95.5 percent of Crimeans vote for joining Russia

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

Those poor guys. Perhaps died with honor, but still died or worse . . . Became a guest at one of Putin's not so desireable political vacation resorts.

-------

Ukraine crisis: video shows Russian troops storming Ukrainian airbase in Crimea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10716516/Ukraine-crisis-video-shows-Russian-troops-storming-Ukrainian-airbase-in-Crimea.html

Nato top commander sees evidence Putin is fixing to grab more land ... in Ukraine and beyond!

If you actually think Putin doesn't have greater land grabbing ambitions, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Hopefully there is still time for the west to make it clear the price will not be worth it, assuming Putin is any kind of RATIONAL player, which is of course now very debatable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/23/transdniestria_region_nato_warns_of_potential_russian_threat_to_moldova.html

...

Ukraine’s east has long been considered under threat, but Breedlove’s suggested Sunday that Russia could have ambitions beyond Ukraine. NATO is particularly worried about Transdniestria, a strip of land between Moldova and southern Ukraine that declared independence in 1990. “Although the move was not recognized internationally, the region has its own constitution and currency, and pro-Russian sentiment there runs high. Russian forces are also stationed in the territory—as they were in Crimea even before the current crisis began,” details the Washington Post. The region has a population of about half a million, about one-third of whom are ethnic Russian.

...

British Foreign Secretary William Hague wrote an op-ed piece for the Telegraph in which he describes Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “the most serious risk to European security we have seen so far in the 21st century.” As a result of Moscow’s “outrageous land grab,” Russia “risks once again bending towards isolation and stagnation.”

folium · March 23, 2014

An interesting side-effect of the fact that most Russians squirrel their wealth and family as far away from the motherland as possible, the moderately corrupt use Cyprus while the premier league of Russian thieves use London, is that at least we will get to know our future enemies. The UK has always happily taken the money from thieving foreign types keen to give their children a decent and safe place to be educated.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan literally bumped into an old friend from Oxford University (Prince Radzwili) during the battle of Balaklava in the Crimea. Two contemporaries of mine from school met up in Port Stanley in early 1982 at the end of the Falklands War, one in the Welsh Guards, the other (surprisingly given the fact he was the offspring of a well-connected kleptocratic family) doing his national service in the Argentine marines. My son has both Russian and Ukrainian children in his class at school, the latter only seem to be from Eastern Ukraine or from oligarch families connected to Yanukovich's regime. Perhaps the non Russian Ukrainians haven't stolen enough money yet!

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

Now that the illusions about Putin's Russia are shattered, what's the best way forward?

Of course nobody sensible wants war or even a new cold war.

But that's not the same thing as doing nothing to counter Putin's aggression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/douthat-russia-without-illusions.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

...

Now both ideas should be abandoned. After Crimea, as Anne Applebaum wrote last week, it’s clear that Putin’s Russia “is not a flawed Western power,” but “an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics.” It may not be America’s No. 1 geopolitical problem, as a certain former candidate for president suggested. (Don’t sleep on the Chinese.) But it is a geopolitical threat — a revisionist, norm-violating power — to a greater extent than any recent administration has been eager to accept.

...

The key here is balance — recognizing that Russia is weak and dangerous at once, that the West has been both too naïve about Putin’s intentions and too incautious in its own commitments, and that a new containment need not require a new Cold War.

When illusions are shattered, it’s easy to become reckless, easy to hand-wring and retrench. What we need instead is realism: to use the powers we have, without pretending to powers that we lack.

englishoak · March 23, 2014

potentially you bet they had a lot to fear from an unelected right wing gov in Kiev. History repeats if people are not watchful especially Fascism. You might want to take the rise of it in Europe and the US and right wing ideals being legitimised more seriously because Russians most certainly do for a very good reason and lessons hard learned. Im afraid I am not a fan of, self installed foreign state sponsored neo nazi or far right coalitions not even if it is the EU/US saying its ok, it is far from it.

I dont wish to get off topic but this is far from simple and yes the agents provocateur IS who i said, there are a few reasons for this, not in the least the Syria and Russian solution last year frustrating the US war machine. Putin has done exactly what was expected by many, manoeuvred into it maybe yes... problem reaction solution my friend. There isnt any innocents here, not Russia not the EU and not the US. neither am i defending Putin i simply try to see the chess move for what it is from Russias perspective.

So is the current political set up in Moscow the ideal solution?

Why is it "especially fascism" that repeats if people are not watchful. Do you not mean authoritarian rule in general or is it only right wing versions that provide the problem?

You seem to overlook that Stalin and Soviet Russia happily shook hands with Nazi Germany to slice up Poland and Romania, only later did the thieves fall out. Authoritarian despots can call themselves fascist or communist but the objectives are the same, and the victims likewise. I'm sure that the 20,000 Poles murdered by the Russians (though they did try to blame the Germans) in the Katyn Forest in 1939 were so grateful that there murderers called themselves socialist/communist, it must have made such a difference to them as they died...

