http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26249330
Ukraine crisis: Police storm main Kiev 'Maidan' protest camp
Police are storming the main protest camp in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, which has been occupied since November.
Explosions are taking place, fireworks are being thrown and large fires have broken out in Independence Square, known locally as the Maidan.
On Tuesday at least 18 people were killed, including seven policemen, in the worst violence seen in weeks.
Opposition leaders later met President Viktor Yanukovych but failed to find a solution to the crisis.
Vitaly Klitschko, leader of the opposition Udar (Punch) party, told Ukraine's Hromadske TV that the president had given the protesters only one option, leave the Maidan and go home.
Russia's pretty comfortable with Ukraine being dependent on it, and would try to turn it into a puppet state, given the chance.There are already voices within the Russian government to annex parts of Ukraine...
Sadly, numbers will be higher because the situation is developing very quickly.:( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxkDiAcSF8
Here's why this map is important: There is a big dividing line in Ukrainian politics -- an actual, physical line that separates the north and west from the south and east. You can see it in this map and in just about every electoral map since the country's independence. That divide goes beyond the question of whether Ukraine faces toward Europe or toward Russia, but that question is a major factor. And it's polarizing.
I'm somewhat annoyed that the word "protesters" is being used for this. This is a proper revolt going on.In Poland, they're already calling it an uprising. Let's call that spade a spade. "Protests" were in january. It's a full blown revolt now.
Is the EU even looking for the Ukraine to join? I was under the impression the EU has been hesitant to add more high pop low GDP nations to the fold.
For some reason, I see Russian military intervention unlikely. They could do it, but I think that's less likely than just direct support to the government. Going head first into a civil war doesn't sound like a good idea.
For some reason, I see Russian military intervention unlikely. They could do it, but I think that's less likely than just direct support to the government. Going head first into a civil war doesn't sound like a good idea.Oh, they're not gonna call it "military invasion". They're gonna send "peacekeeping and stabilization forces", just like Americans did to Iraq. You know, "brotherly help", "supporting the government against the rebels". Wars and annexations are out of fashion these days, today you "stabilize the country" and "help establish a democratic government". The only problem I could see is if NATO wanted to do some friendly peacekeeping and stabilization, too. They might not get along with the Russians...
Also, did ArmA II suddenly become a bit too realistic for comfort to anyone else?
It might now just take one stressed dude to accidently pull some trigger, and the two armies will go at it at full force.
Not sure if a world war is unlikely. I think China and Russia are more prepared for global madness then America and Europe....
And if they form a pact, Europe will be screwed.... we just ain't got the numbers!!
We in Holland have got less then a low budget skeleton crew army. We fire a lot every year. Money issues...And if we have to deploy them in the east, and they fall there, there is not a lot left to fight for us over here when the sky get's black with parachutists.... Cause that is what will happen if the **** will hit the fan!
Russia flies over Holland every year with their nuke bombers. Just to show muscle (it was in the papers a few times). We have no idea what's in them every time, and every time we just have to pray on Russia Enginering untill they leave our airspace... Airplane crashes are always a possibility.
And what if they are carrying?? If we would fly some bombers over the kremlin, they might ask us what the F we are doing over there, and go into their usual big-toes-mode, and boycot the lot from Holland again! ('Their cows walk outside, so their milk and cheese are most likely contaminated with one or two bacteria and not up to our standards'-BS...) But they can do what they want because you should never make it hard for a bully madman??
:hopping: And now there are paralympics.... I would neverever go! Not with WW 3 on the doorstep! Olympics are one week old and Russia is going into MADMODE again... "Partytime,peace and tranquility is over! Time for another tank-drill...."
We should kick Russia and China out of the Big Club. If there are crooks in your club, you've got, and are a member of... a club of crooks! It's as simple as that.
I think that China an Russia have a unique class of badness in comparison to all the other named countries [...]
Sure...nobody is without flaw, but it's the attitude and heart that matters when making decisions.
Some things are just plain malicious!
Dude, I don't know if you're aware, but this entire thing? It's been planned for years. It's not a situation where Putin just woke up one morning and fancied himself a bit of Crimea. What we're seeing is a long-planned operation to turn the Crimea into a russian protectorate or satellite state.
