Big Guy Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 It looks like it is getting more difficult to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys in this Ukraine confusion. The following is an interesting confrontation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5GeBpZ5VHY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 It looks like it is getting more difficult to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys in this Ukraine confusion. The following is an interesting confrontation. Not really. Russia is the aggressor. Everything else is just a reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Whatever sanctions the US and the EU can come up with none of them is anything Russia wouldn't have anticipated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Just who are you ranting against? Who is "hoping for an all-out war against Russia?" I've seen on one even advocating ANY military action against Russia. Names and examples please.What I do advocate is joining Ukraine to NATO and sending NATO and/or U.S. troops to Ukraine to serve as a tripwire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 The annexation of the Crimea is a done deal now as the superpower of Kyrgyzstan has recognised it as legal: http://en.ria.ru/world/20140320/188606372/Kyrgyzstan-Recognizes-Crimea-Referendum-Results.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Various media sources have condemned this referendum and its results as "unconstitutional", "Illegitimate" and "illegal". None appear to label it as "inaccurate". No one seems to doubt that a majority, certainly not 95% but still a majority, of people in the Crimea did not want to continue as part of the "new" Ukraine - the only question is what other options should have been available. Not everybody in that area wears either a black hat or a white hat - quite a few seem to have grey hats. It depends on what you consider legitimate. Can you hold a legitimate referendum given there are soldiers and bullies in uniform representing one side filling the street ready to beat anyone who disagrees, and given the lack of free media or time to correct the propaganda issued by Russian media? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 What I do advocate is joining Ukraine to NATO and sending NATO and/or U.S. troops to Ukraine to serve as a tripwire. Do you really think it's wise to have US troops right on Russia's border? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Does anyone think that this conflict between Russia and the West is more about OIL?? Well, the following link says just that and this seems to be like the past repeating itself with outing Hussein, and the Libya leader. Apparently, by the report, which Russia says it not true, could be the reason why certain countries are after Putin. Another article I read also stated, what the West is saying about the action of Putin, is also the action the US took in the past and is condemning Putin for it, even though the voters said they wanted to be part of Russia. Perhaps, the sooner the pipeline is built in Canada and the US, then neither country's military personnel, will have a better reason for dying fohttp://ca.news.yahoo.com/does-u-know-putins-oil-wealth-052629302--sector.htmlr their country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 As we talk Putin is now setting upa deal with China to ship it, its natural gas and oil to continue Putin's messaget that the West can kiss his Russian federation's a....Crimea. I was not surprised at all China supported Russia, After all they did the same thing in Tibet and would love to do the same thing n Taiwan. Its clear Putin in the next month or so is going to make some major deals with China and replace Western Europe with them as its principal export site for gas and oil. Russia is a one egg in the basket economy. Its placed all its eggs in oil and has exports, Not much else is going on. This is interesting considering it has the most natural resources in terms of mineral in the world, and has the most fresh water in the world. Those two factors alone will always make it a superpower. The problem is it has a history of totalitarianism and very small elites using brutal force to run it. The wealth is never distributed and thus a corrupt regime. Since the wealth is not spread and the vast majority remain limited, it breeds contempt for authority and as always a black market that rots away at its inner core. Putin can huff and puff all he wants but he has to select who he conquers.Like Mussolini who he reminds me of, he has no problem moving into Crimea or Geirgua as Mussolini did Etthiopia he knew there would be no ability to fight back and these nations are close by and do not require an elaborate network of logistical support but his armed forces can only manouver so far. To feed them and provide them logistics strains the thread bare economy he has. I think the take over of Crimea is ironically good for Canada in the sense that now the US will have no choice but to turn to Canada and open a pipe-line for natural gas and free trade with Europe will see is start sending more natural gas to Europe. In the short term we stand to gain from energy exports although long term who knows what the hell it will do to the environment. Putin will forge stronger relations with China and engage in more beligerance in Europe and watch for Beylorussia, Bulgaria, etc. He's also far from finished meddling in Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. He would love to drive a wedge between Israaeland the US and has tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iolo Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Countries are 'imagined communities', and the smaller, the less imaginary. Why should the Crimean people be forced to live under one artificial capitalist creation if they prefer another? They'd be better on their own, though, clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Countries are 'imagined communities', and the smaller, the less imaginary. Why should the Crimean people be forced to live under one artificial capitalist creation if they prefer another? They'd be better on their own, though, clearly. Evidently they disagree since they have 'voted' to join an even larger imagined community. Not that they had a real choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I am wondering... Why is there so much outrage over Crimea/Ukraine when Russia recieved a "free pass" to kill over 25,000 civilians in Chechnya? Can anyone explain this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Pretty tepid if not faux outrage if you ask me. Weren't we on Russia's side back then? I'm quite sure we still are on many levels, we've been with oligarchs, dictators and terrorists for decades. In any case, we look pretty stupid getting our ginch in the knot it's in given our side's super-power is no better and even worse if the loss of life that's attended it's own geo-political diddling of late is any measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kromvelos Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 But I'm a big believer in the truth and I just want to bazooka barf every time I hear all the lies being spun about the "new government in Kiev" being pro democracy and how wonderful they are. All you have to do is to read up on Svoboda and the Right Sector and your hair will be standing on end. This was a coup. The government in Kiev is illegitimate. And I have no idea why my government and my Conservative party are backing this crew in Kiev. Absolutely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iolo Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 They seem to have had all the choice they needed. Who wants to live under EU-supported Nazis, after all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I am wondering... Why is there so much