You worked for AI, how does AI get on in today's Russia...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/russian-authorities-raid-amnesty-international-office.html?_r=0

The US and other western countries are far from perfect but by comparison with Russia? It's like comparing the alleged rule of law in LOS with the rule of law operating in the UK. Not perfect but somewhat different in application. Red Bull anyone?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/the-red-bull-heir-and-inequality-in-thailand.html

There is no such thing as an ideal political set up, theres always an opposition and every system is flawed. It is however not possible to have pure communism any longer, Moscow relies on capitalism just as Beijing realised what it was facing and changed. Russia cannot return to communism Fascism however is entirely possible under capitalism. Both can only exist as long as the money comes from capitalism, communism is dead and has no future but fascism is extremely useful and versatile and appeals to people on many different levels which is why it is so dangerous... we are back to that might is right thing again... either by physical power or financial...

Just to be brief Stalin and Hitler carved up Poland knowing full well there would be a reckoning at some point. Both had the same objectives yes, they could not however coexist and both knew it from the outset. It can be argued the west and Russia right now is carving up the Ukraine in modern day terms and politics rather than casualties. Russia is not communist any longer however and China is about as capitalist as you can get. The US is or could be argued has been slipping more and more towards fascist principles as time moves on, also the rise of right wing parties is growing throughout Europe. No one can deny the US today is far less free than it has ever been whilst Russians are more so than ever in history. You are im sure aware of the history in Russia in the 20th century and assume you know where the funding came from and who championed/financed who to create red Russia in the first place ? it was not home grown.

Ill tell you something about AI which was one major factor of my leaving, it became more and more politically entwined and selective in being vocal and continues to shy away from critisizing too loudly of certain atrocities of certain nataions. It is not unfortunately as publicly critical of certain nations infringements of human rights as it is to others or as it once was,This is mainly due to where the sponsors and funding comes from. Predominantly it comes from western Nations. This has led to a conflict of interest in its neutrality and its fundraising, for example towards torture of prisoners by western nations and incarceration without trail etc.. in short there was and is a reluctance to be as visibly critical towards more sponsoring nations as it is towards others. Internally many of us believed as it had always done AI should hold that standard higher by progressive nations and AI should be even harsher and critical if a civilised free nation began to slip backwards. Sadly that was not the feeling of the fundraising division, it argued you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you so much as it would damage funding and ego more good we could do globally. It has also become what id term as infiltrated by the wrong kind of executive and interlinked to other large cooporate or government bodies by these ex personnel. As an example recently in 2011 Hilary Clintons once state dept aid became head of AI in the US. As a result it has diminished the credibility and integrity of AI, a bit like the UN, Many of us left in the 90s and 00s because of it.

I am not for one moment suggesting Russia is a saint, of course not but I am suggesting the west has a territory grab agenda much more covert and also willing to use nazi stongarm groups or indeed terrorists to further its cause. Really it has little of the peoples interest at heart. It is wrong to try and westernise the entire world and it cannot be acceptable to ratify a neo nazi unelected gov in Kiev and claim it is constitutional whilst claiming a free vote given in Crimea to all is not.

No one system or ideal is perfect of course but I know only one that is interested in subverting and controlling the entire world today by dealing with anyone at all, however morally reprehensible they may be. There are no moral standards any longer, if there ever was. That should be a concern

Edited March 23, 2014 by englishoak

englishoak · March 23, 2014

An interesting side-effect of the fact that most Russians squirrel their wealth and family as far away from the motherland as possible, the moderately corrupt use Cyprus while the premier league of Russian thieves use London, is that at least we will get to know our future enemies. The UK has always happily taken the money from thieving foreign types keen to give their children a decent and safe place to be educated.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan literally bumped into an old friend from Oxford University (Prince Radzwili) during the battle of Balaklava in the Crimea. Two contemporaries of mine from school met up in Port Stanley in early 1982 at the end of the Falklands War, one in the Welsh Guards, the other (surprisingly given the fact he was the offspring of a well-connected kleptocratic family) doing his national service in the Argentine marines. My son has both Russian and Ukrainian children in his class at school, the latter only seem to be from Eastern Ukraine or from oligarch families connected to Yanukovich's regime. Perhaps the non Russian Ukrainians haven't stolen enough money yet!

London is the criminal financial centre capital of the world and always has been.

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

Here's an apt quote tying dictator Putin's vicious and cynical scapegoating of his own gay Russian citizens to his recent land theft in Ukraine and his obvious threats to steal more land from other nations. Both, not coincidentally, have been very helpful in keeping him politically popular.

A country that does not respect the rights of it's citizens will not respect the rights of it's neighbors.

Andrei Sakharov

anti-Soviet dissident and human rights activist

Edited March 23, 2014 by Jingthing

F430murci · March 23, 2014

potentially you bet they had a lot to fear from an unelected right wing gov in Kiev. History repeats if people are not watchful especially Fascism. You might want to take the rise of it in Europe and the US and right wing ideals being legitimised more seriously because Russians most certainly do for a very good reason and lessons hard learned. Im afraid I am not a fan of, self installed foreign state sponsored neo nazi or far right coalitions not even if it is the EU/US saying its ok, it is far from it.