And what if they are carrying?? If we would fly some bombers over the kremlin, they might ask us what the F we are doing over there, and go into their usual big-toes-mode, and boycot the lot from Holland again! ('Their cows walk outside, so their milk and cheese are most likely contaminated with one or two bacteria and not up to our standards'-BS...) But they can do what they want because you should never make it hard for a bully madman??
It is the sovereign right of any country to enact trade restrictions. If they want to restrict trade with NL wares, that's their business. They don't have an obligation to buy from you, and you do not have an obligation to sell to them.
Did you think that was my point? You misunderstood. I don't give a ratsbutt if they take our cheese or not. My point is that they have no business flying armed or unarmed bombers over our country at their whimsy likings!
Dude, I don't know if you're aware, but this entire thing? It's been planned for years. It's not a situation where Putin just woke up one morning and fancied himself a bit of Crimea. What we're seeing is a long-planned operation to turn the Crimea into a russian protectorate or satellite state.
The E has summed up quite well why a WWIII scenario is very unlikely. The world does not work like it did in the thirties.
It requires significantly more than one irrational actor - and Putin has shown himself to be realpolitik and pragmatism motivated in the extreme. He's hardly irrational, his goals merely extend orthogonally to the rest of Europe's.Yeah, it requires more than one irrational actor, but remember what they said about WWII. The world does not work like in the 30s, but it doesn't a war won't happen - this only means we won't see it coming. It could very well happen with everyone thinking they're acting rationally and relentlessly pursuing their own interests. Remember, acting rationally =/= cooperating rationally. Russia won't back down, Putin won't back down. Too much is at stake there, and Putin was always a ruthless, calculating politician. If he loses in Ukraine, he'll face massive backlash for no real gain. Since he's already gotten the former part, he needs to make it pay off. Not to mention Black Sea Fleet is at stake here. With gas deposits being found in Poland, he knows that his usual strategy of raising gas prices might fall flat one day, so he's got a lot to lose, and he knows it.
Whatever it will be it will be just like any other post WWII proxy war: two sides being armed by either the US or the russians duking it out until every village is burned to the ground.
Russia as always a bad guy for a lot of people. Bombers over Netherland, sure...
And China as well...
Even if Russia were to back down right now, their international image has been tarnished to the point where its economy will suffer for many years, as many countries will be more reluctant to trade with them.
TBH, some had suspected that it'll go that way since before the war in Georgia. Everyone hoped it won't happen, but given the situation in recent years, this was not entirely surprising.
BTW, I just read that Putin was nominated for Noble Peace Prize. :) It's either a joke, a lie, or a sign that someone doesn't take the Nobel Committee seriously. He doesn't even rate an IgNobel, since those are given for things that are funny, yet beneficial is one way or another. I'd like to get my hands on the one who thought it was a good idea...
Yeah, Obama's barely better than Putin on the foreign policy front
I'd be interested to hear your case! You might be right.
. You guys who live in the west probably immediately see the Russians are the villains here
That's an overused cliché.
Ferdinand was killed and sparked a world war, and yeah it was an amazing unpredictable event, but that absolutely doesn't mean that every little spark is a Franz Ferdinand event. We've had these little FF's events many many times since.
In its statement the State Duma warns that “unauthorized rallies, interfering with the actions of public authorities, takeover of administrative buildings, looting, and destruction of historical monuments lead to destabilization” in Ukraine. “Of particular concern,” according to the Russian deputies, is “blatant interference” by Western politicians “in the internal affairs of sovereign Ukraine,” that “leads to further deterioration of the political situation.” In this regard, the State Duma called on foreign governments to stop exercising pressure on the “policies of our fraternal country,” and asked “the opposition forces in Ukraine to return to acting within a constitutional framework” in order to find a way out of the situation “peacefully, in the interests of the Ukrainian people.”
“The situation in Ukraine mirrors the struggle between those who favor the Eurasian integration and those who are against it,” said Leonid Slutsky (LDPR), the Chairman of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs. “The bottom line is simple,” said Sergei Mironov, the leader of the Just Russia party. “What is happening in Ukraine today is a coup attempt, and this we cannot be indifferent to it. It is a blow to the Slavic Union, a blow to the heart.”
