortunate, but citing this as an excuse for Russia's conduct is very much a red herring style of argumentation. Ultimately two wrongs do not make a right. Russia's approach here is clearly imperialistic and not democratic. The conduct of Putin and his government is worrisome today and for the future and eventually, if this pattern repeats (and it will - we saw it in Ossetia/Georgia, and now in Crimea), someone will ha
Hell - the entire west of the United States was taken at bayonet point.
Not really. Mexico's government has never really valued or cared about anything in northern Mexico, least of all the part that's now the American west. Mexico's claim on it was basically, "Spain owned it, Mexico declared independence from Spain, and declared itself to be the legitimate inheritors of Spain's north American colonies". In realty, the cash Mexico got for the western US was basically a lottery windfall. And looking at Mexico's history and government, I think it's safe to say that if Mexico had retained ownership of what's now California, Los Angeles would be a sleepy retirement destination smaller than San Diego is now, surrounded by miles of desolate wasteland. San Francisco might have ended up with a million or so people, but it would have been another remote outpost where Mexico's ruling elite wouldn't have ever set foot without holding their noses.
Likewise, at the time Texas declared independence from Mexico, the US and Mexico were pretty evenly matched militarily. The main reason WHY Texas declared independence from Mexico was because the government in Mexico City didn't give a shit about anything besides collecting taxes from them and giving them nothing in return. The battle at the Alamo wasn't fought by AMERICAN troops... it was fought by Texan troops fighting their own revolutionary war against a largely-indifferent federal government thousands of miles away in Mexico City.
If anybody's to blame for the state of Mexico today, it's the people who elected its government over and over again for more than a century and allowed it to systematically loot what was supposed to have been their middle class. Mexico isn't a rich & powerful country, but it's by no means *poor*. Look at its raw numbers sometime. Any visible poverty in Mexico is mostly due to the fact that they don't have a 1% taking most of the country's wealth, they have a 0.1% taking most of the country's wealth.
remember 1812?
Texas used to be mexican not too long ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Annexation
Mexico. Learn your history.
I wonder... given that there always are a few megalomaniac rulers who start wars and/or severely limit the freedom of their peoples, what would the world be like if we had the following process:
1. The UN member states agree that a state has a dictator who is hurting people more than helping them, in a severe way. (ex. The Kim's in North Korea, Mugabe in Zimbabwe... Putin?)
2. The UN warns said dictator that he will be eliminated unless either he stops, or gives damned good reasoning for why he's doing what he's doing.
3. If said ruler refuses, then said ruler (and only the ruler) is assassinated, to prevent further bloodshed.
4. Let the nation choose it's own future.
This is certainly not a suggestion. Just a thought. It might stabilise world politics, because of the "democratic" method applied. Would the UN become a de-facto world government? Would it make an interesting fictional premise?
How do you know that? From an election organized and controlled by a militia linked to mafia? And the next point if to take Alkaska Back. And also to give back Finland and Poland their territories.
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the population there WANT to join Russia?
Exactly! It's time to bring the Sudetenrussians heim in's Reich. Coming up next: Anschluss for the rest of the Ukraine.
I would consider it far more likely that Putin annexes parts of the Balkans. Estonia or Latvia would be a whole other ballgame as they're EU and NATO members. That would basically force the EU and NATO to engage as the next step after that would be Poland and East Germany. It would be obvious that there's no intention at all of stopping at all.
As that point at least Britain and France might very well start pressing nuclear buttons.
They should be careful, the Ukrainians might have setup them the bomb.
The Americans like this narrative a lot, probably because it's a good excuse for preemptive interventions.
However, I don't think "appeasement" changed anything in the course of events except for holding up the outbreak of the war for one year. If the other European powers and the US had tried to isolate Hitler at the time, do you really think Hitler would have been cowed? On the contrary, it would just have been better for his propaganda machine and he wanted to start the war earlier anyway. And the idea of a massive military intervention to throw Germany out of Czechoslovakia is something that you may justify in retrospect, but at the time it would have been an absurd move, even it had had with popular support.
Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.
It was awhile ago, but the Mexican–American War would probably be an example of that.
Crimea had an election. The Majority of inhabitants voted for Russia. Naturally enough considering who actually lives there.
Crimea was mostly Russian all along - They asked for a vote in 1992 and took one in 2014.
