Russia annexes Crimea

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Stephen Sossna:

O maestre:

But don't get me wrong I don't support what Putin has done, its is the kind of thing that Bush might have done, and it will bite him in the ads for a long time coming. I however understand it, and I am mostly against the ignorance of the western media in taking multi faceted approach to this issue, instead of simply labelling the Russians as satans spawn and the EU as the holiest of angels. It is a lot more complicated than that.

I don't know what media you frequent, but aside from a slight bias, which is to be expected when we are dealing with essentialy an east/west conflict, I have read a number of reasonable, multifaceted approaches to the topic. I don't feel like accusing the media of being manipulative in this instance is warranted.

I think the focus is just currently on the fact that Putin has made a total dick move, which alsmost everyone agrees on.

Primarily Danish and British media on occasion, and I admit that the British media has been far better at covering both sides, Danish media is so biased towards the west that it may even have skewed my opinion to the other side in spite. However they all fail to mention what kind of people we, the west are defending.

image

That is the old and new logo of the Svoboda part far right extremists that are not only anti Russian they are also racist and anti Semitic. Currently they are part of the 'interim government', these people should have no place in any kind of government at all.
The hypocrisy is the same as with the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, we didn't like him, but we are okay with a pro western El Sis as a dictator, just like Mubarak. We promote democracy around the world, but will only support the "right" choices.

Already the Ukrainian government wants to Yanukovich to be sent to the international court for judgement. The same court as Milosevic. They are hardly the same, yanukovich was a corrupt leader but an elected leader, the way you deal with that is to vote for someone else at the next election. The new government only represents the western Ukraine not a single ethically Russian is present.

Strazdas:

Sleekit:

i'm not absolving the Russian government of anything but that security concern is entirely legitimate one...and because of the fact you have a former cold war superpowers military assets sitting in a country they are now effectively "falling out" with...somewhat historically unique and without parallel as far as i can see...unless anyone cares to suggest one...

And protecting your own assets would have been fine. However invading govenrment buildings, taking civilian airports and forcibly disarming the ukrainina army is not. Here as i type this the news broadcast is saying that its now an official "War zone". and that russia has sent 16.000 troops in by now. This is very simple invasion with false pretext, and the preWW2 invasions fit the parallel very well.

Fdzzaigl:
I think Putin is playing a dangerous, but rational game. He really can't be likened to "you know who" imo.

Oh, Hitler was very rational, and a great tactician too, altrough he did go quite mad by the time he started loosing.

invoking Godwins law is not really a good point for discussion, it only serves as derailment.

Strazdas:

O maestre:

Interesting you still equate the Russian federation with the soviet union. If your bias is already set that the Russian federation = USSR then it is hard to have any kind of discussion. I assume you are referring to the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, which was a horrible human rights violation, one of many committed by the USSR. I know it is difficult but it is the same situation as the exiled Cubans, repatriation after so long has not been an easy process. With over 20 years after the soviet collapse the Ukrainian government has not been able or willing to repatriate the tartars, because the demographic change has become established.

No, i do not equate them (altrough the case could be made for that too). what i told you is real history of what actually happened in Crimea.
The reason Russia now can claim that majority of the population there is Russian is because of what Soviet Union did in force and nothing else. So yes i ironically pointed that its a great tactic, kill the locals put yours in then claim the land was always yours.

But the land was theirs, not that I condone killing your own people. Up until 1954 Crimea had been part of Russia for about 300 years! It was only because Nikita Khrushchev "gifted" it to Ukraine because of administrative reasons. the slaughter and deportation made by Stalin was the work of a madman. None of those are alive now, and neither is the country that produced them. Bringing up what happened then is a derailment of how the situation is now. Much like the rich American Cubans that still lobby for sanctions on Cuba, despite Batista and his corrupt government being long gone.

Strazdas:

O maestre:
In the ministry there is the Fatherland party and Svoboda, and supporting them outside the government is the Pravy Sektor all of them right extremists and borderline Nazi's. Google Svoboda, odds are you will see their leader giving the Hitler salute.

That is not fabricated information, it has been reported by some western sources, including the Times. The governments current composition is not fabricated.

Crimea has had special autonomy ever since the collapse of the of the soviet union. If it wasn't because of the Budapest treaty they most likely would be Russian a long time ago.

Yes there is, but no they are not the majority of the composition. And like i said, if they chose to go the electino route as they should then the people will decide whether to keep them there anyway.

I wonder though, if they have room for extremists in the new government, then why not for the sizeable minority of Russians. Ukranian Russians who also protested against corruption.

How come a discussion about government corruption devolved into a what seems like a nationalistic agenda. Hell they even failed to adress corruption, they have tasked some oligarchs to be administrators and governors of eastern parts of Ukraine. wasn't the point to get rid of the oligarchies, not give them government jobs?