I only see here (and barely) the potential to create a proxy war.
Proxy wars have been substituting direct clear wars between superpowers ever since the creation of the atom bomb.
This status quo will continue. The only novelty here is the ressurgence of a particular military power into the scene.
I only see here (and barely) the potential to create a proxy war.
Gird your loins...
So a Russian soldier is visiting a foreign country.
At the border he's questioned by customs.
"Nationality?"
Russian
"Occupation?"
No I'm just visiting.
Vietnam was not a proxy war. Neither Afghanistan was a proxy war. Ukraine will not be a proxy war if the flames catch and burn.
Gird your loins...I found this LOL! So much I cut and pasted it into my status on Facebook, I got 1 like so far (that was three hours ago, shows how much my friends list cares about international politics, lol)
So a Russian soldier is visiting a foreign country.
At the border he's questioned by customs.
"Nationality?"
Russian
"Occupation?"
No I'm just visiting.
The sanctions won't hurt Russia the slightest. They're the ones in position to make economic threats, if anything. Sure, they'd be unpleasant, but they'd hurt EU economy much more. Putin knows it, and so does the EU. So why they're threatening Russia like this? I dunno. Either incompetence or the fact that the only other thing they could threaten them with is armed response. And they're not quite ready for that one yet.Russian market is dominated by export of raw materials. It is a not-insignificant, but neither the most important export market. Even nations such as Finland and Estonia generally have only ~10 % of their entire export value coming from Russia. Definitely not insignificant. Definitely not crippling either.
So basically, threats of economic sanctions are a formal way for the countries to express their displeasure with Russia's actions.
What I don't understand is the threats of sanctions upon Russia. Surely this would backfire and hurt the already weakening European economy? It also seems like China's taking sides with Russia at least rhetorically (I believe) so...
Sanctions overall seem to target (perhaps not on purpose, but effectively) the weak, needing and poor. This makes them rally all the more around their governments/regimes/dictators and thus entrench them even more.
NATO will never fire against Russians. Any war that will be fought will be between Ukrainian forces eventually armed by NATO or not at all.
The only way the Russians will storm Ukrainian forces is if they don't just invade Crimea right now and just declare war on the whole larger Ukraine. The leadership in Ukraine is severely handicapped right now and if the russians are quick enough then yeah it's going to be *somewhat* easy (still damn bloody). Of course, the problem is that afterwards you'd have a bloody rebellion armed by (again) NATO and the blood on the russian army would easy escalate until it was untenable to hold that region. So that scenario is deeply unlikely.
What is likely is that the russians will hold Crimea, hold a "referendum", declare everyone really wants to become Russian, and be done with it. Meanwhile, everyone understands how dangerous the russians are and Ukraine in general makes a deal with NATO and so on to be armed by them, etc. How Putin sees the playing field is something beyond me but what I think is that he's gonna win Crimea but is sacrificing the whole of Ukraine. He probably still thinks he can regain Ukraine by toppling whatever government the Euromaiden can come up with eventually with his confusing propaganda.
It also seems like China's taking sides with Russia at least rhetorically (I believe) so...
There are days when you drive me near insanity, Luis ;) What I was saying earlier is that this situation quite readily has the potential to become a spark, and then I was explaining how. What I haven't commented on is what's likely to happen.
Its becoming rapidly apparent that Putin is still thinking in Cold War terms. He's clearly not thinking through the long-term consequences here. He may get Crimea in the end, but Russia is going to pay for it for a long time to come.
Liberal democracies were always tested and joked on the frailties and insecurities of their leaderships by the conservative thought since forever. I remember Hitler laughing at the prospect of the United States ever winning a war against Soviet Union and the argument was the same. Dictators are brutal, direct, no-joke, bear-riding badasses, changing the Real and letting everyone else "theorizing" over it (Karl Rove style), with no in-house deterrents whatsoever; Democrat presidents are always "pussies", bike-rider nerds, insecure and hesitant observers of what dictators dictate. The curious paradox in history is that these badasses tend to lose against the predetermined "losers". But quoting Keynes, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, so it's still a coin toss here.The reasons those "badasses" lost was because they were, in most cases, self-absorbed idiots. A reasonable, strong dictator can lead a country to it's golden age. As an example, Tito of Yugoslavia is still quite fondly remembered, in spite of being a communist. Gierek, from Poland, rebuilt the country after it was nearly flattened during WWII, and is widely considered much better than any democratic government we've had. Especially given that our democratic governments managed to sell off (bordering on giving away), steal and squander everything he built. Heck, even Lenin wasn't that bad by dictatorial standards, he actually did emphasize with the people.