I dont wish to get off topic but this is far from simple and yes the agents provocateur IS who i said, there are a few reasons for this, not in the least the Syria and Russian solution last year frustrating the US war machine. Putin has done exactly what was expected by many, manoeuvred into it maybe yes... problem reaction solution my friend. There isnt any innocents here, not Russia not the EU and not the US. neither am i defending Putin i simply try to see the chess move for what it is from Russias perspective.

So is the current political set up in Moscow the ideal solution?
Why is it "especially fascism" that repeats if people are not watchful. Do you not mean authoritarian rule in general or is it only right wing versions that provide the problem?

You seem to overlook that Stalin and Soviet Russia happily shook hands with Nazi Germany to slice up Poland and Romania, only later did the thieves fall out. Authoritarian despots can call themselves fascist or communist but the objectives are the same, and the victims likewise. I'm sure that the 20,000 Poles murdered by the Russians (though they did try to blame the Germans) in the Katyn Forest in 1939 were so grateful that there murderers called themselves socialist/communist, it must have made such a difference to them as they died...

You worked for AI, how does AI get on in today's Russia...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/russian-authorities-raid-amnesty-international-office.html?_r=0

The US and other western countries are far from perfect but by comparison with Russia? It's like comparing the alleged rule of law in LOS with the rule of law operating in the UK. Not perfect but somewhat different in application. Red Bull anyone?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/the-red-bull-heir-and-inequality-in-thailand.html

There is no such thing as an ideal political set up, theres always an opposition and every system is flawed. It is however not possible to have pure communism any longer, Moscow relies on capitalism just as Beijing realised what it was facing and changed. Russia cannot return to communism Fascism however is entirely possible under capitalism. Both can only exist as long as the money comes from capitalism, communism is dead and has no future but fascism is extremely useful and versatile and appeals to people on many different levels which is why it is so dangerous... we are back to that might is right thing again... either by physical power or financial...

Just to be brief Stalin and Hitler carved up Poland knowing full well there would be a reckoning at some point. Both had the same objectives yes, they could not however coexist and both knew it from the outset. It can be argued the west and Russia right now is carving up the Ukraine in modern day terms and politics rather than casualties. Russia is not communist any longer however and China is about as capitalist as you can get. The US is or could be argued has been slipping more and more towards fascist principles as time moves on, also the rise of right wing parties is growing throughout Europe. No one can deny the US today is far less free than it has ever been whilst Russians are more so than ever in history. You are im sure aware of the history in Russia in the 20th century and assume you know where the funding came from and who championed/financed who to create red Russia in the first place ? it was not home grown.

Ill tell you something about AI which was one major factor of my leaving, it became more and more politically entwined and selective in being vocal and continues to shy away from critisizing too loudly of certain atrocities of certain nataions. It is not unfortunately as publicly critical of certain nations infringements of human rights as it is to others or as it once was,This is mainly due to where the sponsors and funding comes from. Predominantly it comes from western Nations. This has led to a conflict of interest in its neutrality and its fundraising, for example towards torture of prisoners by western nations and incarceration without trail etc.. in short there was and is a reluctance to be as visibly critical towards more sponsoring nations as it is towards others. Internally many of us believed as it had always done AI should hold that standard higher by progressive nations and AI should be even harsher and critical if a civilised free nation began to slip backwards. Sadly that was not the feeling of the fundraising division, it argued you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you so much as it would damage funding and ego more good we could do globally. It has also become what id term as infiltrated by the wrong kind of executive and interlinked to other large cooporate or government bodies by these ex personnel. As an example recently in 2011 Hilary Clintons once state dept aid became head of AI in the US. As a result it has diminished the credibility and integrity of AI, a bit like the UN, Many of us left in the 90s and 00s because of it.

I am not for one moment suggesting Russia is a saint, of course not but I am suggesting the west has a territory grab agenda much more covert and also willing to use nazi stongarm groups or indeed terrorists to further its cause. Really it has little of the peoples interest at heart. It is wrong to try and westernise the entire world and it cannot be acceptable to ratify a neo nazi unelected gov in Kiev and claim it is constitutional whilst claiming a free vote given in Crimea to all is not.

No one system or ideal is perfect of course but I know only one that is interested in subverting and controlling the entire world today by dealing with anyone at all, however morally reprehensible they may be. There are no moral standards any longer, if there ever was. That should be a concern

Most Russians are good, hardworking people that have to endure things the West cannot comprehend.

Most Russian politicians are corrupt and operate in a mafia like fashion. The Russian political system and the word ideal cannot even be muttered in the same chapter, much less the same sentence.

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

I highly suggest people read this article so that are not fooled by the Putineque propaganda that the Ukraine movement against Putin's rule is about Nazis. That's a pure lie and a wild exaggeration. Actually, the more fascist side BY FAR is Putin. No, it's not a simplistic black and white thing, that's for sure, but propagandists thrive on people wanting things to be SIMPLE.

One thing fascinating about this Ukraine situation is how it shows the impact of WW2 is far from over in that part of the world. Nazis, fascists, authoritarian dictators, anti-semites, homophobes (they didn't have that word then), invasions based on ethnic justifications, it's got it all!