Gorbachow is absolutely right - Crimea belonging to Ukraine was a mistake in the first place and should have been corrected much earlier.
Russia only needs the excellent harbour at the tip of Crimea. The rest of Crimea is good for agriculture and Tourism and poses a financial drag. The 2 easternmost provinces of Ukraine has a lot of Russians, If the majority votes to join Russia they will.
If not, then not. Russia is in no dire need of more land and do not really need more land with old style coal mining and energy consuming metal industry. Russia is pretty docile and not the the hungry bear many seem to crave for.
Pridnestrovie does not want to be part of a Moldova that really belongs to Romania.
A river is a good border.
Being located between Moldova and Ukraine they just want to be left alone so they can attend to their Steel Factory and a huge Textile Factory. Just to be left in peace so they can go about their daily work.
South-Ossetia did not want to be reintegrated into Georgia - They were not integrated in the first place. Basically they are Christian Iranians. Russia does not really want this - The Caucasus is an excellent holding line for the Russians.
But if 60000 inhabitants of a valley cries for help they are hard pressed to not lend a helping hand.
Read up on history and take a closer look.
Abkhasia? Nagorno-Karabakh? I dunno - ask the locals who actually live there.
Long term We the people rule.
It is just some minor earthquakes after the evil empire went bankrupt and disappeared.
Nothing much to see here - Please move along.
That's not the point. The Russians annexing Crimea is NOT our problem. We cannot speculate that they MIGHT take Alaska next.
For fucks sake. The very reason terrorists do what they do is because they speculate America will attack their country next. You know what? They're usually right. Next to our international record the Russians look like a bunch of cuddly kittens. Us?
Vietnam.
Guatemala.
Chile.
Cuba.
Philippines.
Nicaragua.
The Western world in general? Add all of Africa, the rest of South America most of Asia and pretty much everywhere else.
Our speculative preemptive warmongering is the reason terrorism even exists. They don't hate our freedom. They hate our attitude that our economic interests, geopolitical whims and xenophobic hysteria trump their right to live.
"Why does everyone ignore the fact that the population there WANT to join Russia?"
Because they almost certainly don't? Objective polling before the election put only 41% of Crimeans in favour of becoming part of Russia. Russia invaded, installed a puppet Crimean government (kicking the democratically elected one out) took over the airwaves, spread propaganda everywhere, refused to allow impartial international observers in and then called an election which they "won" with 97% support - the jump from 41% to 97% isn't within any sane margin of error.
The real question is if a majority of Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia then why did Russia have to go to such lengths? If the Crimean people supported joining Russian then their democratically elected government could've called a referendum, international observers could've been allowed in to verify it's validity and so on and so forth. The fact none of that happened is evidence enough that the Russians had zero confidence that the people there wanted to join them fair and square. If that was the case then hell I'd even support what happened, as it wasn't I can do nothing other than refer to it as an illegal annexation against the verifiable will of the populace.
Just because the US has subtler ways to enfore its will, makes it no less evil.
US just wants the power without having to give the people living their any 'rights' USians think they have.
I see no meaningful similiarities. This is just warmongering western media spewing propaganda without mentioning who started this mess by staging a coup that has gone out of control (hint: leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt - hear this with caution, famous 'F the EU' is least important part of this conversation). I also recommend considering geopolitical context of this situation - Russia could not afford NOT responding to this as NATO bases in Ukraine could pose direct strategic threat to them of the same magnitude that missiles in Cuba posed to the US of A. This is also conveniently overlooked by western media.
Having said that, I view Crimea annexation as some kind of act of aggression, yet compared this to "liberations" conducted by the US (which usualy end up in massacres and drastic atrocities) it was (almost) bloodless. This makes very bad publicity for western warmongers, especialy neocons who look like war criminals by comparison (and in fact some of them are). Maybe this is the reason of recent media frenzy over Crimea issue.