The reasons those "badasses" lost was because they were, in most cases, self-absorbed idiots. A reasonable, strong dictator can lead a country to it's golden age. As an example, Tito of Yugoslavia is still quite fondly remembered, in spite of being a communist. Gierek, from Poland, rebuilt the country after it was nearly flattened during WWII, and is widely considered much better than any democratic government we've had. Especially given that our democratic governments managed to sell off (bordering on giving away), steal and squander everything he built. Heck, even Lenin wasn't that bad by dictatorial standards, he actually did emphasize with the people.
In fact, the problem with dictators is twofold. 1. There are more power-hungry nutcases in the world than good administrators. 2. Even if you get one of the good ones, he will die someday. Neither dictator I mentioned has had a worthy successor. Monarchy mitigated that problem somewhat, with future rulers being raised by the old ones, but even this didn't produce a 100% success rate.
After Lenin came Stalin (a model of an evil, petty dictator), after Gierek (with some very unremarkable people between) came Gomulka, whose inept rule led to massive protests and, eventually, fall of communism in Poland (introducing the crappy democratic government I'm always complaining about). Tito's death led to Yugoslavia violently falling apart. With a dictature, your country is only as good as the dictator.
Now, Putin is a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, he did some pretty atrocious things and blatantly violated human rights. On the other hand, he clearly does know what he's doing, and seems to care about Russia's interest as a country (not surprising, rich country means rich oligarchs, which means more money for him...). He did manage to keep Russia in play and quite powerful. As such, I think he's one of those reasonable (if not good) dictators. Which means he's very dangerous, and very hard to stop.
“We are outraged in Russia at the lawlessness which now reigns in the eastern regions of Ukraine as a result of actions by fighters from the so-called Right Sector with the total collusion of the new authorities, as they call themselves. It has reached the point that on 8 March in Kharkiv, well-equipped people in masks with firearms opened fire on peaceful demonstrators,” said the Foreign Ministry.
Lenin? Yeah, he liked to be pictured with kids and cats, all the while he decreed the assassination of thousands. Lenin is regarded "fondly" by those who just remember Stalin all too well. Tito? The guy who was kept happy by his finance ministers not letting the burdgeoning debt and overall bubble of their economy implode before he died, just making everything worse when it did and eventually opening up the country for the bloody revolutions that followed? That guy? The fact that dictators do not usually have worthy "follow ups" is probably because they weren't good leaders from the beggining.Good dictators don't have worthy follow ups simply because the chance of hitting the jackpot twice in a row is very slim. It's rare to have even one. Also, due to the nature of a dictatorial regime (which frequently masquerades as a democracy), it's very hard to designate a successor and ensure that he actually takes power. Lenin, for example, certainly didn't want Stalin to succeed him, but it kind of "ended up that way" (or rather, Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents and took power for himself, which others didn't see coming). A hereditary system does mitigate that problem, but also limits successors to ruler's own kids, who don't always take after their father.
A good leader doesn't only look out for the country, but creates the means by which it won't fall down when he decides to leave office, etc. And such a system is probably called "democracy". A good democracy not only by name but by process. This idea that what a country sometimes needs is a "Good Dictator" is a very old conservative myth that is so useful for people like Putin and Assad. We should wreck it to bits.Well, democracy is a system which is incredibly easy to keep relatively stable, but also very vulnerable to crises and prone to giving power to people only good at flapping their gob. Also, it runs the risk of becoming "tyranny of the majority" if the populace is backwards enough. And the sad truth is, stupid people outnumber smart people. An advanced country like Switzerland can run well with it, but it takes a high level of education across the populace. Otherwise you get a situation like in Poland, where politics consists of throwing invectives at each other and trying to blame everything on the opponents, while distracting people with sensationalist news (remember that plane crash which killed a good part of Polish government? Yeah, they're still debating if it was deliberately arranged...). It's probably different in civilized countries, but from my experience, common people are too dumb and too easily manipulated to be allowed to run a country. You just end up with government good at manipulation and not good at any real ruling. And if it's really bad, you end up with things like Sharia law and anti-gay edicts actually enjoying popular support and getting implemented, with the people hurt by them having nothing to say because they're a minority. If the majority is backwards enough to be composed of bigots, then you not only soon get bigoted laws, they're very hard to repeal without changing the general populaces' views first (no small task in most cases).