Strazdas:

O maestre:
Yes by itself it seems harmless, but given the parties currently in charge and their first act being declaring a minority language to be removed, you can understand why the Crimean are so nervous, and why the Russian invaders were welcomed with open arms, seriously not a single shot has been fired. As far as invasions go it is one of the most peaceful.

When nationalist spain took over the parlament in 1937 not a shot was fired either....

That is a poor comparison, a massive civil war between fascists and republicans, ensued. Or are you suggesting that the nationalist elements in the west are going to live up to Svoboda's and Pravy sektor's reputation?

Strazdas:
I however understand it, and I am mostly against the ignorance of the western media in taking multi faceted approach to this issue, instead of simply labelling the Russians as satans spawn and the EU as the holiest of angels. It is a lot more complicated than that.

I agree that the situation is complicated and there is a lot of propaganda from both sides. However we know some facts, such as russian army invading Ukraine territory, which is bad whichever way you spin it.[/quote] I am glad we can agree that news on both sides are being dishonest and sensationalist. I am especially critical of western media, with a small exception to the BBC. Universally pro western media in my country has reported the Invading Russian troop numbers to be over 30 000 troops, when in truth the number is only around 5000, there were already 25 000 or more Russian troops in the several Russian bases in Crimea.

The lack of mention of Katherine Ashton's leaked call in regards to forensic findings of the identity of the snipers who shot people. Or the extremest nature of some of the new government ministers. Among other things that have escaped the "objective" reporting. Likewise the news on the east is also very exaggerated. I wish people would be more critical of the news they receive, nobody is wholly good or evil in this conflict. Ukraine was a land on the brink of a civil war, at least from what I have seen, there is little love between west and east in that country because they are totally different people with different backgrounds.

The borders and regions of Ukraine were not made by cultural bonds but by bureaucratic whims of imperialists.

Strazdas:

O maestre:

Annihilist:

The economic collapse of Russia is not a good thing for anyone, remember this is an interconnected world, what happens when the Russians start hiking the gas prices? Sanctions will hurt our economy as well, and I don't believe that they are brave enough for that kind of self sacrifice.

Not only that, but think of how sanctions affected Iraq. Economic disaster affected the people and not the corrupt leaders, because what little money there was did not flow through to the welfare of the people. Sanctions aren't necessarily a good idea because when you have a corrupt dictatorial regime, they don't necessarily care about what happens to their people, and the people will be affected the most by this.

Thats the whole point - starving people will not support their dictator if the dictator is what starving them.

Yes, war is cruel.

War has not happened yet, and hopefully will not, and times have shown that if it is truly a dictatorship, than sanctions won't hurt Putin's rule, North Korea is still going strong, Cuba is also alive and well, seems sanctions have little effect on true dictatorships. Then again I wouldn't call Putin a dictator just yet, at the very least the Russians seem to support him, unlike their previous leaders, weak toothless leaders like Yeltsin.

O maestre:
invoking Godwins law is not really a good point for discussion, it only serves as derailment.

If the comparison is correct then it is a point. And in this case the actions are almost exact same as that of Hitlers.

But the land was theirs, not that I condone killing your own people. Up until 1954 Crimea had been part of Russia for about 300 years! It was only because Nikita Khrushchev "gifted" it to Ukraine because of administrative reasons. the slaughter and deportation made by Stalin was the work of a madman. None of those are alive now, and neither is the country that produced them. Bringing up what happened then is a derailment of how the situation is now. Much like the rich American Cubans that still lobby for sanctions on Cuba, despite Batista and his corrupt government being long gone.

See, thats not what theri claiming. Their claiming the land was thiers because there are Russians living in there in majority, which is direct result of their genocides. Im aware that the Ukrainian border was drawn artificially, however we got international treatiers stating that these borders are to be protected (including form russia themselves), and yet russia finds it ok to invade and take over part of the country.

That is a poor comparison, a massive civil war between fascists and republicans, ensued. Or are you suggesting that the nationalist elements in the west are going to live up to Svoboda's and Pravy sektor's reputation?

It was merely to point out that a takeover that has "no shots fired" can still leader to a very bloody war, as you pointed out it did.

Universally pro western media in my country has reported the Invading Russian troop numbers to be over 30 000 troops, when in truth the number is only around 5000, there were already 25 000 or more Russian troops in the several Russian bases in Crimea.

The most objective media here i found stated 4000 troops coming in bringing the total up to 30.000, so i guess thats quite close.
The difference is, those troops were based in their military bases, not taking over government and civilian buildings, unlike the newcommers. they also seem to be fighting in the black sea. i dont know how real the nubmers i hear was but i heard there are 3 ships sank already.