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/21/280759125/what-it-means-when-the-wolf-cries-wolf-fascism-in-ukraine

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

I highly suggest people read this article so that are not fooled by the Putineque propaganda that the Ukraine movement against Putin's rule is about Nazis. That's wildly simplistic and a wild exaggeration but it plays right into Putin's game. Actually, the more fascist side BY FAR is Putins. No, it's not a simplistic black and white thing, that's for sure, but propagandists thrive on people wanting things to be SIMPLE.

One thing fascinating about this Ukraine situation is how it shows the impact of WW2 is far from over in that part of the world. Nazis, fascists, authoritarian dictators, anti-semites, homophobes (they didn't have that word then), invasions based on ethnic justifications, it's got it all!

Some snippets. Please read the entire article. It has a perspective I don't think anyone has posted here yet.

The article also explains in detail why there is a very strong connection and relevance between Putin's scapegoating of gays, his invasion of Ukraine, and his greater plans for a greater Russia with his Eurasian Union plan.

Putin is using gays like Hitler used Jews. I'm not suggesting he is going to set up death camps for them, but politically it's the same game.

In their neighborhood, on the other side to the east, is Russia. And here's where things get a little bit interesting and complicated because Russia under Vladimir Putin has this idea of building up a rival to the European Union. This rival is going to be called the Eurasian Union, and it's going to be based upon a completely different set of values.
Rather than rejecting the worst of the 20th century, as people in Western Europe see it, rather than rejecting fascism and communism, the idea is to draw elements of fascism and communism, what seems to be most useful. Rather than being liberal and democratic, the idea is to oppose liberal democracy.

And for Putin personally, the Eurasian Union, which is at the moment his pet project and his idea of a legacy, will only be meaningful if it includes Ukraine. And for it to include Ukraine, Ukraine has to be some kind of authoritarian regime that seems to be sufficiently under his control.

...

Calling an entire nation or calling an opposition group Nazis is a very cynical move, and it's a cynical move that one has to resist, or else one gets drawn down into it oneself. And then the next time around, one finds that one no longer has anything to hold on to morally or symbolically.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/21/280759125/what-it-means-when-the-wolf-cries-wolf-fascism-in-ukraine

Edited March 23, 2014 by Jingthing

sustento · March 23, 2014

If things had stayed as they were what would Russia have done when Ukraine applied to join NATO? Sat and watched as the home port for the Black Sea Fleet disappeared?

Edited March 23, 2014 by sustento

Jingthing · March 23, 2014

If things had stayed as they were what would Russia have done when Ukraine applied to join NATO? Sat and watched as the home port for the Black Sea Fleet disappeared?

First of all, they weren't even close to joining NATO.

Second of all, the Crimea situation could have been negotiated in a civilized way. Rather than breaking a clear treaty ... respect borders for giving up nukes.

folium · March 23, 2014

potentially you bet they had a lot to fear from an unelected right wing gov in Kiev. History repeats if people are not watchful especially Fascism. You might want to take the rise of it in Europe and the US and right wing ideals being legitimised more seriously because Russians most certainly do for a very good reason and lessons hard learned. Im afraid I am not a fan of, self installed foreign state sponsored neo nazi or far right coalitions not even if it is the EU/US saying its ok, it is far from it.

I dont wish to get off topic but this is far from simple and yes the agents provocateur IS who i said, there are a few reasons for this, not in the least the Syria and Russian solution last year frustrating the US war machine. Putin has done exactly what was expected by many, manoeuvred into it maybe yes... problem reaction solution my friend. There isnt any innocents here, not Russia not the EU and not the US. neither am i defending Putin i simply try to see the chess move for what it is from Russias perspective.

So is the current political set up in Moscow the ideal solution?

Why is it "especially fascism" that repeats if people are not watchful. Do you not mean authoritarian rule in general or is it only right wing versions that provide the problem?

You seem to overlook that Stalin and Soviet Russia happily shook hands with Nazi Germany to slice up Poland and Romania, only later did the thieves fall out. Authoritarian despots can call themselves fascist or communist but the objectives are the same, and the victims likewise. I'm sure that the 20,000 Poles murdered by the Russians (though they did try to blame the Germans) in the Katyn Forest in 1939 were so grateful that there murderers called themselves socialist/communist, it must have made such a difference to them as they died...

You worked for AI, how does AI get on in today's Russia...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/russian-authorities-raid-amnesty-international-office.html?_r=0

The US and other western countries are far from perfect but by comparison with Russia? It's like comparing the alleged rule of law in LOS with the rule of law operating in the UK. Not perfect but somewhat different in application. Red Bull anyone?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/the-red-bull-heir-and-inequality-in-thailand.html

There is no such thing as an ideal political set up, theres always an opposition and every system is flawed. It is however not possible to have pure communism any longer, Moscow relies on capitalism just as Beijing realised what it was facing and changed. Russia cannot return to communism Fascism however is entirely possible under capitalism. Both can only exist as long as the money comes from capitalism, communism is dead and has no future but fascism is extremely useful and versatile and appeals to people on many different levels which is why it is so dangerous... we are back to that might is right thing again... either by physical power or financial...

