Aye, as far as Argentina is concerned...nobody else. Just them. Even NATO and the UN won't give them the time of day.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Aye, as far as Argentina is concerned...nobody else. Just them. Even NATO and the UN won't give them the time of day.
They identify with Russia so much because until the Ukraine took it over in the early nineties Crimea WAS Russia >.>
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
Ukraine never took it over, it was give to Ukraine during the Soviet era, i guess back then no one would have thought what the future laid ahead.
Last edited:
That's actually a misconception, a lot of people think that way due to the portrayal of history our media has been spinning.
You see in 1954 it was given to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine by the USSR, who owned the Soviet Republic of Ukraine, then in 1991 the USSR collapsed and Ukraine became it's own country, and took over Crimea (until then both had belonged to the USSR and Ukraine owned Crimea in name only). Think of it like a man putting assets in his wife's name for tax purposes, but then they get divorced and she keeps them.
Ukraine took over Crimea in 1991 and ever since the Crimean's have dreamed of either freedom or reunification with Russia. You see after the fall of the USSR Crimeans went overnight from being considered Russian to being considered Ukrainian, they went from living in a country with Russian as a first language to one with Ukrainian as a first language, and the issues didn't stop there. You see the Ukrainians have always harboured a kind of resentment towards Crimeans, this is because during the USSR they were treated as better than the rest of Ukraine by Russia, like a higher class of citizen. Since the fall of the USSR this has reversed with the Ukrainians looking down on the ethnic Russians of Crimea.
Now the is a new government in the Ukraine with new ideology which from Crimeas point of view is even worse than the old one, they are effectively staring down the barrel of a gun, this is all or nothing time, the only way is out, be it via independence or unity with Russia.
How do you explain the 6 years after 2004, when the Ukraine leadership had a similar ideology? They were pro EU, pro Nato and there was animosity toward Russia, along with plenty of nationalist elements.
I didn't see the Crimeans protest then, nor did I hear anything about joining Russia. You've painted a distorted picture here, the urgent "need" to join Russia is quite new in Crimea and it's not a coincidence it occured soon after the Russian military took over.
They tried to become independent before.
Source?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,134
LOL infowars.
How about the pro Russian president that was democratically elected by the people that was deposed and replaced by an unelected group who reversed several pro Russian laws and then deem to have gone on a crusade claiming Crimea can't hold an independence referendum..? If they weren't tetchy before (which they were), that would definitely set them off.
What I like is how some elements of the media are portreying both governing bodies. The current Ukrainian leaders are called the interim government yet the government of Crimea are called the defacto government....nice way with words...
It's still horrendous how the west are treating this. Russia aren't the good guys but the west should certainly be treating crimeas right to self determination with more respect.
Dubiously elected I think. In any case, democracy doesn't mean if you're voted in you can do what you want. I think the people should always have the right to hold their elected officials to account. Let's also remember that the democratically elected parliament in Ukraine voted to impeach Yanukovych, including members of Yanukovych's own party, and replace his government with the new interim government.
You can't call it self-determination when armed forces from another country are patrolling the streets and control every apparatus of state, especially when that country stands to gain from Crimea's independence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...el-insists-he-was-just-doing-his-duty.html?fb
Interesting interview with the Ukrainian air force colonel who marched his unarmed men up to the Russian soldiers.
Interesting interview with the Ukrainian air force colonel who marched his unarmed men up to the Russian soldiers.
He was deposed by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament. What happened is actually quite simple, the President had support for months, despite the protests. When he decided to shoot down people like animals, he lost that support, even within his own party.
Crimea can't hold a legal referendum on independence right now, they agreed to that themselves in the late 90s. This, of course, may change but if it does, it shouldn't be under Russian gun point.
Also, I see a lot of complaints about the Western Media, as if it's some sort of huge conglomerate which takes order from...? Who exactly do you conspirationists think gives the orders? The US leaders? The Uk leaders? The Polish leaders? The Canadian one? Romanians maybe? Do you guys seriously think that all of these people from California to Bulgaria are crazy, stupid or part of a huge conspiracy?