Putin's way to achieve his goals seems to be mostly political (with some military support). First steps after Crimea annexation were to set up conditions for as fast growth of crimean economy as possible. They'll now be governed by russian laws (that are way less intrusive than ukrainian laws). Additional laws are being passed to ease conducting business in Crimea. Crimean firms don't have to pay taxes until the end of 2014. After that they'll have standard russian 13% flat tax (which is quite low compared to other countries in Europe). Russians also pledged to invest 5bn EUR into infrastructure of Crimea. My guess is Putin is trying to make a template for other post-soviet republics that will look easier to achieve and possibly more attractive than joining the EU. Just compare this to how well Greece is doing today under Troika dictate. The same results are not guaranteed anywhere else (first ones have the best bargain), yet it will give others something to thinks, especially in countries that went through color revolutions (all of which failed miserably). This stands in stark contrast contrast with how West (especially US) conducts their politics in other countries, which in most cases boils down to either staging a coup (Ukraine), funding insurgents waging a civil war (Syria, Libia) or bombing the hell out of (perceived) opponent (Iraq, Libia).
I'm trying to guess what Putin will do next but I don't believe in "invade The Free World" myth spewed by western media. With Ukraine descending into chaos, neo-nazis from Svoboda (originaly: Social-National Party of Ukraine - I'm not joking!) in key positions in ukrainian government (deputy PM, defence ministry, security services), ukrainian military mostly NOT obeying their orders (and rightfuly so - should they obey we'd already have civil war), Party of Regions (still having most popular support) being outlawed by force, gangs stopping busses, beating and robbing anyone with russian passport, Putin could just sit there and wait until this whole thing breaks down and people revolt once again and this time request joining Russia in order to improve their miserable life conditions. The other thing he can do is to annex other eastern regions of Ukraine the same way Crimea was annexed and leave Western Ukraine to Europe with all debts, troubles and nationalist gangsters roaming around. He propably doesn't want deal with those troubles when someone else can.
I'm truly asamed of my country politicians (hello from Poland!) who helped creating this mess. Should they not stage this coup, or at least enforce treaties they've signed with Yanukovych in February, Ukraine could go in orderly fashion into elections and - with sufficient monitoring - Ukrainians would elect whoever has popular support. Instead, our politicians are now spreading anti-russian hysteria and supporting ukrainian nationalists praising Stepan Bandera (the man responsible for murdering of some 200 thousands Poles in Ukraine in 194
Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
Some would argue they've more than caught up in terms of AA/ABM/SAM tech and that their warplanes are at least comparable to their American counterparts (considering filling different roles, the T-50 isn't as stealthy as an F-22, as it is designed to be just stealthy enough to get into firing range unseen, anything more is deemed unnecessary as firing gives away your position regardless. The SU35 lacks the radar capabilities of the F35 but is intended to be used in conjunction with Russian ground and see-based radar, the targets are being tracked before the SU35 even takes off -- but it's much more maneuverable than the F35 and at this point, is able to fly in all weather).
Some would also argue that those Slava class heavy battlecruisers are nightmare fuel for carriers.
Neutralize air and sea power and you're left with a land war. Nobody wins a land war in Russia except Russia.
No, Germany was not technologically superior at the time. In fact, the only reason Hitler started rearming Germany was that he saw that Europe would not resist him regardless of what he did. Russian military industry has now started producing again. It's been able to finance itself with large arms sales in recent years (like 1.5-2 MILLION machine guns to Venezuela).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I don't think the loss of life is really necessary, it just requires the West to be willing to play a game of brinksmanship - Russia's deployment on Eastern Ukraine's border needs to be matched by Western deployment on Western Russia's border.
Russia knows it couldn't win the war, it knows it wouldn't even be worth starting the war, so it's then entirely down to who blinks first, and just as the USSR ran out of money first last time, it would do so again this time.
You don't need to start a war, you just need to match his deployments to create a stalemate, then it's not as though he can roll further into Europe because there'll be a big Western military barricade in the way. From here you can negotiate a phased stand down by both sides, and that forces Putin to either go bankrupt in a stand off, or pull back his troops from the border and remove the threat of a Ukraine invasion.
If the Ukrainian people want us on their borders as a deterrent to war we should accept - it's not as though we don't already do this in places like Korea and Japan without any wars starting. Some may argue it's not our problem, and that's the same shit we heard with World War II - it's not our problem, until it is. Putin's advance needs to be checked now, before it reaches a point where it is our problem - once the bullets start flying in Ukraine THAT'S when it becomes impossible to stop, so it's far better to stop it now before the bullets have started flying.
The problem right now is we're leaving Ukraine in the shit, we're saying to Russia don't invade, but we're telling the severely militarily weaker Ukraine well there's not much we're willing to do if they do, so tough shit. If Russia does invade then it wont take much to spiral out of control and start effecting neighbouring nations and then it most definitely is our problem, we can't avoid it at that point because we have people and interests in those countries.