To then call Putin a "reasonable (if not good) dictator" is, I think, something you don't really want to do. The guy who assassinated reporters who dared speak against him and his cronies? The guy who put his friends into the Oligarchy and let everyone else rot? (Are you even aware of the bleeding nature of the young scholars in that country?) The guy who turns the word "elections" to a running joke in the country, and when someone almost makes history in becoming no 2 with good numbers in an election in the city of Moscow despite all the PR and the media machinery put against him, he's thrown into jail for absolutely ridiculous reasons? The man who is the sole responsible right now for the butchery of Syria, the man who did what he did in Chechnya and Georgia? That man is not a good dictator, not a good ruler at all. Despite oil prices surging msasively in the last 15 years, he has utterly failed to accomplish every single economic objective he had set out to do.I said he is not a good dictator. I said that he was "reasonable", in that he was not crazy or deluded, like Hitler or Stalin (and indeed, a great deal of others) were. He is a horrible person, but note that everything you mentioned does not, in fact, hurt him. He is absolutely ruthless and rules with an iron fist, letting his oligarchs be the real power in Russia, but still, he made clear that Russia is a force to be reckoned with. In fact, that's the real problem with him. A crazy bigot like Stalin killed off a lot of intelligent people and generally wrecked the country, but Putin actually strengthened Russia a lot. He's very dangerous, because he is both a horrible person and a skilled ruler. And he's clearly not a failure, if he was, he wouldn't be at Europe's doorstep.
Stalin was extremely reasonable by your definition. He brought Russia to a new level (superpower!), he managed to kill all his political dissidents and survive all of it, etc.Stalin's success wasn't his own doing. Indeed, what he actually managed to do was to bring Russia to the brink of defeat by executing experienced generals. Sure, he did kill off/send to gulags all the dissidents, but they unfortunately included (from his POV) his generals, a whole lot of his staff, and finally his doctor (with fatal consequences). Stalin was downright crazy and very paranoid, the reason Russia became a superpower at his time was Lenin's groundwork, Zukhov's victories and Hitler's technology. He did a lot to secure his own position, but if they did have someone competent at the time, history could've turned out very differently.
It's hard isn't it, this responsibility thing? Yes, democracies are only as good as the people in them. But such is the power of responsibility. Life is hard and that's just the way it is. Reality does not get better if you just outsource all your managerial problems to a "benevolent dictator" who is sufficiently intelligent to guide all of the stupid rabble to more glorious days. As history proves again and again, it might be good for a while and then it decays rather quickly and nastily.Unfortunately, what I have seen is that "the people" just can't be trusted with that kind of responsibility. Maybe in more developed countries it's different, but here, they'll steal what they can, lie and embarrass themselves, not matter if in position of power or not. I wouldn't trust the majority of people I've met with watching over a sandbox, much less the whole country. Now, I've also knew some that I would trust with my life, and with much more than just a country. I suppose if one of them ended up in power, and didn't had to deal with all the buffons populating our government, then the country would probably be in for some good times (assuming those managerial abilities scale well). But stupid people are much more numerous than intelligent ones, and moreover, it's usually the stupid ones who want power really badly. The reality, in fact, can very well get better with an intelligent, benevolent dictator at the helm. The only problem is finding a reliable source of such dictators, since they aren't easy to come by. In a democracy, degeneration might be slow in cases it's bad, but so's progress when you get a good government, meaning you're pretty much doomed to be stuck where you are. Though since getting a bad government is generally more likely than good, this is indeed a valid argument for democracy.