War has not happened yet, and hopefully will not, and times have shown that if it is truly a dictatorship, than sanctions won't hurt Putin's rule, North Korea is still going strong, Cuba is also alive and well, seems sanctions have little effect on true dictatorships. Then again I wouldn't call Putin a dictator just yet, at the very least the Russians seem to support him, unlike their previous leaders, weak toothless leaders like Yeltsin.

I dont know. I would call invasion of another nations sovereign territory and hostile takeover of of its government and infrastructural bases is a war. A war with no deaths so far but a war still.
Sanctions does hurt, not necessarily cause a revolution, but neutralize rather. North Korea is strong? Thats why its afraid to do anything it keeps talking about and we all know its just an empty jests? Cuba? what strenght does cuba have? Meanwhile Russian military and economic strenght allows it to be in G8.
Yes, Putin is liked by its people in general, which is what allows him to hold such power. though looking at amount of propaganda coming out of russian news now (since we are very close we see a lot of it here) i guess everyone gets brianwashed eventually.

Strazdas:

O maestre:
invoking Godwins law is not really a good point for discussion, it only serves as derailment.

If the comparison is correct then it is a point. And in this case the actions are almost exact same as that of Hitlers.

Bringing Hitler in to the discussion will serve as derailment, soon we will be talking about what kind of tanks and strategies were used, as happens in almost every political discussion. So forgive me but I am going to leave Hitler out of this.

Suffice it to say that Hitler planned his expansion from the get go, this situation seems hardly planned unless you are a conspiracy theorist. In recent years Russia has carefully tried to create a pan-Russian economic and trade union akin to the EU. The situation in Crimea has sunk that ambition, what nation in their right mind would align themselves to Russia now, so this situation was not wanted or crafted by the Russians. The comparison with Hitler is not direct, but more for sensationalism.

Strazdas:

O maestre:
But the land was theirs, not that I condone killing your own people. Up until 1954 Crimea had been part of Russia for about 300 years! It was only because Nikita Khrushchev "gifted" it to Ukraine because of administrative reasons. the slaughter and deportation made by Stalin was the work of a madman. None of those are alive now, and neither is the country that produced them. Bringing up what happened then is a derailment of how the situation is now. Much like the rich American Cubans that still lobby for sanctions on Cuba, despite Batista and his corrupt government being long gone.

See, thats not what theri claiming. Their claiming the land was thiers because there are Russians living in there in majority, which is direct result of their genocides. Im aware that the Ukrainian border was drawn artificially, however we got international treatiers stating that these borders are to be protected (including form russia themselves), and yet russia finds it ok to invade and take over part of the country.

No they are not claiming it because the history of the soviet union should not matter, I know it is harsh, but we have to look at the situation as it is now, which was my original point. Given that there are no eastern representatives in the new government, and Russian has been banned, along with the new government dissolving all the political parties that were Against them, including the party that won the last election with a slim majority.
Right now the new government with its right wing elements and supporters are not in favour of the ethnic Russians in the east, the country has just had a violent revolution, is it so hard to imagine that the eastern population could be in danger?

Strazdas:

O maestre:
That is a poor comparison, a massive civil war between fascists and republicans, ensued. Or are you suggesting that the nationalist elements in the west are going to live up to Svoboda's and Pravy sektor's reputation?

It was merely to point out that a takeover that has "no shots fired" can still leader to a very bloody war, as you pointed out it did.

I think the Russian presence has in effect nullified any kind of civil war. The western Ukraine does not have the strength to dislodge the Russians, and NATO is not going to enter a full scale war. I would have much rather preferred for UN soldiers to be present in protecting both sides, but the fact is that the international community has been totally ineffective in the past and in the present.

Strazdas:

O maestre:
War has not happened yet, and hopefully will not, and times have shown that if it is truly a dictatorship, than sanctions won't hurt Putin's rule, North Korea is still going strong, Cuba is also alive and well, seems sanctions have little effect on true dictatorships. Then again I wouldn't call Putin a dictator just yet, at the very least the Russians seem to support him, unlike their previous leaders, weak toothless leaders like Yeltsin.

I dont know. I would call invasion of another nations sovereign territory and hostile takeover of of its government and infrastructural bases is a war. A war with no deaths so far but a war still.
Sanctions does hurt, not necessarily cause a revolution, but neutralize rather. North Korea is strong? Thats why its afraid to do anything it keeps talking about and we all know its just an empty jests? Cuba? what strenght does cuba have? Meanwhile Russian military and economic strenght allows it to be in G8.
Yes, Putin is liked by its people in general, which is what allows him to hold such power. though looking at amount of propaganda coming out of russian news now (since we are very close we see a lot of it here) i guess everyone gets brianwashed eventually.

I have a hard time connecting bloodlessness with the calamities and tragedy of full blown war. The term should not be used lightly, the Russians are illegally occupying the Crimean peninsula but there is no conflict.