The West is paralysed by the fact Europe is not yet ready to have their energy supplies cut off, the US wants them to do more but isn't willing to sell shale gas to them to remove their dependence from Russia to let them do more and so nothing's happening whilst Russia does what it wants. Find an alternative to Russian gas for Europe and they can act more economically but I think this'll just make Putin more resolute to use military force without there also being a firm barrier of iron and steel on it's border to block that move on the chess board.
That's all part of NATO now. Russia won't do anything to Germany or Poland or Lithuania.
Presumably... The NATO alliance has never been tested because the resolve of the United States to fight a war of principle has never been in question. It is now. We abandoned our ally Poland by backing out on the missile shield agreement we had with them simply because Russia asked. It is not at all clear that Russia would not (in 2-3 years time) manufacture a conflict in one of the Baltic states simply to see if it can get away with it. I would say it will largely depend on whether US elects another Communist or will change the course.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It's a strange day when I have to agree with you more than with somebody listed as my "friend", but it happened today. Moving my personal emotions aside, your arguments are actually solid and sound. Well... kudos to you!
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
it could be debatable, but not in the context of this story. otherwise one could say "oh, but north korea is worse than russia... for now"
Rich
when you say "Russia gave up the Ukraine" it's as if they owned it - well, they kinda did, by extension of the soviet union. but i don't think anybody sane would use that as an argument.
"replaced it with a more pro-NATO one" - that is false. even the new government never mentioned nato. except that the russian movements in crimea actually got them worried enough to mention it, and even then say that they are not looking to join nato...
"it's a hell of a lot more real than people like you seem to think" - in 2013, ~ 10% of the residents of crimea would have voted for joining the russia. sorry, invading a territory and staging a "vote" is not acceptable, even if you try to hide it behind rephrasing.
Rich
I find it amusing that you demand evidence from the parent poster when your own 'source' gives it This is particularly apparent in both the Russian and Ukrainian ethnic populations, whose growth rate has been falling at the rate of 0.6% and 0.12% annually respectively. In comparison, the ethnic Crimean Tatar population has been growing at the rate of 0.9% per annum.[13]
Your own wikipedia page from which you've quoted a 13 year old survey shows that there's a yearly 1.5% shift in demographic from ethnic Russian to Crimean Tatar.
2001. Is Friends still the most watched show on TV. Is the population of America still 280,000,000 and the approximately 40 million new citizens can be ignored? A 13 year old census is a piss poor source, what is especially amusing is that the same wikipedia page says that demographics in Crimea are shifting from ethnic Russian to Crimean Tatar by 1.5% a year. So if you just blindly follow your 'source' without applying any critical thinking you'd actually conclude that Crimea is 40% ethnic Russian.
You may be right, but there's a great deal of responsibility lying on the shoulders of both EU and US since they have been extremely careless handling the whole matter.
First, when Ukraine cancelled the law that sanctioned Russian as second official language in Crimea, EU's reaction was much weaker than it should have been. It was extremely slow and gave an excellent pretext to Putin.
Second, when the CEO of Ukraine TV was beaten in video by Parliament members, Ukraine's political reaction at the highest level was "Svoboda will pay in the ballot box for this aggression". Reaction from the EU was once again very tame.
All things considered the EU and the US weren't willing to protect the Russian minority and had no strong diplomatic reactions to acts of violence which should have been addressed instantly. No wonder Putin did what he did, being the criminal he is. But I won't forget the huge responsibility of EU politicians, or US politicians, which seems to be generated by a mixture of stupidity, laziness and criminality.
Well then I suggest you catch up, or at least think a little more broadly. The point of Nuclear weapons in MAD is to ensure that nobody else uses Nukes against you because it would result in both sides being destroyed. If Russia invaded Alaska (unlikely at best) then America wouldn't retaliate with Nukes because it would be moronic to do so; it would use its conventional military. Even if America couldn't retake Alaska for some reason it wouldn't make sense to use Nukes in response because that would result in vast, or total, annihilation of America as well as Russia. Better to use economic and alternative military options to target Russia until you can force them to back down.