Putin squandered everything. He had a real shot at doubling Russia's GDP (his own professed goal!) and even with the oil price basically skyrocketing to today's levels, he didn't even manage to go anywhere near that. It's a massive failure, russian youngsters are fleeing the country, he has completely lost the demographic war, and he's just trying to compensate for his domestic failures by creating outside threats and scapegoating all the problems unto "others", like the gays, the jews, the oligarchs, and why not, NATO, Israel, etc., etc. And if by doing so he pockets a lot of weapons' money, so much for the better.Yeah, Putin did screw the gas deal up, I suppose a lot of it came out of using it as a political pressure tool as well as the income source. This is definitely a place where his politics failed, other countries are not very interested in relying on Russian gas, because Russia has a nasty habit of threatening to cut if off whenever it doesn't like something. Putin's aggression is a mixed bag here. On one hand, it did get him a part of Georgia he wanted, among other things. On the other, he's alienating his neighbors, which definitely isn't too good for the economy.
http://www.voanews.com/content/un-to-vote-on-crimea-resolution/1871773.html
somehow I have this feeling it's going to get vetoed.
I don't know, maybe I am a wizard!?!
Yeah, let's start shooting against that behemoth. What could possibly go wrong?You know, Poland did exactly that, back in '39. It's widely regarded as a good thing, though it did spark an enormous war, if they didn't, it would've probably been even worse than it was. The situation now disturbingly parallels that time, though it's different enough that we can't really base reliable estimations on this. It's just about as ugly as back then, that's for sure.
It might not end with a war this time. Putin knows well that nobody wants to fire the first shot, so they just let him take what he wants. I wonder what's next, though. If he really know what he's doing, he'll lay off Europe for a while and annex something off his southern border, so NATO forgets about Ukraine and is "taken by surprise" again when he makes another move into Europe. If he only thinks he's smart, but he's not, he'll follow this annexation up with an attempt on the rest of Ukraine, or Poland, which might end really badly (even though we sold half our country off to Germans, Poland was always defiant when someone tried to take it by force...). Either way, for someone who lives in southern Poland, the situation just keeps getting scarier.
"Crimea has always been Russia." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26630062)
It wasn't much of a problem back then, internal borders were nearly meaningless in the USSR. It was an ultimately empty political gesture, which only turned out to have serious implications after USSR fell. I suppose Crimea is indeed Russian, but that's not the problem. The problem is that Russian troops just walked into another country and claimed it as their own, without any prior consent from anyone besides Putin. Sure, referendums are a good thing (people should be able to decide in which country they belong), but when they're unbiased and not enforced at gunpoint. We don't know what the result would be if the referendum was held, say, 2 years ago."Crimea has always been Russia." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26630062)
To be honest, I've never been able to figure out why it stopped being part of Russia. I know Khrushchev was Ukrainian but that's a pretty stupid reason to start reorganising your internal borders.
And... there is a second thing - not long ago there was an referendum on which local people decide to join Russia. Peaceful, democratic referendum. WHat's wrong with it?
Yanukovich removed himself though, no-one removed him.Well, if he'd stayed - he'd be dead by now. So i don't blame him, for retreating. But there was an impeachment procedure, which opposition should have used.
I don't think anyone is questioning that there are people in Crimea who support the Russian presence there though, that's not really what is being discussed here.
And it's not like they invade this country. There was no one, who tried to make them go away. Rather than that locals even making photo with soldiers.
I don't think anyone is questioning that there are people in Crimea who support the Russian presence there though, that's not really what is being discussed here.
If it's not, then what? I... don't want to take it to holywar or something, just it's kinda... sad, when i see, how west medias branded this decision of people as "military intervention". -_-
There was a reason for all this hasteness. People wanted it. They wanted to be safe and don't want to see on streets of Crimea and other same, that they seen in Kiev on Maidan.
What on Earth has Holy War got to do with this?
Snapshots do not a whole picture make, and do not fall into the trap of thinking that Russian media is distorting facts any less than Western Media is, they are no more a paragon of virtuous truth than ours are, there's always ulterior motives.
What worries me is when people blindly accept what the Media on either side of a politically charged situation like this say, as I've said before, the Ukraine isn't the goal, it's the ball.
And what would have have happened if the Ukrainian troops would have started to fire at the invading russian troops? Russia would have used "they shot first" as a pretext for firing back, and everyone knows that Russia has the bigger guns. What else do you think could have possible happened?