Just to be brief Stalin and Hitler carved up Poland knowing full well there would be a reckoning at some point. Both had the same objectives yes, they could not however coexist and both knew it from the outset. It can be argued the west and Russia right now is carving up the Ukraine in modern day terms and politics rather than casualties. Russia is not communist any longer however and China is about as capitalist as you can get. The US is or could be argued has been slipping more and more towards fascist principles as time moves on, also the rise of right wing parties is growing throughout Europe. No one can deny the US today is far less free than it has ever been whilst Russians are more so than ever in history. You are im sure aware of the history in Russia in the 20th century and assume you know where the funding came from and who championed/financed who to create red Russia in the first place ? it was not home grown.

Ill tell you something about AI which was one major factor of my leaving, it became more and more politically entwined and selective in being vocal and continues to shy away from critisizing too loudly of certain atrocities of certain nataions. It is not unfortunately as publicly critical of certain nations infringements of human rights as it is to others or as it once was,This is mainly due to where the sponsors and funding comes from. Predominantly it comes from western Nations. This has led to a conflict of interest in its neutrality and its fundraising, for example towards torture of prisoners by western nations and incarceration without trail etc.. in short there was and is a reluctance to be as visibly critical towards more sponsoring nations as it is towards others. Internally many of us believed as it had always done AI should hold that standard higher by progressive nations and AI should be even harsher and critical if a civilised free nation began to slip backwards. Sadly that was not the feeling of the fundraising division, it argued you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you so much as it would damage funding and ego more good we could do globally. It has also become what id term as infiltrated by the wrong kind of executive and interlinked to other large cooporate or government bodies by these ex personnel. As an example recently in 2011 Hilary Clintons once state dept aid became head of AI in the US. As a result it has diminished the credibility and integrity of AI, a bit like the UN, Many of us left in the 90s and 00s because of it.

I am not for one moment suggesting Russia is a saint, of course not but I am suggesting the west has a territory grab agenda much more covert and also willing to use nazi stongarm groups or indeed terrorists to further its cause. Really it has little of the peoples interest at heart. It is wrong to try and westernise the entire world and it cannot be acceptable to ratify a neo nazi unelected gov in Kiev and claim it is constitutional whilst claiming a free vote given in Crimea to all is not.

No one system or ideal is perfect of course but I know only one that is interested in subverting and controlling the entire world today by dealing with anyone at all, however morally reprehensible they may be. There are no moral standards any longer, if there ever was. That should be a concern

"pure communism"...?

While a fantastic concept in theory, pure communism has never flown as a practical approach beyond the walls of the Reading Room of the British Museum. It just does not fly when confronted with real people in real situations. Please name a single country that has applied "pure communism" with any degree of success or just sticking to the principles laid down by Karl.

Capitalism is not a political system, just an efficient means of allocating capital. Ironically the notion of capitalism was actually introduced by Marx, so at least he got something right! Capitalism comes in many shapes, sizes and forms and while an epithet to some, underpins every functioning economy at least to some degree. Any form of political system is possible in conjunction with capitalism as it is the classic chameleon.

This enduring appeal of fascism...? Where? Since 1945 only Franco's Spain and Peron's Argentina have demonstrated any rerun of the fascist approach. "Fascism"/"fascist" are more epithets than reality since 1945 and are probably the most misunderstood and wrongly applied concepts out there today.

You seem to be very willing to give the Russians a pass re the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, which in reality enabled two brutal dictators to get exactly what they wanted and Stalin's major motivation was that the non-aggression agreement between Nazi Germany and Russia would enable Germany's malign intention to be focused in a westward direction. Funny how Russia denied the existence of this shameful deal until 1989. Russia even entered into negotiations with Germany in late 1940 about becoming a fourth member of the Axis (with Japan and Italy) to take on the USA and UK globally. Also the German-Soviet Commercial Agreements of 1939 and 1940 supplied Hitler with vast quantities of raw materials from Russia and Manchuria, thus enabling Germany to keep in the war and defeat the British naval blockade. Stalin was a very willing partner.

Stalin ignored all warning re German duplicity, failed to mobilize his reserves and thus lost all land gained in the carve up of Poland and Romania and suffered almost 5 million casualties in the first few weeks of the German invasion. At least from Stalin's POV there was nothing inevitable about this falling out of dictators.

I presume the comment about the US slipping into fascism is just to wind up the "cousins" as it is certifiable nonsense...!

You conveniently conflate extreme nationalist sentiment with "fascism", which is a powerful epithet but quite misplaced when referring to most European extreme right wing organizations. Fascism is a world apart from the street brawling, racist thuggery employed and enjoyed by the likes of Jobbik, Golden Dawn or the BNP.

If you actually take a workable definition of fascism:

" a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

The European country that most resembles this is Putin's Russia.

Perhaps that's why the Russian propaganda machine is so insistent on the "fascist threat" from Kiev... It would also explain why Putin is so hostile to organizations such as AI. Can't let the cat out of the bag now....

What I do find tragically laughable is Putin banging on about respecting self-determination and defending the rights of minorities while this is the same man who literally crushed Chechnya and installed a brutal warlord to exterminate any possibility of self-determination or minority rights.

China is also having a major fit about the concept of Putin heralding self-determination and the right to secession. Does not quite fit with Beijing's terror of Tibet or Xinjiang seceeding. Luckily for both sides it is so obvious that Putin has absolutely no interest in respecting the rights of groups to enjoy self-determination unless it permits him to bully his neighbours, annex real estate and behave in an almost "fascist" like manner.