I'm actually quite surprised that eastern European nations, who appear to be both concerned about Russia and frustrated by Europes response, haven't started hinting that they might begin developing nuclear weapons so that they have their own nuclear deterrent now that the west has shown how little a promise means. Putting Europe in that position might force them to be more aggressive in their sanctions against Russia in order to stop it.
What about Hawaii ?
You're talking about prehistory. Chechnya wars happened in the '90s, when Russia was in a state of default, caused by the Yeltsin gang, the USA and the IMF, and their best friends (the oligarchs). As a result, the defense budget had been slashed by 70% in comparison with the Soviet era.
Instead, today's Russia comes from 15 years of huge economic growth (6% on average), it has almost erased its public debt and tripled its military budget in real terms. Most importantly, it's an independent country again: most of the oligarchs have either been jailed of forced to escape, several companies that had been unfairly privatized have now been re-nationalized, and its armed forces is almost back at the Soviet levels.
By the way, americans in afghanistan aren't exactly doing any better than the soviets in the '80s. Actually they are being ridiculed by a fourth-world "army". And finally, what the US has done in Iraq is just like what the nazis did in Poland, far worse than the 19th century. You aren't in any position to judge on anyone else's foreign policy.
Because they almost certainly don't? Objective polling before the election put only 41% of Crimeans in favour of becoming part of Russia. Russia invaded, installed a puppet Crimean government (kicking the democratically elected one out) took over the airwaves, spread propaganda everywhere, refused to allow impartial international observers in and then called an election which they "won" with 97% support - the jump from 41% to 97% isn't within any sane margin of error.
It's less than 41% actually. In 2011 it was 33% and in 2013 it was 23%
http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-...
Also the leader of the puppet government - a Russian gangster nick named Goblin - was from a party which got 4% of the vote in the last elections. And it's not even clear that the votes in Parliament making him PM and organising the referendum were quorate. Also Parliament was surrounded by gunmen who only let in MPs who would vote the right way
http://time.com/19097/putin-cr...
So far, the most revealing aspect of his time in power has been the way he came to possess it. Before dawn on Feb. 27, at least two dozen heavily armed men stormed the Crimean parliament building and the nearby headquarters of the regional government, bringing with them a cache of assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades. A few hours later, Aksyonov walked into the parliament and, after a brief round of talks with the gunmen, began to gather a quorum of the chamber's lawmakers.
It is not clear whether the parliament was seized that day on his orders. On the one hand, the masked gunmen identified themselves as members of Crimea's "self-defense forces," all of which are, according to Aksyonov, directly under his control. On the other, he claims the seizure of the buildings was done "spontaneously" by a mysterious group of fighters. "We only knew that these were Russian nationalist forces," he tells TIME in an interview Sunday. "These were people who share our Russian ideology. So if they wanted to kill someone, they would have killed the nightwatchmen who were inside."
Instead, they let the guards go, sealed the doors and only allowed the lawmakers whom Aksyonov invited to enter the building. Various media accounts have disputed whether he was able to gather a quorum of 50 of his peers before the session convened that day, and some Crimean legislators who were registered as present have said they did not come near the building. In any case, those who did arrive could hardly have voted their conscience while pro-Russian gunmen stood in the wings with rocket launchers. Both of the votes held that day were unanimous. The first appointed Aksyonov, a rookie statesman with less than four years experience as a local parliamentarian, as the new Prime Minister of Crimea. The second vote called for a referendum on the peninsula's secession from Ukraine.
Oh and the referendum offered people a choice between independence (and joining Russia later) or joining Russia immediately - "yes, now" or "yes, later". There was no way to vote for the status quo of staying inside the Ukraine.
https://www.kyivpost.com/conte...
The ballot for March 16 Crimean referendum gives two choices, to join Russia or become independent.
Voters in Ukraine's Russian-occupied Crimea who vote in the March 16 referendum have two choices - join Russia immediately or declare independence and then join Russia.
So the choices are "yes, now" or "yes, later."
The referendum took place only two weeks later dur
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The other side is the 500,000 thousands pensioners (many of them ex-military) who have noticed that their Ukrainian pensions are a quarter of the Russian ones. They want their money too, so they vote to join Russia. ... to everyone ...
Money talks
Prehistory? Action in Chechnya was contemporary with US efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As an ethnic Estonian i share concern about Russians.