Oh, I agree and im sure Yanukovych wasn't the best guy, but then the leader of the opposition was jailed corruption and only released after Yanukovych disappeared. It wasn't just political imprisonment, the west thought he guilty too...
Let's also not forget that the protests started out peacefully and carried on like that for a couple of months, with the police backing down when it stated getting violent (when they first tried to clear the square. Let's also not forget that in first major incident with multiple deaths quite a few police were killed as well as the protestors. It was only the next confrontation that the 70-80 protestors were killed....
Remember why the "defence forces" started up in the first place? Because the nationalist pro Europe groups were starting to group together to create their own "defence squads". Crimean pro Russian grroups then formed and it would appear became intimately connected to the Russian military forces.
While there are calls that Yanukovych must have been dodgy to rip up the pro eu deal for a Russian one the fact there was an eu deal is telling in itself. It's basically the usual west/east influence of the cold war all over again. EU say join us, we''ll give you aid, Russia says join us, we'll give you cheap gas and a large loan.
End of the day it's a ******* mess, mainly caused by political meanderings from both sides and a country that has staunch pro Europe and pro Russian enclaves. If one doesn't have someone fighting for their ideals they complain and protest, leading to the seesawing that we have seen in the Ukraine for the last 20 years.
No one cares what you think, we are dealing in facts here. The fact is he was democratically elected. In overthrowing him as the coup has attempted to do, they have violated their own constitution and so any argument to crimea about upholding the constitution are null and void. FACT.
Of course - Russia Today told them what to think.
You do realise that RT is the Russian version of BBC right? Earth to scorza - The BBC is state sponsored.
Get with the basic stuff. The problem was the democratically elected president acting undemocratically. And Crimea was not seeking self-determination before the Russian military started stamping around. It really is quite simple. If one small part of a country can go around declaring itself part of another country by virtue that the majority of its population think thats a good idea, you will see Eastern Europe and large chunks of the rest of the world splinter hard pretty quickly and with serious consequences.
Of course generally that would not happen because world powers are expected to act responsibly and not accept national defections and especially not encourage it through military interventions. Whats next? NATO marching into the New Democratic Republic of Western Belarus if they flutter their eyelids? How much of that happening before we land in a full on shooting war?
Wheres the respect for the will of the ukrainian people, or the minorities in crimea, or the respect for international law which stops the whole shebang slipping into the abyss?
Its just as well youre saying that on the internet because you cannot be seriously saying that with a straight face.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
I'm not sure how the west can let Russia have Crimea wether Russia has a point or not, after Syria if the west backs down over the Crimea it shows that NATO and the UN have no teeth what so ever.
It's not about who's right or looking after repressed people this is all about who can throw their weight around the most. Financially Europe and the US are better off but if Russia shuts off the gas Europe is stuffed, hence the non forthcoming financial sanctions from European countrys.
If Russia win the referendum in Crimea, which we all know they will chances are eastern Ukraine will be next, then what, I bet Poland would begin tooling up in a big way. This is a very bad situation for the world to be in at the moment and it has nothing to do with protests. Parallels have been drawn to the Rhineland Sudetenland in the 1930s and whilst I don't think things will turn out quite so bad you cannot let a country annex part of another country for any reason.
It's not about who's right or looking after repressed people this is all about who can throw their weight around the most. Financially Europe and the US are better off but if Russia shuts off the gas Europe is stuffed, hence the non forthcoming financial sanctions from European countrys.
If Russia win the referendum in Crimea, which we all know they will chances are eastern Ukraine will be next, then what, I bet Poland would begin tooling up in a big way. This is a very bad situation for the world to be in at the moment and it has nothing to do with protests. Parallels have been drawn to the Rhineland Sudetenland in the 1930s and whilst I don't think things will turn out quite so bad you cannot let a country annex part of another country for any reason.
- Status