Quick question...

when was the last time the USA annexed a piece of another sovereign nation?

The US, or any other nation, is far from perfect, but what we have seen from Putin in the last few weeks is a rerun of, at best, imperialistic style operations that would not feel out of place in the mid 19th century. Ripping up boundaries, however artificial (which they all are) or imperfect (which many are), sets a terrifying precedent.

folium · March 23, 2014

If things had stayed as they were what would Russia have done when Ukraine applied to join NATO? Sat and watched as the home port for the Black Sea Fleet disappeared?

No, they had extended the lease in 2010 (with a bit of arm twisting and bank account boosting) on the Crimean bases to 2047. Also do not forget that Russia has a considerable Black Sea coastline, a major port at Novorossiysk (considered as a replacement for Sevastopol when the lease extension was in doubt), and has been building an alternate naval base in occupied Abkhazia with its convenient Black Sea coastline (and proximity to fun packed Sochi).

folium · March 23, 2014

An interesting side-effect of the fact that most Russians squirrel their wealth and family as far away from the motherland as possible, the moderately corrupt use Cyprus while the premier league of Russian thieves use London, is that at least we will get to know our future enemies. The UK has always happily taken the money from thieving foreign types keen to give their children a decent and safe place to be educated.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan literally bumped into an old friend from Oxford University (Prince Radzwili) during the battle of Balaklava in the Crimea. Two contemporaries of mine from school met up in Port Stanley in early 1982 at the end of the Falklands War, one in the Welsh Guards, the other (surprisingly given the fact he was the offspring of a well-connected kleptocratic family) doing his national service in the Argentine marines. My son has both Russian and Ukrainian children in his class at school, the latter only seem to be from Eastern Ukraine or from oligarch families connected to Yanukovich's regime. Perhaps the non Russian Ukrainians haven't stolen enough money yet!

London is the criminal financial centre capital of the world and always has been.

No, for many financial products/instruments London is the financial capital of the world. It also caters for certain dodgy clients as it always has, but they make up a tiny, if very visible, proportion of total business. Its rather like saying all farangs are low-life scum scoring badly on the teeth to tats ratio....

englishoak · March 23, 2014

Communism ie pure as in fully practising to the level of the former USSR, China and N Korea, the only one left relatively is N korea, of course "pure" communism can only ever exist on paper and not in the real world with real people. sure capitalism isnt a political system or is it ? it is a form of ism and used to great effect, so is capitalism political ? the word politics "activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government." it is fair to say capitalism plays a huge part in the modern political systems of today.

Im not going to get so far off topic fol and im winding no one up in my comments of the US becoming more Fascist over time there is no doubt about there is no real choice in US politics and hasnt been for a good while left and right are almost one and the same.

fascist,if you take out the leader and word dictator this a very good description of US policy both at home and abroad " a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Fascism "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." it dosnt have to include a swastika or right arm salute it just has to tick the boxes, there is military force and there is financial and both can as are used aggressively. Would you deny this is an accurate growing aspect of the US both at home and abroad ? how does the name Department of homeland security sound ? or the NSA National security Agency ? does it sound democratic and passive or fascist, nationalistic and aggressive ? at the very least it is very state sounding under the guise of its for the peoples interest when really it is not owned nor controlled by the people at all.

It is amusing that some are claiming Putin is the fascist now all of a sudden, this is spin since he cannot any longer be simply called a commie the other word now being applied is fascist. This is just wrong you can call him autocratic or even say he practices soft despotism but hes far from fascist, western media ( all the same owners ) would like the word fascist to stick as its a convenient and emotional response word, but Russia never has been and if you ask any fascist organisation they would laugh at the suggestion. Communism ( which Russia still is in thinking in many ways as is Putin ) and fascism are in fact more or less diametrically opposed.

Annexing is not really a concern if an area and its people are more than willing,with a vote this is called freedom of choice and there is nothing bad about people having a choice. it is when violence or repression is used it becomes evil, (troops may be intimidation for some or security for others ) other than that it is just another way of redrawing national borders regarding responsibility, Crimea has willingly given it to Russia whereas the others would rather it be given to the EU with the rest of Ukraine but without any choice. Which for the people of Crimea is more democratic ? Its still just sour grapes, rules are there to be broken as the US and many UN western nations and others have shown to be the case many times over.

Time to take this to PM if you wish to discuss the rise of Fascism/state in America its ideals and the method of its usage in the modern world and politics. I welcome the debate but its off topic here in this thread

Edited March 23, 2014 by englishoak

englishoak · March 23, 2014

An interesting side-effect of the fact that most Russians squirrel their wealth and family as far away from the motherland as possible, the moderately corrupt use Cyprus while the premier league of Russian thieves use London, is that at least we will get to know our future enemies. The UK has always happily taken the money from thieving foreign types keen to give their children a decent and safe place to be educated.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan literally bumped into an old friend from Oxford University (Prince Radzwili) during the battle of Balaklava in the Crimea. Two contemporaries of mine from school met up in Port Stanley in early 1982 at the end of the Falklands War, one in the Welsh Guards, the other (surprisingly given the fact he was the offspring of a well-connected kleptocratic family) doing his national service in the Argentine marines. My son has both Russian and Ukrainian children in his class at school, the latter only seem to be from Eastern Ukraine or from oligarch families connected to Yanukovich's regime. Perhaps the non Russian Ukrainians haven't stolen enough money yet!

