1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is Russia's rash move into the Crimea a sign that...

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Golf1.6, Mar 8, 2014.

  1. timmy222

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 1,253

    Reminds me of Austria and the German take over.
     
  2. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,343

    Then you have no understanding of the situation, the two are completely dissimilar.
     
  3. Nefarious

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 1, 2003

    Posts: 1,039

    The current temporary regime was installed due to rioting and is in the process of organising elections and returning to normality, that does not abrogate the necessity of following procedures. If a community is being oppressed, there are routes for that to be resolved, but the reason for an organised break-up rather than the unilateral course taken is that state property resides in Crimea. An example would be Scotland breaking away without consulting the UK and keeping the nuclear installations amongst others. Self determination is a separate issue from territorial control - do not conflate the two.

    It's being covered by all media outlets, not just tabloids, or is Obama himself a tabloid in your eyes? The sanctions are in the process of being increased and there is no sign that NATO considers is a done deal unless you can point to one.

    Russia is allowed to keep soldiers at their bases, not sauntering around and intimidating Ukraine as if they were being occupied with an increase in troops to around 30K.

    If you are in an alien state and want to change, you can physically leave or seek local representation to petition the state to allow you to secede, as I have stated repeatedly. The current government of Ukraine is in disarray due to rioting incited by the previous administration wanting to strengthen ties with Russia; presumably this will be resolved at some point, if not other action may be appropriate, but it needs more time than a few months. Crimea current arrangement had been there since the 90s, clearly it wasn't important enough of an issue to need to be rushed through.

    I never said Poland was part of Russia, I said they were a vassal state. They were part of the Eastern bloc and the USSR exerted control over them .

    Some of your sentences don't make sense, so forgive me if I misunderstand you. I used the phrase 'long road' when referring to gay rights, I'm more than aware it was not all in the past, but you can't point to Britain's behaviour in the 70s as a justification for a statement that Cameron or Obama are indistinguishable from Putin. Not a fallacy at all, just pointing out that Cameron and Obama have to contend with the opinion of a public that is radically different and they are very different styles of politicians.

    Did you not read or not understand that link? The UK&US nuclear deterrent is precisely that, a last resort, a full exchange if their foe engages in a full exchange, not to be used in conventional warfare. Russia's de-escalation policy was precisely not that, it was born out of a lack of conventional military hardware and was about using small scale nuclear strikes if things didn't go there way. If you do not understand the difference between mutually assured destruction as a deterrent and nuking anyone with a bigger gun than you, there aren't words that can help you.

    No, no and again no. The annexation of Crimea isn't just a quaint culturally different way of doing things, Russia's troops were on the streets for one (just check any news source, it's been widely reported and confirmed) and it is not the way these things are done. IF they'd held this vote without Russian interference and tried to hold the Ukraine to it and an amicable move could not be achieved then you might have a point, but as it is, the vote was held in less than auspicious circumstances and without any agreements or arrangements for those not wanting to be part of it, for state property held in Crimea or any of the other myriad of reasons why it is a sham. Stop playing the self determination card, if it was that important to them, it would have been made an issue a lot more strongly since 1994. People who are willing to wait two decades to be reunited with their beloved mother land don't then rush an election while foreign soldiers saunter around near polling stations.
     
  4. ntg

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2008

    Posts: 2,462



    • That must be really important for an almost-dictator who has extended his power by playing musical chairs with the presidency-prime ministership..

      The $11bn gas bill is less than pocket change for an economy the size of Russia's, just like whatever their bases cost there. Crimea used to belong to Russia, they gave it away..the country is vast, Crimea won't add one bit to its power.

      The economic benefit from taking over Crimea is negligible for Russia. I believe their action to take it over was a reaction to events, not a plan of foreign policy.

      As in? Was he in the dark before? You can't measure your opponents by their reactions to Ukraine which means nothing for them.

    Ah yes, Russia will make a few more billions by selling arms..and that makes it all worthwhile.

    What about the gas contracts Russia will be losing for decades to come due to it being seen as an aggressor? What about the diplomatic/int'l damage that will take a considerable amount of sweet-talking to recover - unless they enjoy being isolated politically and (soon to come) financially.

    How do you think the financial markets will take it now that Russia comes about as an unstable, unpredictable military aggressor? Have you seen the price of the Ruble? the CFD spreads? Their economy is going through a lot of pain because of their shenanigans.
     
  5. Nefarious

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 1, 2003

    Posts: 1,039

    Putin is not an absolute dictator, while something of a gangster, he has relied on scapegoating (notably gays), improving the international standing and other tricks to keep enough public support to not have all out public dissidence. He's not as reliant on public support as other leaders, but he still needs a modicum.

    You are quite right, this will most likely prove to be an economic crap storm for Russia, though it has been reported that Germany (one of their largest export markets) has little stomach for the economic fall out from ceasing to trade with Russia and their largest energy company, E.On, has pretty much said that they're not going to cut their imports from Gazprom so the actual economic damage may prove limited. In an age of fossil fuel dependence and a coming scarcity of supply, Russia holds the cards on this one.