It was 1991 when soviet union collapsed. I'm 26 years old and I have grown up in a democratic Estonia. Although i still heard the ridicule about soviet union from my parents.
For Estonians the political direction after the collapse was clear, our language, alphabet is nothing like Russian so we knew we are more Europeans then Russians. So EU and NATO was the obvious way to go.
Unfortunately it seems this was not so clear for the Ukrainian people. Peoples opinions in Ukraine split between EU and Moscow which is probably the result of the chaos.
When it comes to Russia then the soviet union might have collapsed but the mindset is still very much alive, especially among Russian speaking and elderly.
For me it seems that 20 years is not enough for democratic thinking, values and culture to root into "Average Joe" brain. I can see it in my own people that there are way too many who want to censor opposition, but luckily Estonians don't actually go and do that. The same cannot bet said about Russians who have hard grip on media. The leadership in Russia might be democratic but its a mistake to get fooled by that, its the people who shape the democracy in my opinion, the people still think its okay to shut down criticism, its the people who think its okay for Putin to stay in power for so long. Putin thinks the soviet union collapse was a disaster and continues to try to win votes by playing on the soviet unions "glory" card.
In short Russia and together with former soviet states are newbies in the democratic club and should be treated as such.
I think the US and EU should other than those small sanctions start putting pressure on Russia to deal with its undemocratic handling of media. And overall strategy should revolve around sanctions (negative) and cooperation and help (positive) reinforcement in getting over the obstacles of becoming a more democratic society.
Not after Vietnam. Learn to read.
Wrong. The first Chechen war took place from 1994 to 1996, the second from 1999 to 2000. Iraq is 2003-2011, Afghanistan 2001-ongoing. You can check on wikipedia.
This proves that you simply don't know what you're talking about, hence the "flame bait" is clearly yours.
So, your definition of "contemporary" does not include events that happen within 1-7 years? I think we're going to have trouble discussing this.
Also, you are including the "insurgency" phase of both Iraq and Afghanistan but not the Chechnya wars.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Apologist? I don't believe so, but I'll contemplate that a bit. Do I believe the US is some great virtuous beast? Nope, those delusions have been gone for a very long time, because I read a whole lot of history. There are certainly cases where I would back US actions, and certainly cases where I would denounce Russian actions. Crimea does not fall into this case, and the massive amount of distortion does not change my opinion.
If Crimea was not going to be autonomous in 2 months whether or not there was a coup in the Ukraine, I would agree that "Russian's invaded". That condition is not true.
If Russia had raced in shooting like they did in Georgia, I would probably again denounce the Russian's actions. That condition never happened either.
There are many conditions that we could present showing the same change in opinion, but none of those happened.
People repeating propaganda that I heard on Fox news, like comparing this to Sudeten, won't change that opinion either. Hitler claimed that Germans in Sudeten were being tortured, abused, and killed by the Czech government. I have heard no such rhetoric from Russia regarding Russians in Crimea. Hitler said that turning over Sudeten would prevent war. Again, I have heard no such threatening rhetoric from Russia so the comparison is simply not true.
It's clear that the US and EU does not like the vote in Crimea. I don't have any insight into the election process, but the voting numbers are consistent with past voting in Crimea. Crimea has been pro-Russian since long before Nikita Khruschev gave the land to the Ukraine.
As stated before, when democracy does not work the way the administration wants it to work, they attempt to change the outcome. That is not being pro-democracy.
Lastly, there is a difference between being against certain US activities and being pro anyone else. The US has done a lot of wrong, and questionable things. The wars in the middle east are a few of them, but these fabrications as a method of starting wars goes back quite a ways. At least to Vietnam. If the US is dishonest about the start of the conflicts why would you trust their motives?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Thanks for the further points, it clarified your earlier statements. I agree that the people that tend to get screwed in any deal are the locals.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
contemporarily
contemporary
[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]
adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time
http://dictionary.reference.co...
That said, even if the Chechen, Iraqis and Afghan wars had been contemporary, it still wouldn't change the fact that today's Russian armed forces are completely different from what they were in the '90s, as well as the russian economy. It's like comparing america just before and after the 1929 crisis.
First, whatever source you are getting 41% from, were they there? Did they actually count the votes? Or are you getting this information from western media, who logically did not even have access to Crimea at the time of vote? To recap you don't know who is lying (Russians or the West), but the source that you choose to believe literally has no way of knowing the truth in either case.