What I meant about 'going strong' is that sanctions have not caused those regimes to collapse or the people to revolt.

As for propaganda, the same can be said for the west, people are convinced that the new Ukrainian government is filled with saints and crusaders for democracy, when the truth is different. This attitude has been persistent in everything from Pusey Riot to the Olympics always trying to demonize the east. People or should I say western media fail to realise that Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore, it has no where near the power or influence. It is like many eastern European countries an new capitalist democracy, only 20 years old and filled with problems, from culture, structure, economy, ecology, corruption and separatism.

There appears to be alot of wishful thinking going on not just over here, but in the media in general.

As some have pointed out already Putin is popular in Russia. Consider not only, that most of the Russian rhetoric that we're not buying, isn't intended for the west, but rather for the east, but also consider the actual results.
The Russian economy has only been growing since Putin came to power and people will put up with some shit for that. Prosperity >> everything else.

My bet is that Putin will get away with this. The old KGB probably knows exactly how far he can push it.

Strazdas:
Putin is among Nobel candidates for Nobel Peace Price. Its nice to know that a man starting a war can win Peace prize.

What "Nobel Prize nominated" means is that someone wrote to the Nobel Committee suggesting the nominee should get an award. But the trick is, the number of people who can nominate is (at least for the Peace prize) incredibly broad: politicians, academics in relevant fields, judges, directors of charities, etc.

This means that junk nominations are made every year for hopelessly unsuitable candidates. Consequently, "Nobel Prize nominated" can be just about the most empty, pointless and irrelevant thing you can describe someone as.

What you might get kudos from is reaching the Nobel Committee's shortlist, but they don't make that public until 50 years after the prize is awarded.

What started all of this in the first place? why did Russia just start wanting to attack them? has to be a reason.

Grandcrusader:
What started all of this in the first place? why did Russia just start wanting to attack them? has to be a reason.

He didn't attack, not really. There's always been Russians and Russian military bases on the Crim. Russia is basicly lending weight to those ethnics who want to seperate the Crim from Ukrainia.
That makes Russia it's protector, which has real benefits: the pipeline and the continued military use of the old USSR bases and harbor.

Grandcrusader:
What started all of this in the first place? why did Russia just start wanting to attack them? has to be a reason.

60% of the Crimean population is Russian, the excuse has been that they want to protect ethnic Russians from anti Russian western Ukraine. Also Russia has several military bases in Crimea, the current political climate has caused some unease. Have you not seen the news dude? You'd have to be dwelling in a rock or actively not watching any media outlet to avoid news on this.

Agema:

Strazdas:
Putin is among Nobel candidates for Nobel Peace Price. Its nice to know that a man starting a war can win Peace prize.

What "Nobel Prize nominated" means is that someone wrote to the Nobel Committee suggesting the nominee should get an award. But the trick is, the number of people who can nominate is (at least for the Peace prize) incredibly broad: politicians, academics in relevant fields, judges, directors of charities, etc.

This means that junk nominations are made every year for hopelessly unsuitable candidates. Consequently, "Nobel Prize nominated" can be just about the most empty, pointless and irrelevant thing you can describe someone as.

What you might get kudos from is reaching the Nobel Committee's shortlist, but they don't make that public until 50 years after the prize is awarded.

considering the that Obama got the peace prize basically for just existing, I have very little regard for the Nobel committee, at least when it comes to the peace prize.

O maestre:
considering the that Obama got the peace prize basically for just existing, I have very little regard for the Nobel committee, at least when it comes to the peace prize.

Weeeell, he also reduced the strategic nuclear warheads and launchers by quite a respectable amount, both those of the US and Russia. Was a greater reduction than there'd been in a long time. Nuclear nonproliferation was given as one of the reasons.

Now I realize this is from Russia Today so there's naturally going to be bias there. However, Estonia confirmed the authenticity of the recording (which can be found here in its entirety). Naturally, Russia went public with saying that they want this looked into. And to be completely honest, true or not, it wouldn't surprise me, as I said, the current government and their cronies are no better than the last one; and the entire "legitimacy" thing is real muddy.

Grandcrusader:
What started all of this in the first place? why did Russia just start wanting to attack them? has to be a reason.

Because Russia knows this so-called grass roots, democratic revolution is an international coup organized primarily by the United States for the purposes of natural gas contracts and eastward expansion of NATO. That's why the Russians leaked this over a month before the government of Ukraine collapsed:

This is the US ambassador to Ukraine and US State Dept. official discussing their pick of new Ukraine government after the coup. This is the same thing that happened during the Arab Spring- we saw the US support the Muslim Brotherhood and saw that same government collapse inside of a year after they were installed. The Russians watched the Arab Spring, they watched Libya and vowed never again, they stonewalled on Syria- and now they are not playing games anymore.