    As an aside, $51bn is one of the lower estimates for the cost of the Sochi games and Russia's national debt idles at around 10% of GDP, so they're in a far better financial state than most of Europe... they just have cruddy infrastructure and widespread corruption.

    Edit: It seems that the US at least is starting to show some balls when it comes to sanctions
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
  6. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 8,324

    Was it? First I heard of it. Militias and protestors overthrew the elected President. 'Routes for that to be resolved' - so why did the militias and protestors NOT take THEM then. Self determination will obviously involve territory, to argue otherwise is fatuous.

    You are confusing politicians with NATO. The sanctions are the least that they could have dreamt up that is why behind the sound bites etc. it has been regarded as a done deal. Even the Ukrainians think the sanctions are a joke.

    An 'estimation' from the border guards of the other side. You will have to come up with a better source than that.

    It an enlightened democracy maybe. However in real life the Catalans and numerous other peoples find that the state will not listen.

    The start of the protest was to complain about the corruption of the oligarchs according to the first BBC reports then switched to the EU/Russia argument. Background people seemed to be ignoring is that the Ukraine already had a $4.4Bn loan from the IMF. A lot of that money seem to have disappeared. Into the pockets of the oligarchs according to protestors in the first reports by the BBC. It was running out of cash and about to default on its loans. The EU offered some trade deal on relaxed tariffs which where mainly useless as the Ukraine's output is largely old Soviet industry and Europe would not have bought anything. The Ukraine offered money, trade deals, cheap gas and not to press for money owed to it for gas. The EU handled it badly leaving only one realistic deal on the table if it was to avoid a default according to an EU commissioner talking on Radio4 in December.

    The EU has recently come out saying they will put finance into the Ukraine. NOW not when the original negotiations happened at the end of last year. Nice to see the UK taxpayer helping to bail out another failed state even when it is not in the EU.

    What you actually said was


    No 'long road' there and the meaning of the sentence conveyed to any reasonable reader is definitely it was in the past.

    That comparison was not about any leader but the actions of the state of which they are leaders towards people they disagree with or regard as a nuisance.

    The people voted for it. If some groups/people did not vote then they have to accept the outcome of the vote. Satellite channels were talking about militias on the streets not Russian troops. Only the UK channels were the Russian invasion line.


    No countries politicians want to give up part of itself, I cannot think of any example, which is why you have oppressed minorities and 'rebel' groups fighting for separation. There are numerous examples in Africa. Just because it was held in 'less than auspicious circumstances' does not invalidate it. As far as agreements for state property etc. these things happen AFTER the vote. You only need to look at the Scottish referendum saga to see that they talk about negotiations about state assets or state debt in the event of a 'YES' vote.

    Self determination is the issue. You are playing the western game of we will accept it if it goes our way but reject it if we do not like it. Like our hypocrite of a Foreign Secretary who is going on about regimes in the near east suppressing minorities and ignoring the same in other countries. How often has he criticised Bahrain? There is a Shia/Sunni conflict happening there(and has been for years) with brutal state violence. Forgot! The UK and US have major bases there so it is OK. As far as timing is concerned any look at history will show that in any situation some trigger point will explode the pent up anger of people. In a general note you saw that happening in the American civil rights movement. More than decades of anger led to riots etc and eventually laws. These things do dot happen in a neat way. As far as 1994 goes people might have been willing to see what the new beginning brought. A trigger point was reached.
     
  7. Danny75

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 26, 2013

    Posts: 6,888


    “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. The United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves." ~ Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, at the International Business Conference at Ukraine in Washington - National Press Club - December 13, 2013.

    What does "Development of democratic institutions" mean to you in non-double speak?

    And what do "Skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government" mean to you?

    What does she mean by "these and other goals"?

    And finally, how does more than $5 billion get spent on doing these things? Where (to whom) did the money actually go?

    Sorry if it's unfair to ask you these questions, but it's also no good to just turn a blind eye to this.

    You can hear her statements in the following video. Pay special attention to the board behind her, and the names of the sponsors of the conference, and then maybe what ntg wrote about (Western energy company profit motives etc) will begin to make more factual than theoretical sense. ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=103

    Nuland is married to notorious Neo-con Robert Kagan.

    Why were Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsoring a business conference in Washington concerning Ukraine?
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  8. Danny75

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 26, 2013

    Posts: 6,888

    This video, of a phone conversation between Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine in early February (before the coup actually succeeded), is even more revealing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOwfeoDX2o

    They are scheming about who they are going to put into Ukraine's next government and who they aren't, and about the "events to take place".

    "You can be pretty sure that if it starts to gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it." ~ Geoffrey Pyatt, Ambassador to Ukraine.