If someone barges into your house with an assault rifle in hand and there's no way you can realistically repel them, they don't get to justify their actions with "but you didn't even fight back".
There's a right way and a wrong way to do things though. It that really is the reason why Russian troops are in Crimea, why not instead say "We don't want a civil war on our doorstep so we want UN peacekeeprs here as fast as possible." or even "We're sending the Russian troops in as peacekeepers now and we're inviting UN forces to join us as soon as possible"? Then people wouldn't be half as suspicious about Putin's motives.
As I pointed out earlier, Russia has used the independent nation via referendum / independent nation asks to be part of Russia thing before.
And what would have have happened if the Ukrainian troops would have started to fire at the invading russian troops? Russia would have used "they shot first" as a pretext for firing back, and everyone knows that Russia has the bigger guns. What else do you think could have possible happened?
If someone barges into your house with an assault rifle in hand and there's no way you can realistically repel them, they don't get to justify their actions with "but you didn't even fight back".
And there you right. But there will be fear and opposition, for the one, who barges in your home. There will be shooting, by Ukrainian troops, there will be a lot of guerrillas in that case.
And i don't see any guerrilla in Crimea. Or fear. I'ts interesting, how whole world thinks, that Crimea is invaded, but the people, who live there, think otherwise. Maybe it's that old mind controlling device working again? ;)
Ukrainian troops going guerrilla wouldn't be any different. They'd still be seen as ukrainian troops shooting at russian troops who'd then invoke the right of self defense and then there'd be a proper war in there. And really, if the russian troops were actually being attacked by guerrillas, would that really make you think that they shouldn't be there?
I don't have any reason to believe that most crimeans don't want to join Russia. That's fine, let them, I have no problem with that. However, that doesn't mean I can't simultaneously find Russia's actions in the crisis to be reprehensible and irresponsible.
Meanwhile, the so-called Men's Rights and Pickup Artist crowd has discovered this topic and has once more proved that they are completely insane: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/risk-rated-x-geopolitics-and-the-pick-up-game
Meanwhile, the so-called Men's Rights and Pickup Artist crowd has discovered this topic and has once more proved that they are completely insane: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/risk-rated-x-geopolitics-and-the-pick-up-game
I'm sorry for the off-topic... but who is this clowns? O_O
For now, i know one thing - people on Crimea wanted to live in Russia, not the Ukraine, not with this new government. And i know it not from media.If they wanted to live in Russia, then they should just move from the Ukraine to Russia.
For now, i know one thing - people on Crimea wanted to live in Russia, not the Ukraine, not with this new government. And i know it not from media.If they wanted to live in Russia, then they should just move from the Ukraine to Russia.
For now, i know one thing - people on Crimea wanted to live in Russia, not the Ukraine, not with this new government. And i know it not from media.If they wanted to live in Russia, then they should just move from the Ukraine to Russia.
| Russia rigging or otherwise interfering with secession referendum | = bad |
| Russia recognizing Crimea as an independent state after secession referendum | = good in principle |
| Russia rigging or otherwise interfering with annexation referendum | = bad |
| Russia annexing Crimea after annexation referendum | = meh |
Hey now, don't tell me that I'm saying things that I didn't. I made no comment on the timeframe, nor did I make a comment about the difficulty of a move like that. I responded to the idea that if a Russian citizen in Crimea wanted to be Russian he/she needed to "just move to Russia". I absolutely agree that it's a matter very similar to "gays should just leave Nigeria" in that it is staggeringly impossible for a large number of people, even when the situation is relatively peaceful, and that it's a pretty piss-poor thing to say.
Regarding the rest of your post, Luis, I think you might need to take a moment to let off some steam. I can only see, at most, one person in this thread actually making a case for "Russians protecting Russians", so the amount of vitriol directed at "you guys" isn't helping.
