On Guard for Thee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I gotta laugh at the condemnation by the morons in control of countries like the US and Canada. What appalling and pathetic hypocracy. Crimea is full of mostly Russians... Russia has a clear and compelling interest there, and the people in the area WANT them there... Just like they did in Osettia. Canada and the US on the other hand are developing a reputation for much worse behavior for much less understandable reasons. Especially the US. When you invade a country over lies and get hundreds of thousands of people killed, maybe you should just SHUT THE *%$$& UP when other countries intervene in conflicts right on their own borders, where they actually DO have a compelling interest besides economics. I wonder then why Russia signed the agreement, along with the US and the UK, to give the Ukraine sovereignty 20 years ago. Russias interest in The Ukrain is natural gas. Ain't it funny how it seems to always come down to bucks basically? Quote
dre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I wonder then why Russia signed the agreement, along with the US and the UK, to give the Ukraine sovereignty 20 years ago. Russias interest in The Ukrain is natural gas. Ain't it funny how it seems to always come down to bucks basically? I think their interest is basically the same as when they invaded georgia. There are large majorities of Russian speaking people in parts of the break-away soviet countries. In any case, countries like the US and Canada have as much moral authority to critisize Russia for this intervention as Jeffrey Dalmer has to critisize a child-care facility. Edited March 3, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I wonder then why Russia signed the agreement, along with the US and the UK, to give the Ukraine sovereignty 20 years ago. Russias interest in The Ukrain is natural gas. Ain't it funny how it seems to always come down to bucks basically? Because 20 years ago Russia was weak, still reeling from over 70 years of communist repression. Today, it is in a much stronger position, and it is keen on restoring itself to what it sees as its rightful place in the world. And the first step of that is uniting all Russian-speaking peoples under its banner. The second step is uniting all Slavic peoples in a new union. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Because 20 years ago Russia was weak, still reeling from over 70 years of communist repression. Today, it is in a much stronger position, and it is keen on restoring itself to what it sees as its rightful place in the world. And the first step of that is uniting all Russian-speaking peoples under its banner. The second step is uniting all Slavic peoples in a new union. Looks to me like in reality Putin's first step is get ready to invade what is legally a sovereign country. Quote
jbg Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Because 20 years ago Russia was weak, still reeling from over 70 years of communist repression. Today, it is in a much stronger position, and it is keen on restoring itself to what it sees as its rightful place in the world. And the first step of that is uniting all Russian-speaking peoples under its banner. The second step is uniting all Slavic peoples in a new union. Also, oil is selling for $95-105, not $18-$24. Gives Russia both greater means and incentives to be adventurous. Edited March 3, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Looks to me like in reality Putin's first step is get ready to invade what is legally a sovereign country. That's just a method to achieve the above mentioned step 1. I am gonna guess that the very minimum outcome Putin is looking for is for the Crimea to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. An outcome that seems very likely given that the Crimeans welcomed the Russian forces with open arms. What remains to be seen is whether Putin will be content with that, or if he also plans to seize control of eastern Ukraine, where Russians comprise a large fraction of the population. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 That's just a method to achieve the above mentioned step 1. I am gonna guess that the very minimum outcome Putin is looking for is for the Crimea to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. An outcome that seems very likely given that the Crimeans welcomed the Russian forces with open arms. What remains to be seen is whether Putin will be content with that, or if he also plans to seize control of eastern Ukraine, where Russians comprise a large fraction of the population. He's definitely a loose cannon. Hard to guess what's next. Somehow I have a bad feeling there could be a lot of bloodshed coming up. I hope I'm wrong. Quote
Bonam Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 He's definitely a loose cannon. Hard to guess what's next. Somehow I have a bad feeling there could be a lot of bloodshed coming up. I hope I'm wrong. I disagree, Putin is deliberative and systematic, content to expand his and Russia's power and influence slowly and steadily. He wants what he builds to last, rather than to win glory quickly and to have it collapse just as quickly. He's not gonna go on uncertain military adventures, but he will have no problem sending in forces to gain control amid already chaotic situations, especially in areas where there is already support for Russia. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I disagree, Putin is deliberative and systematic, content to expand his and Russia's power and influence slowly and steadily. He wants what he builds to last, rather than to win glory quickly and to have it collapse just as quickly. He's not gonna go on uncertain military adventures, but he will have no problem sending in forces to gain control amid already chaotic situations, especially in areas where there is already support for Russia. I'm afraid he's already gone on an uncertain military adventure. It'a also an illegal military adventure. So far it hasn't erupted into anything major but it doesn't take much. Remember "the shot that was heard around the world"? Quote
dre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) He's definitely a loose cannon. Compared to what? Russia has been involved in conflicts right on its borders, normally involving large populations of Russians. Thats a pretty stark contrast to ongoing western agression in places thousands of miles away where they only have economic interests. Do you believe for a second that if pro and anti US factions in Canada or Mexico got into it that the US would not get directly involved? Please. Edited March 3, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
On Guard for Thee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Compared to what? Russia has been involved in conflicts right on its borders, normally involving large populations of Russians. Thats a pretty stark contrast to ongoing western agression in places thousands of miles away where they only have economic interests. Do you believe for a second that if pro and anti US factions in Canada or Mexico got into it that the US would not get directly involved? Please. Please. You are trying comparing two scenarios, one that is extremely far fetched, the other that is hapenning. Quote