This is nothing new for the United States, we did the same thing in Iran during the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#U.S._role

I honestly can't blame the Russians; the US started this shit a few years ago and Russia has finally had enough.

Vegosiux:

Now I realize this is from Russia Today so there's naturally going to be bias there. However, Estonia confirmed the authenticity of the recording (which can be found here in its entirety). Naturally, Russia went public with saying that they want this looked into. And to be completely honest, true or not, it wouldn't surprise me, as I said, the current government and their cronies are no better than the last one; and the entire "legitimacy" thing is real muddy.

BBC has also 'reported' on it on their web site and the worlds smallest CNN post, where they literally ask the readers "don't read to much into this conversation" as if we should not make up our own minds.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/ukraine-leaked-audio-recording/

it is depressing as na´ve and shameful as it seems, until these events unfolded I never new that western media was so biased and uncommitted to bringing the whole story from both sides.

Granted that the opinion of one single forensic team in Ukraine is not enough, bit it at least warrants reporting, and brought into the discussion. Instead we are bluntly told in the CNN article not to give this story much thought, as if to discredit it entirely.

O maestre:
Bringing Hitler in to the discussion will serve as derailment, soon we will be talking about what kind of tanks and strategies were used, as happens in almost every political discussion. So forgive me but I am going to leave Hitler out of this.

Suffice it to say that Hitler planned his expansion from the get go, this situation seems hardly planned unless you are a conspiracy theorist. In recent years Russia has carefully tried to create a pan-Russian economic and trade union akin to the EU. The situation in Crimea has sunk that ambition, what nation in their right mind would align themselves to Russia now, so this situation was not wanted or crafted by the Russians. The comparison with Hitler is not direct, but more for sensationalism.

I didnt "bring Hitler" into a discussion. I made a comparison that Putin is acting the same way Hitler acted before WW2, which is a correct comparison, because he does. I am legitimatelly afraid he may follow through with the same strategy and attempt to anex some smaller countries/regions under pretense of defending Russian people.

Putin is a very cunning man, he could have planned this, although its more likely his plan was to keep the puppet government in Ukraine but that didnt work.

No they are not claiming it because the history of the soviet union should not matter, I know it is harsh, but we have to look at the situation as it is now, which was my original point. Given that there are no eastern representatives in the new government, and Russian has been banned, along with the new government dissolving all the political parties that were Against them, including the party that won the last election with a slim majority.
Right now the new government with its right wing elements and supporters are not in favour of the ethnic Russians in the east, the country has just had a violent revolution, is it so hard to imagine that the eastern population could be in danger?

All history matters, but history is not everything. And they claimed they are there to protect the Russians living there, so yes they are claiming it.
And yes, the current leaders of Ukraine arent great nor do i like them, however that does not mean the russians have a right to invade Ukraine.

I think the Russian presence has in effect nullified any kind of civil war. The western Ukraine does not have the strength to dislodge the Russians, and NATO is not going to enter a full scale war. I would have much rather preferred for UN soldiers to be present in protecting both sides, but the fact is that the international community has been totally ineffective in the past and in the present.

Well yes, whne you got a gun pointed at you its unlikely your going to go and beat up somone else. I do agree with oyu about the ineffectiveness of international community. Sigh, we need "Earth federation" and we need it fast.

I have a hard time connecting bloodlessness with the calamities and tragedy of full blown war. The term should not be used lightly, the Russians are illegally occupying the Crimean peninsula but there is no conflict.

See, Military occupation in violation of nations sovereignity is war. I never said its a full blown one. I think its the most peaceful one ive seen so far, but its war nonetheless. Oh, and lets not forget our ambassadors in Crimea that said the best decrition for the situation is "War zone".

As for propaganda, the same can be said for the west, people are convinced that the new Ukrainian government is filled with saints and crusaders for democracy, when the truth is different. This attitude has been persistent in everything from Pusey Riot to the Olympics always trying to demonize the east. People or should I say western media fail to realise that Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore, it has no where near the power or influence. It is like many eastern European countries an new capitalist democracy, only 20 years old and filled with problems, from culture, structure, economy, ecology, corruption and separatism.

I completely agree that the propaganda is coming from both sides of the fence, which makes it hard to find relaiable sources.

veloper:

As some have pointed out already Putin is popular in Russia. Consider not only, that most of the Russian rhetoric that we're not buying, isn't intended for the west, but rather for the east, but also consider the actual results.
The Russian economy has only been growing since Putin came to power and people will put up with some shit for that. Prosperity >> everything else.

Thats questionable. While technically he is publicly elected, the last elections were quite rigged. for example sum up the total percentage of voters here:
image Yeah, it sums up to 140%. This is the voting results of one of the "counties" in russia. apparently, 140% of its population voted, majority for Putins party. Or, if we normalize it to 100% he would only be 3rd. There were other reports of unfair results as well but this is the most noticable.