outrage over Crimea/Ukraine when Russia recieved a "free pass" to kill over 25,000 civilians in Chechnya? Can anyone explain this? Russia's attack on Chenya was naked, murderous agression, couched in lies, much like its attack on Ukraine and its attack on Georgia. I guess this time it's just more blatant, and the excuses have worn thinner. The only one here who seems to still be falling for them is tinydancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Naked murderous aggression? Then why did the USA provide Yeltsin with sophisticated missles that were used to assassinate moderate Chechens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Muslim extremists from Chechnya launched indiscriminate bloody attacks on civilians inside Russia. In the case of Crimea or Georgia no one was using those sites to send terrorists into Russia to kill innocent civilians before both were invaded by Russia, and so the difference in reaction. Edited March 22, 2014 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Muslim extremists from Chechnya launched indiscriminate bloody attacks on civilians inside Russia. In the case of Crimea or Georgia no one was using those sites to send terrorists into Russia to kill innocent civilians before both were invaded by Russia, and so the difference in reaction. If you go back a few years, Rue, to before the Russians invaded Chechnya and slaughtered its people, there were no terrorist attacks like that. Mind you, Chechnya was a hole, utterly corrupt, and filled with violence and crime. Islamists were fighting with the National Guard, and attempted to invade a neighboring Russian republic in assistance to their kindred spirits there who wanted an Islamic state. Putin invaded Chechnya on the pretext that Chechins had blown up several apartment buildings in Moscow and elsewhere. Most people now believe that the Russians did it themselves to give themselves an excuse to take Chechnya back. In any event, Russia prosecuted the war against Chechnya with a violence and a total disregard for civilian casualties which would give even Syria's al-Assad pause. It is not surprising they got some terrorism back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kromvelos Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Conrad Black: Making Canada matter in the world “We’ve got a diaspora-driven foreign policy,” Christopher Westdal, former Canadian ambassador to both Ukraine and Russia, told The Globe and Mail last month. “It might work at the polls, but it doesn’t do much good in the world.” The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister John Baird’s strenuous support of Israel, and now Ukraine, are alleged to have demolished Canada’s long-pursued status as a moderate, median country in international organizations in Middle Eastern issues. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/22/conrad-black-making-canada-matter-in-the-world/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Russia's attack on Chenya was naked, murderous agression, couched in lies, much like its attack on Ukraine and its attack on Georgia. I guess this time it's just more blatant, and the excuses have worn thinner. The only one here who seems to still be falling for them is tinydancer. Chechnya is still a mystery for me - so many human rights violations, so many civilian deaths, and what was the response from the West: complete and utter apathy. Murderous aggresion in Ukraine/Crimea? AFAIK Russians are responsible for no deaths and no significant violations of human rights, yet there is "strong condemnation" and calls for "action", etc... IMO the West has its reactions backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Conrad Black: Making Canada matter in the world “We’ve got a diaspora-driven foreign policy,” Christopher Westdal, former Canadian ambassador to both Ukraine and Russia, told The Globe and Mail last month. “It might work at the polls, but it doesn’t do much good in the world.” The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister John Baird’s strenuous support of Israel, and now Ukraine, are alleged to have demolished Canada’s long-pursued status as a moderate, median country in international organizations in Middle Eastern issues. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/22/conrad-black-making-canada-matter-in-the-world/ Actually, what Black was doing was deriding those people you reference. Canada's foreign policy under Harper tends to be more honest, and there's no question his own feelings would tend to cause him to strongly support Israel and strongly oppose Russian military aggression outside its border. Further, as Black points out, Canada's position on Ukraine is not noticeably different from anyone else in the west. Clearly, he's not going to ignore that he can score points with Ukrainian Canadians, but if there were no Ukrainian Canadians I don't see where his policy with regard to Russia militarily seizing the territory of its neighbour would be any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Chechnya is still a mystery for me - so many human rights violations, so many civilian deaths, and what was the response from the West: complete and utter apathy. Murderous aggresion in Ukraine/Crimea? AFAIK Russians are responsible for no deaths and no significant violations of human rights, yet there is "strong condemnation" and calls for "action", etc... IMO the West has its reactions backwards. Russia's aggression against Chechnya was not seen as any particular threat. It had been part of Russia until a few years earlier when the incompetent Russian Army was unable to put down a rebellion. Now the Russians were simply taking it back. That the population had a lot of violent Islamists amongst them tended to mute the criticism, too, as did the near total absence of foreign journalists able to cover what was happening. Russia's attacking Crimea because there were Russians there is seen as a threat in that there are Russian speakers in a lot of former members of the Soviet Union, some of them now NATO members, and the west wants to deter the Russians from further military adventurism in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 I have been watching the Sunday morning political shows from the USA. Only one individual on one panel brought up the point that the current Ukraine government is "illegitimate". The current elected leader was ousted when a mob of people (some would say patriots depending on their affiliation) and the new government was not voted in. There was no provision on the Ukrainian Constitution for an armed overthrow before the term ended. This individual was shouted down. No matter which position one has, I do wish that more diverse points of view were allowed in our North American media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Russia's aggression against Chechnya was not seen as any particular threat. It had been part of Russia until a few years earlier when the incompetent Russian Army was unable to put down a rebellion. Now the Russians were simply taking it back. That the population had a lot of violent Islamists amongst them tended to mute the criticism, too, as did the near total absence of foreign journalists able to cover what was happening. Russia's attacking Crimea because there were Russians there is seen as a threat in that there are Russian speakers in a lot of former members of the Soviet Union, some of them now NATO members, and the west wants to deter the Russians from further military adventurism in that regard. Perhaps that explains some of my confusion, but still, over 25,000 civilian deaths, how do we just gloss over that? There are plenty of reasons to oppose Putin's Russia - I don't see the bloodless annexing of Crimea (it also had been part of Russia until a few years earlier) as one of those reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.