-TSS- Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 If East-Ukraine is declared an independent country of its own I wonder how many countries would recognise it. Russia for sure and Belarus perhaps but that's about it. Quote
Boges Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Who, exactly, is going to make Russia leave the Crimea? Economic sanctions won't work here. Quote
Topaz Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Apparently, the N.Y. Times is reporting that the West has staged a covert operation to form a proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis. Well, not sure if this is true but now a days, who really knows what is going on in the world. Does anyone think is could be true?? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554 Quote
dre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Who, exactly, is going to make Russia leave the Crimea? Economic sanctions won't work here. Maybe they will leave once things are stable there, like they did in Georgia. Or maybe the people there dont want them to leave. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Boges Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Maybe they will leave once things are stable there, like they did in Georgia. Or maybe the people there dont want them to leave. Yeah, I'm sure people in crimea is perfectly happy having the Russian army there. Quote
Bonam Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah, I'm sure people in crimea is perfectly happy having the Russian army there. They are actually. Read up on it. Crimeans welcomed the Russian forces with open arms. Quote
Big Guy Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah, I'm sure people in crimea is perfectly happy having the Russian army there. I believe that it is distracting, confusing and obfuscating to see the world in terms of black and white or good and bad. Over the last two decades, the West has viewed the Russians as bad guys, then good guys and now bad guys again. The Ukraine situation appears to follow the principle that societies tend to segregate themselves according to ethnic and language lines. We saw that in the Balkans, in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. Politicians may draw lines on a map but the people are the ones who delineate affiliation and nationalism. Eventually, the lines on a map are redrawn and adjusted according to will of the majority. This can be accomplished with or without the spilling of blood. Before Canada leaps into the fray, perhaps we should allow the people of the Crimea that choice through a referendum. After all, we gave Quebec the opportunity to vote the will of the majority. Besides, its probably only a matter of time until the Russians are the good guys again. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
GostHacked Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I disagree. Colin Powell would not engage under the current circumstances. His "Powell Doctrine" may explain my opinion; "The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?" The situation in the Crimea does not satisfy the criteria. One more to add. 9 - Was the evidence to support a war in Iraq fake? (Yellowcake/Plame) Quote
dre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah, I'm sure people in crimea is perfectly happy having the Russian army there. Not all of them but in that area, and some others a large majority do. This was the case when Russia invaded georgia as well. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I believe that it is distracting, confusing and obfuscating to see the world in terms of black and white or good and bad. Over the last two decades, the West has viewed the Russians as bad guys, then good guys and now bad guys again. The Ukraine situation appears to follow the principle that societies tend to segregate themselves according to ethnic and language lines. We saw that in the Balkans, in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. Politicians may draw lines on a map but the people are the ones who delineate affiliation and nationalism. Eventually, the lines on a map are redrawn and adjusted according to will of the majority. This can be accomplished with or without the spilling of blood. Before Canada leaps into the fray, perhaps we should allow the people of the Crimea that choice through a referendum. After all, we gave Quebec the opportunity to vote the will of the majority. Besides, its probably only a matter of time until the Russians are the good guys again. I think its more about the west then the Russians. People in these kinds of places used to see the west as a symbol of hope and freedom. Major western countries are now symbols of torture, mass murder, political subversion, and plunder. This doesnt help pro western factions ANYWHERE. We cant with any credibility claim to be the "good guys" anymore. Edited March 3, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554 This Global Research paper seems like a sensationalist publication - do you have anything else ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Moonlight Graham Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Who, exactly, is going to make Russia leave the Crimea? Economic sanctions won't work here. No they won't. It's probably going to take military threats from NATO, with possible military maneuvering into the area, and maybe even a stare-down of forces. Putin obviously believes Crimea is rightfully a part of Russia, so this is a huge crisis not seen since probably the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Unfortunately, Russia has completely undermined the #1 pillar that the UN and international law stands for, and the world cannot accept this behaviour. If Russia doesn't back down this is something that NATO may need to go to war over. What I see as more likely is, after serious military threats from NATO, Russia and NATO agreeing to allow Crimea to have a referendum over its future. Hopefully Russia doesn't invade the rest of the Ukraine. John Kerry is right, this is 19th century behaviour. Extremely dangerous precedent and doesn't belong in a post-WWII world. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I think its more about the west then the Russians. People in these kinds of places used to see the west as a symbol of hope and freedom. Major western countries are now symbols of torture, mass murder, political subversion, and plunder. This doesnt help pro western factions ANYWHERE. We cant with any credibility claim to be the "good guys" anymore. You're right. The US has destroyed so much of its credibility over recent years that any gains it has received from its BS behaviour has been lost in its reduction in ability to project soft power. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
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.