Agema:

What "Nobel Prize nominated" means is that someone wrote to the Nobel Committee suggesting the nominee should get an award. But the trick is, the number of people who can nominate is (at least for the Peace prize) incredibly broad: politicians, academics in relevant fields, judges, directors of charities, etc.

This means that junk nominations are made every year for hopelessly unsuitable candidates. Consequently, "Nobel Prize nominated" can be just about the most empty, pointless and irrelevant thing you can describe someone as.

What you might get kudos from is reaching the Nobel Committee's shortlist, but they don't make that public until 50 years after the prize is awarded.

Im aware of that, but the article gave me the impression he was on the 25-40 candidate shortlist that they already made up. I may have misinterpreted it. I wouldnt be surprised if Russians themselves nominated Putin there.

O maestre:
considering the that Obama got the peace prize basically for just existing, I have very little regard for the Nobel committee, at least when it comes to the peace prize.

wasnt that supposedly for nuclear disarming treaties moving forward?
Not that i think Obama deserves peace prize what with him completely failing his promise of getting troops out of middle east.

Vegosiux:
snipers everywhere

From what is provided here, they judged about the snipers based on the gun wounds on both sides. A riot is a very complex moving target. if what the video was showing was correct, then they baiscally had simple rifles and hardly aimed, they could have easily missed a couple times.

xDarc:
fuck the EU

I dont see anything wrong here? US ambassador in Ukraine telling the people back home on what the situation is and giving them more knowledge about who is leading the revolution? Meanwhile, gasp, suggesting democrats should exist. As far as the EU comment, its not a secret US sees EU as rivals that keep expanding their political territory.
These kind of ocnversations go all the time for all nations.

Strazdas:

From what is provided here, they judged about the snipers based on the gun wounds on both sides. A riot is a very complex moving target. if what the video was showing was correct, then they baiscally had simple rifles and hardly aimed, they could have easily missed a couple times.

Yes, of course. But with how delicate the situation is, I still think it warrants an investigation, at least.

Vegosiux:

Strazdas:

From what is provided here, they judged about the snipers based on the gun wounds on both sides. A riot is a very complex moving target. if what the video was showing was correct, then they baiscally had simple rifles and hardly aimed, they could have easily missed a couple times.

Yes, of course. But with how delicate the situation is, I still think it warrants an investigation, at least.

Oh, i agree, investigation is warranted in such cases. The problem is that most people instantly jump to conclusions of "omg US hired snipers to start riots".

P.S. you always seem to respond to me almost instantly, its as if your stalking me :D

Strazdas:

Vegosiux:

Strazdas:

From what is provided here, they judged about the snipers based on the gun wounds on both sides. A riot is a very complex moving target. if what the video was showing was correct, then they baiscally had simple rifles and hardly aimed, they could have easily missed a couple times.

Yes, of course. But with how delicate the situation is, I still think it warrants an investigation, at least.

Oh, i agree, investigation is warranted in such cases. The problem is that most people instantly jump to conclusions of "omg US hired snipers to start riots".

P.S. you always seem to respond to me almost instantly, its as if your stalking me :D

Pure coincidence, my friend. Those men that aren't stationed outside your house to not check when you don't sit behind from your computer would be simply random joggers. If they were there, I mean.

On topic though, I'm rather pleased that the rhetoric seems to have died down a little. I suppose most world leaders already got their PR points for making a firm stance, and now actual diplomacy can take place. Also, read the other day that (rather unsurprisingly), USA and likely others are employing body language experts to analyze Putin, and being ex-KGB he's quite a piece of work on that.

Strazdas:
I dont see anything wrong here?.

It's literally right in front of your face. They are discussing who is to be prime minister while yanukovich is still in power; they want "Yats," and lo and behold a month later Yatsunyek is PM. Yeah, other countries talk about world events- but when American diplomats and state department are talking it's because they are making the events. Now snipers shooting both sides?

People of Ukraine got played. I'd wager their new government won't make it 18 months ala Muhammad Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood/Egypt. Nobody respects the puppets the USA puts in anymore, they don't last.

xDarc:

Strazdas:
I dont see anything wrong here?.

It's literally right in front of your face. They are discussing who is to be prime minister while yanukovich is still in power; they want "Yats," and lo and behold a month later Yatsunyek is PM. Yeah, other countries talk about world events- but when American diplomats and state department are talking it's because they are making the events.