I don't really see how the situation in Crimea compares in any sense to that comment about Nigeria. In that case, you have people being viciously persecuted and denied fundamental human rights, so obviously they'd have everything to gain by escaping that situation if there was any way to do so. In Crimea, you have...what, exactly? All else being equal, daily life for ethnic Russians in Crimea would be functionally no different than daily life in Russia itself. Obviously not everyone is able to move out, but it's not as though they're facing the threat of death on a daily basis, despite what Putin's blowhard rhetoric may suggest. My only point in my initial statement is that a particular group of people in one part of a country shouldn't be able to slough off and attach to another country just because they feel like it. And as Luis put it, even if this is all a result of Kruschev's goofy border-redrawing some 50 years ago, Ukraine has been an independent country for more than two decades...and it's just NOW that people up and decide to swap countries?The thing is, Crimea is mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians, who might feel connected to country they come from. Just see how Russian forces were received in Crimea by the majority of people there - generally as a welcome sight. It's not about that Russians got their hands on Crimea. It's about how they did it. If there was a proper Crimean independence referendum, and people voted "yes", there would be no problem. However, Putin took over that place by force, and without first consulting the UN, or the Crimean people.
If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you.Be careful when telling that to a Russian, it might turn out he's already got one (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506748/Russian-police-hunt-thieves-stole-200-tonne-metal-bridge.html). Or that he might take you up on the offer just because he's recently lost one... :)
Just to know, guys - people in Crimea wanted to go to Russia loooong before all this mess. So it's not the "one-week" decision. They made attempts to do this referendum since 2000 year, but every time Kiev denied them this right. For obvious reason.
Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe that the referendum was fair?
Flip, I don't think this affair even qualifies as the ends justify the means. If by "ends" you mean something other then extending the interests of Russia.
Does anyone think Russia would not have seized the Crimean Peninsula if there was not an ethnic Russian population that happened to provide a convenient excuse post facto? Does anyone think Putin orchestrated this entire event because he had the interests of the people in Crimea at the forefront? In comparison with the popular unrest that occurred to oust the prior Ukrainian administration the fact folks in Crimea only required the peninsula to be seized by multiple Russian Motor Rifle Companies really speaks to their zeal and determination for annexation.
Personally, I think any superpower should be very wary of the fallacy of 'The end justifies the means', whether those ends are defending the populace, overthrowing an oppressive regime or even preventing Terrorism.I think any non-superpower should be wary of superpowers that use the "The end justifies the means" argument...
I don't think any power can claim to be not guilty of falling into that trap.
Flip, I don't think this affair even qualifies as the ends justify the means. If by "ends" you mean something other then extending the interests of Russia.
Does anyone think Russia would not have seized the Crimean Peninsula if there was not an ethnic Russian population that happened to provide a convenient excuse post facto? Does anyone think Putin orchestrated this entire event because he had the interests of the people in Crimea at the forefront? In comparison with the popular unrest that occurred to oust the prior Ukrainian administration the fact folks in Crimea only required the peninsula to be seized by multiple Russian Motor Rifle Companies really speaks to their zeal and determination for annexation.
That's the thing though isn't it? The ends may not have been protecting Russians in Crimea, that may have been the means. It's kind of like Iraq as in, was overthrowing Saddam the ends of the invasion, or was it simply a means to protect Oil interests in the area?
Personally, I think any superpower should be very wary of the fallacy of 'The end justifies the means', whether those ends are defending the populace, overthrowing an oppressive regime or even preventing Terrorism.I think any non-superpower should be wary of superpowers that use the "The end justifies the means" argument...
I don't think any power can claim to be not guilty of falling into that trap.
At this stage, yes, but the trick is causing just enough confusion to mean that by the time people figure out the real goal, it's too late to do anything about it.Personally, I think any superpower should be very wary of the fallacy of 'The end justifies the means', whether those ends are defending the populace, overthrowing an oppressive regime or even preventing Terrorism.I think any non-superpower should be wary of superpowers that use the "The end justifies the means" argument...
I don't think any power can claim to be not guilty of falling into that trap.
Why just non-Superpower? Anyone, anywhere can be caught in that trap, Superpower or not. Look at things like the Patriot Act or recent revelations about the NSA.
Pro-Russian protesters have stormed the regional administration building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
About 50 people are reported to have broken away from a rally of about 2,000 people in the city centre, and got past a police cordon to enter the building.
I'm pretty sure Putin has plans to retake all the states that were lost to theUSSR splitRussian revolution...