Second, I have seen pictures of ballots (I also happen to read Russian since I was born in Ukraine, thought it was USSR at the time). The choices are "Would you like to join Russian Federation" or "Would you like Crimea to stay an autonomous republic as part of Ukraine". The two choices were not Russia or Russia, that's a straight up blatant lie. In case you didn't know, Crimea to Ukraine was more like Puerto Rico to USA. As in not a state, rather a territory. The difference was Crimea had partial autonomy the whole time that they were part of Ukraine. So the vote was "Russia" or "Stay as before", except that wording was twisted and your sources made it sound like "Russia" or "Russia".
Third, I have friends living in Crimea. They would rather be part of Russia, because they would rather have stability than being a part of a failed and corrupt state where revolutions occur every 3-4 years. Also, since you believe that all Ukrainians are held at gunpoint here's a Ukrainian (me) telling you that Russia did the right thing. I assure you nobody is holding me at gunpoint.
Putin doubles their pensions? And we're surprised they voted to join Russia? This is such a non-story, the MSM is so desperate for viewers, and the reality is like NO ONE CARES!
What would happened if Putin said he would triple the pensions in the Ukraine, what do you think the vote would be? They would join in 5 minutes, lets be real.
Democratically elected government? Do not think Godwin will protect you.
Come on, I am from Russia I think there is no freedom of speech in USA, no in EU, and no in Russia. There is only propaganda from government, both yours and ours. And I clearly see on this forum, that this propaganda works like different drugs, so there is no chance one understands other side. In fact, most of what you (and us in Russia) see about Crimea, Ukraine and Russia on TV and other media is (des)information. Trying do decide something based on this type of information is senselessly. There is too many interests there to get independent information. Currently there is no possibility to split information, desinformation and motives for desinformation in any media. How can this be changed?
We don't have any better sources, that was the most recent census in the region.
The shift from Russian to Crimean Tatar is due to the gradual return of Tatars from where they were deported to (such as Uzbekistan). It's fairly obvious that it's going to end at some point. In fact, it is safe to assume that it already peaked in a long time ago - the number of Crimean Tatars in Crimea today is noticeably higher than the number deported from Crimea in 1944 - and they were not exactly placed in conditions encouraging population growth while deported (not to mention insanely high death rates during deportation itself). So everyone who could return has already done so, and now it's just natural population growth.
Also, where did you get the 1.5% figure from? The article says that Russian population decreases by 0.6% per year, and Tatar population increases by 0.9% per year, but those percents are relative to two different base figures, so you can't just add them up. Applying them separately to either number over 13 years will net you 1,050,000 Russians and 263,000 Tatars - or a change from 4.8x difference to 4x.
Oh, as a side note, all those stats only count the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which does not include Sevastopol, which alone counts 340,000 people - or about 15% of the entire Crimean peninsula. However, the referendum took place in both administrative units, with combined results. And Sevastopol is even more skewed towards Russians (not surprising, since many families of Russian Black Sea Navy live there), whereas Tatars are below 1% there.
I don't know if you're trying to be ironic, but that description includes most of the westward expansion of the United States -- wars with Native Americans, Texas' separation from Mexico (and subsequent joining of the Union), the Mexican-American war (1846-1848), the Spanish-American war (1898), and the annexation of Hawaii (1898). While some of these might not qualify as 'peaceful neighbors', that's largely a function of point-of-view.
The OP stipulated since the Vietnam War. I'm pretty sure that is more recent than your examples.
Obama is working on a strongly worded missive.
You know, IIRC the Austrians were planning a "join Germany" referendum in 1938, and Hitler then occupied Austria and held a referendum that was overwhelmingly in favor of the union. I hope the history repetition stops here.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yup. Russia's borders have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, but I think these are the first borders that exclude Kievan Rus.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
On the other hand, there was a referendum in Austria after Hitler annexed it, and it was overwhelmingly in favor of the annexation. Remind you of anything?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Um... The Mexican-American War?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
Texas was our Crimea. Not that we stopped there, of course. Got California and a few other states out of it.
there are no sources claiming anything like that, even not russian ones. the first thing happening in crimea was invasion by an army wearing no insignia.