The only thing that is controversial about the speech is the "fuck the EU" comment because it it shows American frustration towards their allies expressed in a rather uncouth way. There is nothing in the recording though to suggest that the US was actively causing regime change. As the US ambassador to Ukraine, it is Pyatt's job to report his own assessment about the situation and offer his own guidance and opinion. Here he is talking about what would be the most favourable result for the US and who he would like to see take power in Ukraine, there's nothing unusual about that. Come the next US elections, there will be dozens of European foreign ministers telephoning their American ambassadors and talking in a similar sort of language about which candidate they'll like to see win and what the implications are of the election result.

Nickolai77:

The only thing that is controversial about the speech is the "fuck the EU" comment...

Ok, so maybe you're missing the context.

So here's Nuland at a national press club briefing in December of 2013. She's standing in front of a screen with the logos of Chevron and ExxonMobil because as I mentioned earlier there are natural gas contracts pending; Ukraine has 3rd largest deposit of shale gas next to Poland and Russia... At 7:26 she admits that the US has invested 5 billion dollars in Ukraine over the years and if you gather the context here from the rest of the speech- the money is there to help nudge Ukraine to the EU. They're not giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts, this money represents an investment of pennies on the dollar returns in future contracts.

Now if you look at all the pieces, they are absolutely discussing regime change. They aren't just talking about this as if remarking on the weather. And besides, we just got done watching this very thing play out in Eypt. First they protest to get rid of the government, then the US puppet government comes in, then they protest because the puppet government sucks, then the military takes over. All in less than 2 years. This is what it looks like when an entire country gets played for suckers.

Vegosiux:
USA and likely others are employing body language experts to analyze Putin, and being ex-KGB he's quite a piece of work on that.

im no expert here but from what i read about people eye movement Putin looks to me like a liar.

xDarc:

It's literally right in front of your face. They are discussing who is to be prime minister while yanukovich is still in power; they want "Yats," and lo and behold a month later Yatsunyek is PM. Yeah, other countries talk about world events- but when American diplomats and state department are talking it's because they are making the events. Now snipers shooting both sides?

So, i had called you a month and said "yeah i want Yanukovich down and Yatsunyek (who didnt just start to riot all of the sudden without any past) would be my choice for his replacement i guess we would be a conspiracist as well. This is simply a delegate in Ukraine reporting back home and expressing his opinion of what he wnats to happen, which happens to actually happened.
Do you have any proof that they are making the events? no? more empty rethorics?
I already adressed the snipers video earlier.

xDarc:

So here's Nuland at a national press club briefing in December of 2013. She's standing in front of a screen with the logos of Chevron and ExxonMobil because as I mentioned earlier there are natural gas contracts pending; Ukraine has 3rd largest deposit of shale gas next to Poland and Russia... At 7:26 she admits that the US has invested 5 billion dollars in Ukraine over the years and if you gather the context here from the rest of the speech- the money is there to help nudge Ukraine to the EU. They're not giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts, this money represents an investment of pennies on the dollar returns in future contracts.

Of course the US supports democracy in Ukraine and has invested money in the country and would like to see it join the EU, that's no secret. None of what you say though suggests the US is responsible for the recent regime change there.

Now if you look at all the pieces, they are absolutely discussing regime change. They aren't just talking about this as if remarking on the weather. And besides, we just got done watching this very thing play out in Eypt. First they protest to get rid of the government, then the US puppet government comes in, then they protest because the puppet government sucks, then the military takes over. All in less than 2 years. This is what it looks like when an entire country gets played for suckers.

I don't quite follow. The protesters first ousted US-backed Hosni Mubarak in 2011, the military took over and oversaw the elections were Mohammed Morsi was elected president the following year. Then Morsi tried to rule without judicial oversight, causing protests which led him to be removed. The US didn't bring in the Muslim Brotherhood to rule Egypt- it would have likely supported other candidates more amicable to US values and interests who didn't win the election.

"Ukraine crisis is about Great Power oil, gas pipeline rivalry"

Resource scarcity, competition to dominate Eurasian energy corridors, are behind Russian militarism and US interference

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

Apparently today Russia scuttled three of their decomissioned ships to blockade the Ukrainian fleet at their Crimean port. Also, the administration of Crimea made Russian the official language of the region.

And comparisons to the Kosovo affair are starting to pop up more frequently (which doesn't surprise me).

Completely unrelated, Putin is 61. He doesn't look over 45 to me >.>

Vegosiux:

And comparisons to the Kosovo affair are starting to pop up more frequently (which doesn't surprise me).

lol, that was my thoughts exactly. The irony of the same group of people supporting Albanians breaking away from Serbia to become their own country, are the same people who don't think that Russians should have the same rights. I wonder what Serbians think about this situation, especially those that live in/near border between Kosovo and Serbia.

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

And comparisons to the Kosovo affair are starting to pop up more frequently (which doesn't surprise me).

lol, that was my thoughts exactly. The irony of the same group of people supporting Albanians breaking away from Serbia to become their own country, are the same people who don't think that Russians should have the same rights. I wonder what Serbians think about this situation, especially those that live in/near border between Kosovo and Serbia.