London is the criminal financial centre capital of the world and always has been.

No, for many financial products/instruments London is the financial capital of the world. It also caters for certain dodgy clients as it always has, but they make up a tiny, if very visible, proportion of total business. Its rather like saying all farangs are low-life scum scoring badly on the teeth to tats ratio....

Fol The finance sector, IS the biggest criminally involved industry on earth, bar none, be it LIBOR or market rigging or whale sized derivatives or a few criminal dodgy clients, London is especially good at it and the city of London is in fact the reason it resides there

Ever heard of the cooporation of the city of london ? Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG's wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn't get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. It is a tax haven in the heart of the UK

City of London (is a separate sovereign State located in the heart of greater London and not subject to British law) It is a Corporation.

The City of London is 677 acres. It is a financial district – but not part of UK.The ‘City’ in turn is run by the Bank of England – it is a private corporation. But the Bank of England dictates to the UK Parliament.

City of London and London City are not the same. In fact City of London does not belong to UK, England, Great Britain or Britain.

The City is not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA. The City of London is a privately owned corporation operating under its own flag, with its own constitution and free from the legal constraints that govern the rest of the country

An interesting useless or maybe not fact is this. The Bar Attorneys of the US owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown (City of London). All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

Look into it the city of london, it has extremely special rules and laws it is no coincidence at all the financial sector resides there.

Vatican City and Washington DC are also sovereign City States. It is no coincidence Wall street is where it is either btw. Look into it of you wish its all there in black and white.

sorry its off topic scott but its relevent in a loose way.

Edited March 24, 2014 by englishoak

Scott · March 24, 2014

I am going to let the last few posts remain, but IMO, they really are getting a little bit too far off-topic. Interesting, though.

chuckd · March 24, 2014

The District of Columbia is not a "sovereign city state". It is a Federal District established by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

It falls under the jurisdiction of the US Congress and is not self governing.

englishoak · March 24, 2014

The District of Columbia is not a "sovereign city state". It is a Federal District established by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

It falls under the jurisdiction of the US Congress and is not self governing.

A city-state is an independent or autonomous entity, not administered as a part of another local government, look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state

Not being part of any U.S. state, Washington, D.C.'s government operates under authority derived from the U.S. federal government. The city (generally referred to as the District of Columbia) is run by an elected mayor and a city council. the U.S. Congress has the ultimate plenary power over the District. It has the right to review and overrule laws created locally and has often done so. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves to states all rights not belonging to the federal government, does not apply to the District. Residents of the District have one non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress.

The United States of America is the Republic government created by the states, for the states, created by the people, for the people and then there is the US government, which is a corporate government, or corporation. This federal government, should be called the United States of America, Incorporated.

Washington DC was established as a city-state in 1871 with the passage of the Act of 1871, which officially established the United States as a corporation under the rule of Washington, Corporations are run by presidents, which is why you call the person perceived to hold the highest seat of power in the land "the president." .Washington DC originally operated under a system based on Roman Law and outside of the limitations established by the US Constitution. The name Capitol Hill derives from Capitoline Hill, which was the seat of government of the Roman empire.

Washington DC is the manifestation of an idea created to actually limit a necessary beast of federal government to within specific boundaries or borders, its cage so to speak. Outside its jurisdiction, this organ of government has little or no power. Inside its jurisdiction is a different story however. Inside its jurisdiction this entity of government is all powerful. Humans are property, equal to other animals, and viewed like all property in its jurisdiction, solely owned by the state.

Physically inside the boundaries of DC the federal branch of government, those in office and by constitutional authority, wield absolute power, or 'exclusive jurisdiction whatsoever.' Outside the physical boundaries of Washington DC, the legal power behind their jurisdiction of the federal government remains, however it is significantly limited by the brilliant works of the Founding Fathers. The People are the ones vested with the power to limit government, not the residents.

Originally, the founders put the Federal Government in its own district box of ten miles square in DC, In this fashion the Federal Government was protected from local politics by having the ability to provide its own security. Concentrating all this power into a relatively minor physical area of the country meant the Founding Fathers likely never imagined that the vast majority of Americans would consider that their home, domicile or jurisdiction by which they recognize their 'legal presence.'

I believe if now lays within the limitations of the US constitution and congress yes and i was wrong to use the word sovereign as the US does not have a sovereign, apologies but it is still a city state.

scott I know

Edited March 24, 2014 by englishoak

Scott · March 24, 2014

Now, back to 95.5% of Crimeans vote......

Please.

Jingthing · March 25, 2014

Obama disses Putin in the new G7, not G8 because self isolated Russia has been booted out.

Calls Russia just a regional power, and WEAK.

Good move!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/25/obama_nuclear_presser_president_takes_a_shot_at_vladimir_putin_s_ego_by.html

"With respect to Mr. Romney's assertion that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that America's got a whole lot of challenges. Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neigbors—not out of strength, but out weakness.

"Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the break-up of the Soviet Union. And we have considerable influence on our neighbors, we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and laid bear these violations of international law indicates less influence not more.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Jingthing

F430murci · March 26, 2014

Obama disses Putin in the new G7, not G8 because self isolated Russia has been booted out.

Calls Russia just a regional power, and WEAK.

Good move!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/25/obama_nuclear_presser_president_takes_a_shot_at_vladimir_putin_s_ego_by.html

"With respect to Mr. Romney's assertion that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that America's got a whole lot of challenges. Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neigborsnot out of strength, but out weakness.

"Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the break-up of the Soviet Union. And we have considerable influence on our neighbors, we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and laid bear these violations of international law indicates less influence not more.

Obama does not need to dis him. He is a 5 foot nothing with a Napolean complex and obviously repressed homosexual or he would not be so anti gay. Just sayin.

Edited March 26, 2014 by F430murci

luk AJ · March 26, 2014

Krimea was always Russia since 1780. Also during the USSR time. I think it was Krushchef who decided one day to annex Krimea to Ukrain. The reason was probably because he had more power in Ukrain since he was born in that region. So when the USSR collapsed Krimea was automatically independend with Ukrain. So most pf the Krimean population is Russian. I really dont understand the reaction of foreign powers against the annexation of Krimea to Russia. It is the will of the people and why suddenly this is not democratic?

Jingthing · March 26, 2014

Krimea was always Russia since 1780. Also during the USSR time. I think it was Krushchef who decided one day to annex Krimea to Ukrain. The reason was probably because he had more power in Ukrain since he was born in that region. So when the USSR collapsed Krimea was automatically independend with Ukrain. So most pf the Krimean population is Russian. I really dont understand the reaction of foreign powers against the annexation of Krimea to Russia. It is the will of the people and why suddenly this is not democratic?

Because it was an aggressive land grab by Putin and blatantly broke a treaty where Russia agreed to respect the borders of Ukraine (which included Crimea) in exchange for giving up all of their nukes. Putin has now shown he is a bad faith player and now Russia deserves more of the isolation that they've basically and self destructively ASKED for. Kicking Russia out of the G8 is a good start. Expect more. Not that anyone expects Russia to give up Crimea now. To stop them from going further. Putin has proven he doesn't care about international treaties. This situation probably won't get better until the Putin era ends ... who knows when ... probably not anytime soon.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Jingthing

Jingthing · March 27, 2014

In the recent U.N. resolution vote denying the validity of the referendum vote in Crimea, we know who voted against it but I am wondering where Thailand voted. Not against, so either for or abstain. Does anyone know?

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday passed a non-binding resolution declaring invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum earlier this month on seceding from Ukraine, in a vote that Western nations said highlighted Russia's isolation.

There were 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly. Two dozen countries did not participate in the vote, either because they did not show up or because they have not paid their dues, U.N. diplomats said.

Voting with Russia:

Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-general-assembly-declares-crimea-secession-vote-160533984.html

folium · March 27, 2014

In the recent U.N. resolution vote denying the validity of the referendum vote in Crimea, we know who voted against it but I am wondering where Thailand voted. Not against, so either for or abstain. Does anyone know?

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday passed a non-binding resolution declaring invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum earlier this month on seceding from Ukraine, in a vote that Western nations said highlighted Russia's isolation.

There were 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly. Two dozen countries did not participate in the vote, either because they did not show up or because they have not paid their dues, U.N. diplomats said.

Voting with Russia:

Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-general-assembly-declares-crimea-secession-vote-160533984.html

Thailand voted in favour of the resolution. Those opposing were the usual Russian lap dogs ( Venezuela, Armenia, Zim, N. Korea, etc), those abstaining were China plus lots of micro states and those who fancy some hot Russian cash in the future.

Looks like regional bully boy and its diminutive despot got "owned"....

Jingthing · March 27, 2014

I'm a little surprised Thailand didn't vote abstain.

F430murci · March 27, 2014

In the recent U.N. resolution vote denying the validity of the referendum vote in Crimea, we know who voted against it but I am wondering where Thailand voted. Not against, so either for or abstain. Does anyone know?

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday passed a non-binding resolution declaring invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum earlier this month on seceding from Ukraine, in a vote that Western nations said highlighted Russia's isolation.

There were 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly. Two dozen countries did not participate in the vote, either because they did not show up or because they have not paid their dues, U.N. diplomats said.

Voting with Russia:

Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-general-assembly-declares-crimea-secession-vote-160533984.html

Wow, the cream of the crop countries backing Russia . . . Russia should be proud.

Jingthing · March 27, 2014

The dirty dozen they call them (but not quite an actual dozen). Indeed, Russia is the top dog of the pariah nations now. I suppose it's something.

Good on China for at least abstaining.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Jingthing

folium · March 27, 2014

And let's not forget that Russia has been blocking/vetoing any UN Security Council resolutions relating to Crimea just like Russia has been vetoing all resolutions aiming to bring a resolution to the crisis in Syria so his lapdog Assad can keep on murdering the Syrian people to cling on to power.

Sign In

95.5 percent of Crimeans vote for joining Russia

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US