This information is surely available, and I gave the search method for finding all kinds of goodies. The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell. History is not that hard to find or read. I will give you that generic searches will mask history, and you will see the most recent propaganda pieces. These sources were not just RT news, so it's not purely Russian propaganda.
i apologise for my spelling, here in eastern europe we learned english as our third language. and we know this neighbouring country too well to see who's the aggressor.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals? Nope, it's a game and the people in the Ukraine are caught in the middle. At the same time, what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
you are either quite delusional or financially motivated to whitewash the actions of russia - which, despite there being many really great people in there, is a monster that endangers all of it's neighbours and whole world.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good? Nope, not hardly and your level of logic is rather delusional. Funny that you continue to portray exactly what you accuse me of.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell.
do you mean russian soldiers wandering outside of their bases, which was prohibited by ukraine-russia agreement?
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals?
i'm not sure about the usa. most eu nations seem to be very concerned, especially given that many of them have just slipped out of the totalitarian grip. i would agree that they don't have purely altruistic goals - they have survivalistic goals. they know they are the next...
what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
it's definitely close to what hitler did. it's almost like putin is roleplaying hitler.
just one example of many is to compare putin's speech with hitler's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6SB9sqCevk#t=1h50m11s
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good?
you whitewash evil actions. decide for yourself what does that make you. it might seem ok right now, but such approach does seem to eat the consciousness from inside.
Rich
i really dont understand the history of crimea from what i read people there willingly to join russia did crimea was part of russia before http://www.arcasecell.com/
Attempted invasion and annexation, except you guys got your asses handed to you, yet again I might add.
No, there was no plan for annexation I've heard of. You do realize it was Cubans fighting Cubans, right?
I have found it the height of irony that Putin has been essentially mirroring the beginning of a conflict that killed millions of Russians
The path of that conflict will be different now, as it will be a war between nuclear powers. Very high cost and very high casualty for everyone, except North Africa, for whom a reversal of global warming from a Nuclear Winter may bring greater prosperity.
The personal sanctions are the interesting and possibly effective weapons. I think many such political weapons will be deployed long before war is genuinely considered.
There's nothing new or strange about it. Millions of any country's citizens have always been seen as a trivial price to pay for any goal of those who lead it. Usually that's war, but the day we get a more marketable Soylent Green, it'll just be a matter of whether american citizens are cheaper to produce than if we just outsource to chinese factories.
Indeed, certainly wouldn't want anyone not voting republican cheating all our ballots!
The first thing happening in Crimea happened long before Kiev fell.
do you mean russian soldiers wandering outside of their bases, which was prohibited by ukraine-russia agreement?
No, I meant exactly what I said. Try to read a little bit of history of events in the Ukraine prior to the coup in Kiev.
And you will further claim the the US and EU nations are not aggressive and have purely altruistic goals?
i'm not sure about the usa. most eu nations seem to be very concerned, especially given that many of them have just slipped out of the totalitarian grip. i would agree that they don't have purely altruistic goals - they have survivalistic goals. they know they are the next...
EU countries that were in totalitarian grip, like Spain or Germany? I think you are fabricating reality, which we call delusion.
what Russia did was nothing like what Hitler did, which was my original point.
it's definitely close to what hitler did. it's almost like putin is roleplaying hitler. just one example of many is to compare putin's speech with hitler's speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6SB9sqCevk#t=1h50m11s
No, it's not. You have to pluck sentences from here and there to make them look similar, just like you have to pluck an hour of history from weeks worth of conflict to make Crimea look like Sudeten.
If I don't pain them as evil I paint them as good?
you whitewash evil actions. decide for yourself what does that make you. it might seem ok right now, but such approach does seem to eat the consciousness from inside.
I did not white wash, I pointed out that people like you are trying to paint the situation as completely black. RT probably white washes, but I'm not RT.
If you distort reality you are a bad person, even if you think that you are doing so for a good reason. Lies always lead to more lies, when caught people don't trust you. This is the reality that so many people refuse to grasp even though Socrates pointed out this very thing 2,500 years ago. If you look at a spot on a painting that's red, and claim the whole picture is red, you are an idiot that should keep your mouth shut. Anyone that takes a step back can see it's an apple on a tree that you are looking at, and the tree is in a forest.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Mexico, 1846. Tried Canada in 1812. as well.
Unfortunately was long before Vietnam. Read the OP.
Sorry, but that was long before Vietnam. Read the OP.