    Well Geoff, in the end they did it out in the open, unlike you. I hate people who play games and lie to the entire world, and make them believe that something staged for the selfish interest of Neo-con pigs, banker pigs and oil pigs, was actually something noble and came from "the people".
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  9. Nefarious

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 1, 2003

    Posts: 1,039

    You seem stuck on the twin mantras that there was absolutely no problem with the vote and that no-one really cares, they're just trying to fill news space. The international consensus does not concur and the response is consistently escalating and showing no signs of dying down.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/in-response-to-president-putins-address-to-the-russian-parliament

    You repeatedly compare apples and oranges. The reason gay rights or other behaviours were brought up in the first place was to illustrate the nature of Putin's regime, while the 70s aren't an irrelevance to history, they are an irrelevance with regards to describing the character of our current leaders.

    Are there other places that the West should intervene in? I believe yes, it is widely accepted that Zimbabwe has received so little attention due to the lack of fossil fuels. Sovereign states can only, at best, be expected to act in enlightened self interest. A lack of action towards injustice does not validate all injustices. Ukraine/Crimea is important to NATO and Russia strategically. Both sides were meddling to a certain degree and both have their own agendas, but only one is pushing their agenda forward with military force.

    It seems clear that you will not accept any information that contradicts your idea that the annexation of Crimea should not even be questioned and that Russia sending in armoured vehicles is just business as usual.
     
  10. Stas823

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 7, 2012

    Posts: 1,128

    Location: In a house

    Point in the missile shield? Even if they blow up the missiles in Russia itself its game over for us.
     
  11. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,320

    5 years later - things look better in Crimea:

    German media: "Annexation" for the Crimea was a renaissance Об этом сообщает Рамблер. Далее: https://news.rambler.ru/politics/41...news&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink
    https://translate.google.de/transla...siya-dlya-kryma-okazalas-renessansom/?updated

    With key developments:

    - in five years Russia has achieved more in Crimea than Ukraine in a quarter of a century;
    - 51% of the Crimean Tatars said that their financial situation improved within 12 months after the Crimea became part of Russia;
    - it is emphasized that Moscow is going to invest over 4 billion euros as part of a targeted program to support the development of the region until 2024;
    - “Today, the population of Crimea has over 2.3 million people, which is almost half a million more than five years ago. And demography is always a reliable indicator of people's attitudes towards their surroundings, ”the article says.

    The newspaper recalls how Crimea became Russian, noting that the reason for the support of the local population for joining Russia was the frankly anti-Russian rhetoric of the new Ukrainian leadership.


    ^^^ I suspect that in the poorest countries in the EU where there is a lack of tourist infrastructure development, the anti-Russian position of the governments is the main obstacle, working against the poor people there.
     
  12. Panos

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 22, 2009

    Posts: 9,223

    Location: NE Lincolnshire

    Shhh don't write such things here. They go against the taxpayers funded Integrity Initiative propaganda machine.
     
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 17,506

    Or perhaps that Russia is forcibly making it appear better?

    It just so happens to benefit the Crimeans at the same time, but you know that little nuance is much too complicated.

    For sure the bridge project wasn’t just for the benefit of the locals, it allows Russia to more easily move assets around. It also pays to make good will with your newly conquered brethren, by showering them with gifts. Ukraine certainly failed immensely with its anti Russian policies, but don’t let it distract from the game being played.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  14. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,579

    In that case, lets just invade the rest of Ireland and help their economy? I'm sure they will be grateful. /logic
     
  15. Marmot

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 26, 2012

    Posts: 1,348

    Location: London

    It wouldn't have looked too good if they had annexed and then left it to rot
     
  16. Panos

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 22, 2009

    Posts: 9,223

    Location: NE Lincolnshire

    Integrity Initiative is a British propaganda organisation funded by the government, not a Russian one. :)

    Personally I am with you.
     
  17. Panos

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 22, 2009

    Posts: 9,223

    Location: NE Lincolnshire

    I do not believe the Irish call themselves British nor have done any referendum wanting to join UK.

    However logic hasn't stopped Britain invade Iraq, Syria, Libya or topple (or trying to) the governments of Ukraine, Egypt and Venezuela. And all these in just 15 years.....
     
  18. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,579

    Well the UN reckon about a million people fled eastern Ukraine after Russia invaded, so yea, there probably is only Russians left. They are still attacking eastern Ukraine as well.

    It's obviously a tactic to prevent Ukraine joining NATO or the EU. Who do not allow countries in conflict to join. So Russia are dragging it on and on.
     
  19. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,320

    Nope, the conflict is between russophils and russophobs, and Russia has nothing against Ukraine joining saTANO.
    Using the same logic, a country like Bulgaria should have never joined because there is unstable conflict (cold civil tensions) to this date.
     
  20. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,579

    Russia themselves complained on numerous times about having a NATO country right next to them...

    Then they sent in unidentified and out of uniform troops to invade Crimea, which is illegal under international law. But it wouldn't be the first or last laws they broke would it (use of radioactive poisons, nerve agents, etc). That's why no other countries believe a word they say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019