The Albanians did not invade Kosovo in an attempt to annex it into their own country. The Crimean situation would have been viewed in a very different light if Russia did not invade another country with its army.

There is also the fact that Serbia had "baggage" of the entire Balkan War and the ethnic cleansing war crimes as a major strike against it. Thus the west felt justified in not giving Serbia any leeway. In Crimea the situation did not seem to be in any way similar.

Russia lost the fight for control of Ukraine so they decided to grab the territory they cared about and did not wait for the Crimean people to decide to leave on their own.

Nielas:

The Albanians did not invade Kosovo in an attempt to annex it into their own country. The Crimean situation would have been viewed in a very different light if Russia did not invade another country with its army.

I never claimed that Albania invaded Serbia.

Nielas:

There is also the fact that Serbia had "baggage" of the entire Balkan War and the ethnic cleansing war crimes as a major strike against it. Thus the west felt justified in not giving Serbia any leeway. In Crimea the situation did not seem to be in any way similar.

So apply victors justice and "punish" Serbia by allowing Kosovo to be its own country?

Nielas:

Russia lost the fight for control of Ukraine so they decided to grab the territory they cared about and did not wait for the Crimean people to decide to leave on their own.

(sarcasm)Right, because it couldn't possibly be that there are Russians in Crimea that want to be part of Russia.

So, Crimea has just declared it's independence without even waiting for the actual referendum.

I guess this means they are definitely joining the URS-I mean Russia.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/11/crimea-mps-vote-in-favour-of-independence-from-ukraine/

Russia obviously says they are ok with this:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/ukraine-crimea-moves-towards-independence-2014311103927114933.html

Not even waiting for the referendum is outrageous. Ukraine has basically stated that they won't intervene, though, because stretching their forces too thinly would weaken their eastern border and risk further Russian incursions; this is especially the case after the former president ruined the Ukranian military financially. This is pretty outlandish stuff. The bits about annexing power plants, warships etc. are particularly big! If I was a Ukranian on Crimea, I'd leave as quickly as I could or be already far away at this point, because I can't quite believe Ukraine will simply let them take all that gear and parts of the infrastructure.

So, the Crimeans want to be part of Russia? What's the big deal then?

Crimea declares independence

Correct headline: Crimean parliamentarians obey russian soldiers holding them at gunpoint

Nixou:

Correct headline: Crimean parliamentarians obey russian soldiers holding them at gunpoint

Please look things up before you post stuff like this. Even this thread is full of useful information about how things are in Crimea.

You'd have to hold the Crimean parliamentarians at a gunpoint in order to make them vote for staying within Ukraine.

Qvar:
So, Crimea has just declared it's independence without even waiting for the actual referendum.

Actually, the way I understand it, the referendum has to pass before they can officially declare independence, at least that's what I gathered from the news yesterday evening. (Again, Slovenian national news, so, not sure there's much use posting it here. If I find a non-region-locked video at all)

@renegade7
They weren't really asked yet since the referendum is still ahead. Their parliament said they want to, though. Overall, it seems likely that the Russian majority in Crimea will vote that way, but there have been a couple of counterprotests recently from Crimeans who'd rather not for various reasons.

Skeleon:
@renegade7
They weren't really asked yet since the referendum is still ahead. Their parliament said they want to, though. Overall, it seems likely that the Russian majority in Crimea will vote that way, but there have been a couple of counterprotests recently from Crimeans who'd rather not for various reasons.

Well, naturally, there are always those other folks too. I mean, when we held the referendum about splitting from Yugoslavia back in 1991, the YES vote was 96%, and the turnout was 94%. Or the other way around. But, there were some people who'd have preferred not to go independent. Still, with such an overwhelming majority...

(And they're expecting about 80% in favor of secession from Ukraine, I believe)

BiscuitTrouser:

The USA and the UK are allies.

Are we? Seem to recall that the US were nowhere to be seen during the unpleasant business around the Suez canal. Apart from after we'd basically sorted it all out and they applied huge political pressure on us to pull out. That's why they were politely told to fuck off when they were keen for us to join them in their less than successful jaunt into Indo-China. The Aussies went in our place instead. And where were they during the Falklands? The French were more helpful than they were, and yet we always love to poke fun at, if not outright insult our continental neighbours!

It's always been an arrangement of convenience, weighed heavily in favour of the US, due to our strategic location. We were basically their "unsinkable aircraft carrier" through the bad old days of the Cold War. Now we tag along on their unsavoury overseas trips to lend a bit of credibility to the things. If they went into all these 3rd world countries alone, some might suggest they were wars of conquest, instead of "International Community Interventions" or whatever they dress them up as now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked