95.5 percent of Crimeans vote for joining Russia

[F430murci]

Freedom, Freedom, Freedom . . . That song from Woodstock resonates in my head when thinking of all things Russian right now and its manner of dealing with Ukraine, Crimea and surrounding areas.

----------

Russia's annexation of Crimea has led some to wonder whether any other former Soviet countries could follow. The separatist region of Trans-Dniester has already offered itself to Moscow - a request which Russia has promised to consider.

"It's been getting much worse in the past few months," said a mother of two who didn't want to give her real name and called herself Anna.

"They have closed, let me see...." she counts on her fingers. "Eight blogging sites. The secret police are so active now."

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26662721

Edited March 21, 2014 by F430murci

[whoisyourdaddy]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

Selective reading as usual buddy?

From the same link:

In modern times, Moscow has staged three major invasions: Hungary in November 1956 and Czechoslovakia in August 1968, when the Communist governments there began showing dangerously Western tendencies; and Afghanistan in December 1979, when the pro-Communist regime was on the point of collapse.

These were huge and brutal operations, involving large numbers of tanks, and sometimes great bloodshed.

The takeover of Crimea has been completely different. This was an infiltration, not an invasion. And unlike in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan it was welcomed by a large proportion of the local population.

You could compare Putin's annexation of Crimea with the 1938 Anschluss of Austria as there are many similarities....Let's hope the outcome is not so similar.

Intervention/infiltration/invasion...really just semantics and a smokescreen to cover over the simple fact that Putin has ripped up the existing world order and annexed another country's territory. Where next Vladimir?

Where ever the wind takes

[F430murci]

Grudge march, winner tale all . . . Or Crimea. This would be a much fairer fight than Putin rolling in the Spetsnaz and having a "vote" with the Spetsnaz hanging over you.

-----------

Heavyweight boxing champion Vladimir Klitschko urged Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday not to "repeat the mistakes of history" in his confrontation with Ukraine, the boxer's homeland.

"Every country, every former Soviet republic has its own desire and will to look in the direction they want to look - east, west, south, north. It's their own decision," he said.

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINDEEA2K02F20140321?irpc=932

[F430murci]

Crimea a result of forced capitulation or "welcome" on spired by duress.

Poor Ukraine. Now Russia wants $11b for gas and Russia apparently going to back out of gas deal because Ukraine no longer permitting access to Crimea. Ukraine is broke . . .

Perhaps Russia's way of telling rest of Ukraine side with us or everyone goes without gas/heat . . .

----------

From the photographs weve seen of the Russian special operations, or Spetsnaz, troops that intervened in Crimea, several things are obvious: They are secretive, moving without insignia and often covering their faces; theyre disciplined and theyre decisive.

. . .

Military analysts note some interesting characteristics of the Russian deployment: President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, chose something closer to a paramilitary covert action than a normal military attack. Because the troops didnt have Russian insignia, there was a thin veil of deniability, which the Russians exploited.

. . .

These bland denials of reality were useful in several ways: They maintained a fig leaf of legitimacy for an illegal intervention; they allowed Russia a chance (not yet taken) to de-escalate an operation that hadnt officially been acknowledged; and they distanced Putin in case things went badly and Ukrainians were killed.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-russias-military-delivers-a-striking-lesson-in-crimea/2014/03/18/c1273044-aed7-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html

Edited March 21, 2014 by F430murci

[Trembly]

[Credo]

Well, if they can't pay for the gas from Russia, perhaps they could go nuclear. It's not like they don't know a little about that.

[F430murci]

Foster Gamble is a looney. Please crawl back under rock and stop spreading Internet mental illness.

[whoisyourdaddy]

Excellent and eye opening video,though i am certain the usual suspects will be over shortly to dispute it all and of course make Putin the the only bad guy

Edited March 21, 2014 by whoisyourdaddy

[whoisyourdaddy]

Well, if they can't pay for the gas from Russia, perhaps they could go nuclear. It's not like they don't know a little about that.

With whose money? Let me guess US?

[F430murci]

Excellent and eye opening video,though i am certain the usual suspects will be over shortly to dispute it all and of course make Putin the the only bad guy

Haha, explains everything! Crystal clear now. Lolololol.

[F430murci]

Well, if they can't pay for the gas from Russia, perhaps they could go nuclear. It's not like they don't know a little about that.

With whose money? Let me guess US?

Although I think his statement was in jest, I think the way we are heading only the US, not Russia, could afford to do anything to help. So Putin, how's that anexxing working out for you.

--------------

U.S. stocks rise at open; Moscow sees billions in losses

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/03/21/stocks-friday/6683267/

[F430murci]

Well, if they can't pay for the gas from Russia, perhaps they could go nuclear. It's not like they don't know a little about that.

With whose money? Let me guess US?

Although I think his statement was in jest, I think the way we are heading only the US, not Russia, could afford to do anything to help. So Putin, how's that anexxing working out for you.

--------------

U.S. stocks rise at open; Moscow sees billions in losses

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/03/21/stocks-friday/6683267/

Getting back to my point, Putin's decision with Ukraine and Crimea are going to have dire economic consequences for Russia and perhaps these consequences will be the only thing to keep him in check when his closets friends, allies and supporters start putting pressure on him to back down. Russian economy was a mess before this and now it is abysmal.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Scott

[sotsira]

No, not all the population voted, but the majority did, any rational thinking person would know that you would never get a 100% voter turn out.

As for your interpretation of aggression i reiterate there was no violence or bloodshed, unlike what happened for weeks in Kiev by the anti government protesters, now that was plainly visible.

So when Argentina invaded and attempted to annex the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982 this did not constitute an act of aggression as there was little fighting and only 1 confirmed death.

Why did Russia need to deploy its troops across the Crimean peninsula, cutting off access from the north and securing key installations across Crimea? If invading another country with substantial military assets does not count as an act of aggression, heaven knows what makes your definition...!

In retaliation to the revolution in Kiev that overthrew the government of Victor Yanuckovych and the setting up of a new government to replace it.

That is why, and that is what all this is about.

So the usurping of a client regime in Kiev justifies a military intervention and annexation of the sovereign territory of another state....?

Not usually, but in this case yes, because the US & EU were behind the revolution, and Putin's ally Yanuckovych was the one overthrown.

You have to understand that Ukraine had very close ties with Russia before the West decided

to intervene with their politics, and you have to ask yourself why the West intervened, and for what motives.

[whoisyourdaddy]

Ukraine Won't Pay Russia For Gas, Has Billions In Obligations Due; Europe Promises Aid Money It Doesn't Have

the head of Russia's top natural gas producer Gazprom said on Wednesday that Ukraine had informed the company it could not pay for February gas deliveries in full, further adding to tensions between Moscow and Kiev. Alexei Miller said Ukraine's total debt to Gazprom for gas deliveries was nearing $2 billion. "Our Ukrainian colleagues informed us that they would not be able to pay in full for February gas deliveries," he told Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As reported by Reuters, Miller added that Ukraine managed to redeem only $10 million on Wednesday from a total debt of $1.529 billion. He said that Ukraine's debt would rise by $440 million on March 7, a deadline for payments. In other words, as of this moment the Ukraine already owes Russia $2 billion, or about double what John Kerry announced to much fanfare, the US would provide the country with in terms of aid. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-05/ukraine-wont-pay-russia-gas-has-billions-obligations-due-europe-promises-aid-money-i

[F430murci]

Below is actually a decent article. Ukraine is a disaster and the poor people have to be desperate for help from anyone.

As much as I love Russians, one has to ask how countries with such vast resources can be so poor and unproductive. Vodka and heroine? Perhaps a little. Has to be rampant corruption. This is what happens when countries are run by mafia and the politicians run the country with a mafia mentality. Giving any of these countries money is just a waste as they have squandered billions in aide money that finds its way to the elite in Russian, Ukraine et al.

What happens if Russia turns off the gas? That either forces the ridiculous bleeding hearts of the US to try and save a country that squanders what ever you give them or it forces Ukraine to go begging to Putin to take them back. This thing is far from over and Putin is setting the stage for this no win scenario of turning off the gas with his "pay up suckers" and no more gas deals now that we have Crimea rhetoric.

Everyone needs to peel back their pride, egos and resentments against countries and take a look here at what is happening, There is a really dire situation developing and 90% of the comments on here focus on the trees or background noise and distractions instead of the real problem here.

_________________

As Russia tightens its grip on Crimea, the European Union and the U.S. are poised to hand over billions in aid to Ukraine’s new leadership.

The interim government in Kiev, led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, has promised, in Yatsenyuk’s words, to pursue “real reforms to stabilize the Ukrainian economy” while strengthening ties with the country’s European neighbors.

Will they deliver? Here are four unpleasant truths about Ukraine and the people now running it.

. . .

2. Ukraine has squandered a staggering amount of foreign aid.

The EU has provided Ukraine with €13.8 billion ($19.1 billion) in grants and loans since 1991. Aid from the International Monetary Fund, and from individual governments that include the U.S., pushes the total well over $30 billion. On top of that, Ukraine has received massive aid from Russia in the form of discounted natural gas—a subsidy totaling $200 billion to $300 billion since 1991, says Emily Holland, a specialist on energy policy in the region who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Add it all up, and Ukraine has gotten far more aid than any country in the former Soviet Union, she says. And where has it gone?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-20/four-uncomfortable-truths-about-ukraine

Edited March 21, 2014 by F430murci

[folium]

Ah, were good. US economy is made to operate with existing debt. What amazes me how poorly people live in countries with low debt ratios. Countries with low debt ratios such as China, Estonia, Russia, Nigeria and etc. have such poor qualities of life. Most common Chinese live as squatters looking up at empty luxury high rise condos. Russian live crammed in little apartments and few can afford basic items such as automobiles or a pair of levis. I am kinds of liking how we live in comparison so US must be doing something right.

You right, Russia just can not afford anything.

Moscow has one of the worst traffic problems in the world, i guess its because so few can afford automobiles.

Moscow is one of the most if not the most expansive city in Europe, i guess its all the foreigners who pay the high prices.

Too funny. You are great. I was just in Moscow and can say without doubt traffic is horrible, but this is because their roads are a complete and utter disaster. They make no sense. Poor signage. Horrible drivers. Pot holes. There is traffic even in Siberia where no one hardly has a car because the roads are a disaster and at best an after thought.

Putin is too busy lining his and buddies own pockets to spend money for infrastructure or roads that make sense and are not full of pot holes and completely dilapidated.

Moscow is expensive due to oil wealth, high inflation, shortage of rental and real estate and etc. have driven prices up. A lot of wealthy individuals in Moscow, but still a very large portion of the population in Moscow live on a couple hundred bucks a month and Moscow is not indicative of Russian standard of living.

Look at Russian gdp per capital and spending power per capita. Abysmal. Russian income per capita. Abysmal. How may cars per capita in Russia. Abysmal.

And just to remind you of the glorious statistics re the economic miracle of Russia:

To put some flesh on the bone....

Russia 58th in world per capita GDP PPP

Car ownership 293/1000 people, 57th in world

Moscow has twice the population density of NYC

Average mortgage rates in Russia in 2013 were 12.7% http://www.bloomberg...sia-credit.html

Cost of living, pair of Levis equivalent to 20% of net average monthly income

http://www.numbeo.co...?country=Russia

And the real shocker: male life expectancy in Russia is 64.3 years, putting it at 124th in the world behind such glorious places of residence such as Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia and even Iraq! Lucky old Crimeans, so much to look forward to in the workers' siloviki paradise....

The high cost of living in Moscow puts it on a par with Luanda in Angola for many of the same reasons.

[F430murci]

Ah, were good. US economy is made to operate with existing debt. What amazes me how poorly people live in countries with low debt ratios. Countries with low debt ratios such as China, Estonia, Russia, Nigeria and etc. have such poor qualities of life. Most common Chinese live as squatters looking up at empty luxury high rise condos. Russian live crammed in little apartments and few can afford basic items such as automobiles or a pair of levis. I am kinds of liking how we live in comparison so US must be doing something right.

You right, Russia just can not afford anything.

Moscow has one of the worst traffic problems in the world, i guess its because so few can afford automobiles.

Moscow is one of the most if not the most expansive city in Europe, i guess its all the foreigners who pay the high prices.

Too funny. You are great. I was just in Moscow and can say without doubt traffic is horrible, but this is because their roads are a complete and utter disaster. They make no sense. Poor signage. Horrible drivers. Pot holes. There is traffic even in Siberia where no one hardly has a car because the roads are a disaster and at best an after thought.

Putin is too busy lining his and buddies own pockets to spend money for infrastructure or roads that make sense and are not full of pot holes and completely dilapidated.

Moscow is expensive due to oil wealth, high inflation, shortage of rental and real estate and etc. have driven prices up. A lot of wealthy individuals in Moscow, but still a very large portion of the population in Moscow live on a couple hundred bucks a month and Moscow is not indicative of Russian standard of living.

Look at Russian gdp per capital and spending power per capita. Abysmal. Russian income per capita. Abysmal. How may cars per capita in Russia. Abysmal.

And just to remind you of the glorious statistics re the economic miracle of Russia:

To put some flesh on the bone....

Russia 58th in world per capita GDP PPP

Car ownership 293/1000 people, 57th in world

Moscow has twice the population density of NYC

Average mortgage rates in Russia in 2013 were 12.7% http://www.bloomberg...sia-credit.html

Cost of living, pair of Levis equivalent to 20% of net average monthly income

http://www.numbeo.co...?country=Russia

And the real shocker: male life expectancy in Russia is 64.3 years, putting it at 124th in the world behind such glorious places of residence such as Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia and even Iraq! Lucky old Crimeans, so much to look forward to in the workers' siloviki paradise....

The high cost of living in Moscow puts it on a par with Luanda in Angola for many of the same reasons.

Two of our closets friends that went to the University with my wife are now investment bankers in Moscow. They live (family of 3) in approximately 1000 square foot condos, that costs close to $700k US and has mortgage interests rates of 13%. They have great jobs and can barely afford any luxuries or discretionary spending. They had a much better quality of life in Novosibirsk due to costs of living versus income levels.

The roads are so bad there. They are beyond belief. I think I read that LA County has almost twice the registered vehicles as Moscow, but I have never seen traffic like Moscow and it is bad at all times of the day and night.

A problem in Russia is Russia spends so little on infrastructure and taking care of its citizens. A national dental plan would be a good start as no one there has any teeth unless they are the wealthy elite. Health care is abysmal in Russia. Male life expectancy is probably cut short by the rampant alcohol and drug addiction in Russia. Perhaps they should focus on some type of national subsidized treatment centers to try and get their male population productive.

It is really no wonder that all of these hot Eastern European girls fall for older dudes like me as their choices are so bad in their home country . . . and they out number their poor choices perhaps due to the male mortality rates.

Russians are very endearing, strong and proud people. We have been trying to get my mother in-law to move over here and enjoy the simple, easy life. She, however, is stuck in a small 2 bedroom apartment with 5 other people, family members working as professional truck drivers that cannot afford their own places . . . They leach off her and she feels obligated to help them.

No matter how bad Russia is, Ukraine right now is even worse economically. Despite all of those natural resources, Ukraine is Eastern Europe's poorest country other than Moldova.

Edited March 21, 2014 by F430murci

[Jingthing]

It's time to wake up about what Putin is and how to handle this dictator.

Yes, Obama has messed up. He has started damage control but more will be needed. No more illusions and denial!

In my view, it is totally clear that Putin is planning to grab more land in the Ukraine and other countries OUTSIDE of Russia as we post. Probably not today or tomorrow, but he's working on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/garry-kasparov-its-time-to-stop-putin/2014/03/20/cf79d73e-b042-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html?hpid=z2

When Vladi­mir Putin formally annexed Crimea this week, he acted in defiance of the predictions of many pundits, politicians and so-called experts. Perhaps Putin was not impressed by their sound reasoning and elegant discourse on how his invasion and annexation threatened Russia’s interests. But the main problem with the West’s “Putin would never” arguments is that they assume Putin and his ruling elite care about Russian national interests. They do not, except in the few areas where such interests overlap with their goal of looting as much treasure as possible. It is long past time to stop listening to professors’ lectures about what Putin would never do and high time to respond to what he does — before he does it again.

...

The second hard truth is that there is no dealing with Putin, no mutually beneficial business as usual. He exploits every opening and feels no obligation to operate by the rule of law or human rights in or outside of Russia. Putin is a lost cause, and Russia also will be until he is gone. The West has been in denial about this for far too long, from George W. Bush’s infamous look into Putin’s soul to the Obama administration’s waste of four years on a “reset” with Russia that existed mostly as an American photo-op, not in lasting policy changes. It has always been an error to treat Putin like any other leader; now, there are no more excuses.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Jingthing

[Exsexyman]

Well, if they can't pay for the gas from Russia, perhaps they could go nuclear. It's not like they don't know a little about that.

With whose money? Let me guess US?

Although I think his statement was in jest, I think the way we are heading only the US, not Russia, could afford to do anything to help. So Putin, how's that anexxing working out for you.

--------------

U.S. stocks rise at open; Moscow sees billions in losses

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/03/21/stocks-friday/6683267/

So there we have it! Nazis at the heart of the unelected new government in Ukraine, roaming the streets, beating up patrolling policemen, beating and forcing the head of a TV station to resign for daring to show Putin's speech etc etc, but as long as US stocks rise that's all OK! Nazis from the Svoboda and PraviySector control 20% of the ministries in the new government. The new deputy national security minister, Dimitry Yarosh is on record as saying"I hope to be killing Jews and Russians until the day i die". The attack on the TV station head is just the tip of an iceberg in Ukraine now, there must be somebody working full time taking similar videos down from youtube as they are put up. To think that millions of people died in the 1940s fighting these ideologies, only for them to reappear in Europe now, courtesy of the USA and the EU. Shocking. Those on here trying to spin the recent events in the Ukraine as some kind of spontaneous popular uprising, i have even seen it stated that it has nothing to do with the US! I would like to hear the explanations for the following.

On the infamous F*** the EU leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador before the events in Kiev, the EU comment is all that anyone commented on. When the whole conversation is listened to they are clearly choosing, deciding who is going to be installed as the new Prime Minister. Nuland's choice was Yatsenyuk, or Yats as she affectionately calls him. She made it clear that the ex boxer Klitscho was not reliable enough. And so it came to pass that after the coup who was installed in the top job? Step forward 'Yats', Western friendly banker, protege and close friend of George Soros. What a coincidence!

Is anyone really surprised that Russia took the action they did in Crimea. To describe it as an armed invasion is a bit rich, considering they had 22,000 troops there perfectly legally under the existing agreement. What happened, did they all sneak out in the middle of the night and then march triumphantly back in again in the morning? All this hysterical screaming about Putin, the same as Hitler, Putin the evil dictator, etc etc is just that, hysterical screaming. I am certainly no cheerleader for Putin, far from it, i have no doubt that he is personally an unpleasant man with a power complex. Like all politicians. But like it or not he has an approval rating amongst the Russian people that Western leaders like Obama and Cameron can only dream about. That is the reality.

It is worth remembering that at the end of the Cold War, President GHW Bush gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev that the US would not encroach on the Russian sphere of influence, or expand NATO towards Russia. I have no doubt that President Bush was absolutely sincere in giving these assurances, but starting with President Clinton the US has reneged on these assurances many times, expanding NATO ever closer to Russia. Ukraine would have been the 'red line'. Russia has sat back and watched the USA topple sovereign governments and install puppets time after time after time. Just as in Ukraine. It is blindingly obvious that given Russia's legitimate naval interests in the Crimea they would not just sit back and suck this up, it is naive in the extreme to think otherwise.

In December Victoria Nuland gave a speech in Washington in which she explained triumphantly that the US has "invested" $5 dollars to subvert the elected government in Ukraine and tear them away from the Russian sphere of influence. $5 billion! On a country thousands of miles away on another continent. How many millions of American citizens on food stamps? Victoria Nuland is a Neo Con, whose husband is the Neo Cons Neo Con. She was appointed by Dick Cheyney. Yet here she is at the heart of the Obama administration in this very sensitive position. Speaks volumes about Barack's so called Liberal credentials! What a fraud he has been for all those who expected hope and change! How about if Russia had "invested" $5 billion dollars in an anti American opposition group in say Mexico, or Canada or Central or South America with the intention of fomenting a coup to overthrow the elected Government? I wonder what the reaction would be in the West! So much hypocrisy here. The so called invasion of the Crimea involved no deaths, not a drop of blood was spilled. It is also obvious that the vast majority of the Crimea voted to rejoin the Russian sphere of influence and want nothing to do with the Nazis now in effectively in charge in Kiev, and who could blame them. What is the US and EU"S answer to this? Ignore their wishes of self determination and force them? Ridiculous.

I reiterate, pointing out these uncomfortable (for the US-EU) facts regarding the Ukraine crisis and subsequent events in the Crimea doesn't mean that i am pro Putin, that is just silly. Like GW Bush's mantra that anybody who questioned the lies and the legality of the invasion of Iraq was automatically against the good guys, on the side of the terrorists. It was intellectual pygmyism then, and it is intellectual pygmyism now.

Victoria Nuland's speech in December, note she is standing in front of a large Chevron banner. Speaks volumes!

http://www.sott.net/article/273602-US-Assistant-Secretary-of-State-Victoria-Nuland-says-Washington-has-spent-5-billion-trying-to-subvert-Ukraine

The full recording of the F*** the EU phone call, in which Nuland is clearly choosing "Yats" to be installed as PM of Ukraine.

[englishoak]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

The annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany was, to a large degree, prepared by the Sudetenland Germans, who—after accepting with great reluctance the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which had placed them under Czechoslovak rule in 1919, after ww1 and Germany had lost the allies made them pay, it virtually guaranteed the rise of Hitler and reunification of the German people.

So no Crimea is nothing like it nor was there a vote in Sudetenland, you could say its similar to Austria rejoining with Germany having been given the option and overwhelmingly welcoming unification, that was not an invasion but no one is in any illusion the outcome was obvious once asked. In Sudentland it was only 2/3 majority of just the German vote followed by violence and destabilising pressure by the Nazis . In Crimea it was 97% of 83% of the entire population and peaceful

The agent provocateur is not in fact Russia but the unelected neo nazi linked EU and US backed regime in Kiev playing the part of destabilisation just as it was in 1938. Only then it was just US banks and business that were providing backing to the nazis.

Fol ill get around to answering you later

[benalibina]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

The annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany was, to a large degree, prepared by the Sudetenland Germans, whoafter accepting with great reluctance the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which had placed them under Czechoslovak rule in 1919, after ww1 and Germany had lost the allies made them pay, it virtually guaranteed the rise of Hitler and reunification of the German people.

So no Crimea is nothing like it nor was there a vote in Sudetenland, you could say its similar to Austria rejoining with Germany having been given the option and overwhelmingly welcoming unification, that was not an invasion but no one is in any illusion the outcome was obvious once asked. In Sudentland it was only 2/3 majority of just the German vote followed by violence and destabilising pressure by the Nazis . In Crimea it was 97% of 83% of the entire population and peaceful

The agent provocateur is not in fact Russia but the unelected neo nazi linked EU and US backed regime in Kiev playing the part of destabilisation just as it was in 1938. Only then it was just US banks and business that were providing backing to the nazis.

Fol ill get around to answering you later

Yes, the inhabitants of Crimea really had to fear alot from the neonazis and USA/Europe in Kiev !! Come on, u know better who is the "provocateur". Not defend the indefensible. Dont make yourself look like a fool.

[englishoak]

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.

[Jingthing]

Russia is invading neighboring countries because it thinks the Nazis are rising in Western Europe. Nobody sane actually believes that. Perhaps it's a good propaganda talking point for the gullible. I doubt even Putin believes that.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Jingthing

[folium]

Sure thing , Buddy, from your link:

The annexation of Crimea was the smoothest invasion of modern times. It was over before the outside world realised it had even started.

Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland was also not an invasion, right?

Fol ill get around to answering you later

I'll brace myself for the onslaught....! Bring it on!

[folium]

*Deleted posts edited out*

What is truly tiresome are blowhards who go long on bluster and personal insults but very short on supported, reasoned arguments. If you have a point to make, great, but no one (unless brain deficient) is convinced by intimidation and bluff. Back up what you say with evidence and people might take you more seriously.....For instance what about your claim that Russia has no colonial history, or have you conveniently forgotten that claim? If you keep on making statements that then get shot down which you then drop and you then just move on to the next unsubstantiated claim, don't be surprised if people get to find you tiresome in the extreme.

You have accused me on several occasions of fabricating history but have yet to post any counter to what I say. Sorry but I don't give a monkey's about pathetic bluster and intimidation, if you have a point to make, make it or you will end up just being ignored...

You have obviously convinced yourself with your own point of view, try convincing a more critical audience....

Over to you.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

Continued remarks directed at moderation will result in a suspension.

[englishoak]

Fol we will agree to disagree.

Invasion dosnt follow with a swift referendum usually. The Ukraines ownership of Crimea is and always has been questionable. Fact is the Crimean people were givena vote and it may not to be to the wests liking but its conclusive, that is also a fact that cannot be obscured.

As to Finland that is true but what you dont need or want is multiple fronts all along your border of EU states AND both by sea or land. That would be a disaster and a big security concern

The point in referencing these other examples such as Syria or Iraq or Kosovo is to highlight the lack of interest in what is legal or not in these examples, you can hardly point the finger when you dont take any notice of the rules yourself... its simply double standards and no surprise when another does the same.

Lead by example and there are many examples where UN security council members have not followed the rules and just done what they want, no point whining about another when it does the same.

I dont believe Russia is going to go any farther but i do expect the US to try to force things that way, its politics behind this little game of who can carve up Ukraine to whos best advantage... both sides.

US is talking about economic sanctions which will affect things globally, this is foolish but in line with trying to bring the rest of the world into an economic crisis that the US is already facing, last man standing is the winner kind of thing, in this case in economic terms. The possible result to other nations in hardship is very real and it will have been for what ? a couple of % that dont wish to join with Russia ? that does not make democratic sense at all. remember the people were asked and they spoke very clearly in favour.

The US is talking like no one in Crimea was asked... they were and that cannot be ignored or just brushed off because the Us or EU dont wish to recognise it... a few million others did vote yes and they wernt forced.. its their choice .. THAT is democratic

Glad you used the word "invasion" as that is exactly what has happened in the Crimea.

The boundaries and territorial extent of almost every nation are a function of usually unedifying political/military acts of the past. But that does not give other countries the right to start unpicking and redrawing those boundaries as they see fit.

Not sure where I have exercised double standards in relation to invasion/intervention in other sovereign states. I do take huge notice of the rules myself. Ironically while Russia's Afghan disaster curtailed its foreign interventionism for a while (and helped bring down the Soviet Empire), the West's own disasters in Iraq & Afghan are likely to see far less cavalier adventures for the foreseeable future. Hence the reason why Putin has invaded Crimea now and why the Soviets decided to invade Hungary in 1956 using Suez as cover.

The economic and demographic situation facing Russia is far from rosy and your verdict on the US is probably overstated. The Soviet Empire collapsed fundamentally due to its economy being a classic Potemkin edifice. The situation today is hardly more promising and long term it will need a government less driven by rent-seeking, cronyism and self-serving objectives if Russia is to stand any chance of genuine economic improvement for all its citizens (or even just the majority of them).

Referendums are not the issue. I am all in favour of self determination etc as long as the necessary institutions are in place to ensure that democracy is a whole lot more than just casting a vote. It will be interesting to see what the citizens of Crimea gain and lose by joining Putin's haven of human rights and freedom of expression. Is Russia a democratic country? Does Russia have the institutions and enshrined rights of a democratic government?

"In Russia, a new wave of repressive laws increased the ability of the state to clamp down on critical protest, demonstrations, individuals or organizations. Across the region, states also applied more insidious pressure on their critics: anonymous threats of violence, smear campaigns of drug use, promiscuity, or tax evasion." AI Annual Report 2013

Sorry to return to the geography lesson but you mentioned multiple fronts. Well....

Russia shares land and or sea boundaries with EU/NATO Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia, even Denmark via Greenland. The Russian "colony" of Kaliningrad is entirely surrounded by EU/NATO members. Then there are sea boundaries with NATO member Turkey, sea boundaries with NATO member Canada, sea boundaries with NATO member USA (more ex Russian colonies), and sea boundaries plus occupied territories originally belonging to western ally Japan. Heaven's above they are encircled and we are back to the whole containment debate of the Cold War.

Would you be in favour of Norway sending marines into the Orkneys/Shetland islands to annex them and redress the historical error of handing these islands over to Scotland? Should the UK retake and annex the Treaty Ports in the ROI handed over in 1938? Perhaps Germany might like to regain and annex its historical heartland in East Prussia lost in 1945. Perhaps Italy might decide to revive the Roman Empire and annex most of Europe, North Africa and the Near East....

Once players start crossing boundaries in terms of intervention and redrawing boundaries we move into incredibly dangerous territory.

It gives no platform to criticizing one nation if another or others illegally invade a country or if it fabricates a reason to... lets take Iraq as that example. I said at the time this will set precedent for others to do similar in the future and to hell with UN rules. Seems this is so. To throw stones its better not to live in a glass house

Double standards I was referring to to nations not you personally, Come on Crimea was given an opportunity to choose and it did. Now as far as annexing is concerned If Ukraine were to vote to join the EU it could be seen as annexing as well.

Russia of course is very not keen on having Ukraine as part of the EU with Turkey as a possibility on the future it is looking at being surrounded totally on the western borders.

Latvia Estonia Finland Norway are all minor concerns re the landmass border and logistics of defence they are minor ... the Ukraine is not, the Crimea is not and Turkey is not (such is the concern re Georgia ) yes they are surrounded re NATO but they are also part of NATO themselves anyway so its not really an issue.

PS re invasion.

Ukraine’s statement at the UN that ‘16,000 Russian soldiers had been deployed’ across Crimea sparked a feeding frenzy about invasion that steadfastly ignored any hard facts that got in their way.

Unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already. Russia has always had a military presence there with consent.People can say how the Republic of Crimea was under a full-scale Russian invasion with headlines like: “Ukraine says Russia sent 16,000 troops to Crimea”, “Ukraine crisis deepens as Russia sends more troops into Crimea,” as well as “What can Obama do about Russia's invasion of Crimea?”. you would reading that think thats all there is to it, but

Facts, and ardent statements by top Russian diplomats were totally ignored by the western ‘war press’. Which made me curious at the time so off I went and dug around and yes ive checked and it is true.There is in fact a longstanding 25,000 Russian troop allowance caveat in Crimea, airbases too not just naval.

The Russian navy is allowed up to - 25,000 troops, - 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm, - 132 armored vehicles, and - 22 military planes, on Crimean territory. Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.Russian coastal forces in Ukraine consist of the 1096th Separate Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment in Sevastopol and the 810th Marine Brigade, which hosts around 2,000 marines.Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures. source RT for ease but is easily checked and confirmed on other sources as I did a week or so ago.

Of course Russia has the right to fill entirely to its maximum allowance should it choose and it still wouldnt be an actual invasion. so the term invasion is actually dependent on this agreement that does exist.

However i prefer to call a spade a spade and am happy with the term invasion but it was not an invasion the word imply's of blood and violence. Determining boundaries is always fraught with problems and there are many cases of redrawing them, we could go on all day about examples.

​Ukraine has neo nazis in government I would suggest that Putin and Russia is far less a threat to instability in the region than they. The other question id ask is is the EU or the US tolerating these scum for ? much the same as people asked was the US thinking in wanting to back terrorist factions and unsavoury groups in the Syria crisis ? they still are btw.

You seem to be missing the point here...

Invading another country whether it be Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Afghan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Georgia, is one thing and Iraq hardly set the precedent for such actions. They have a regrettably far longer pedigree. What makes Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Crimea different is that its intent was quite simple. Namely that of annexing a piece of sovereign territory (and acknowledged as Ukrainian territory by Russia's signature of the Budapest Memorandum and which also pledged Russia to preserving Ukraine's territorial integrity).

The NATO and Russian intervention in Kosovo had no intent of annexation (though the Russians were initially attempting an ethnic partition along the lines of Bosnia Srbska), nor did the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even the Russian invasion/intervention in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia did not result in annexation, "merely" recognition of self-proclaimed independent states plus de facto military/political control of two pieces of Georgian territory. Similarly Nagorno-Karabakh has never been formally annexed by Armenia despite its triumph in the 1991-94 conflict in a situation somewhat similar to that of Crimea. Israel has not annexed the West Bank while it has annexed the Golan Heights (Syrian sovereign territory). The last major piece of annexation by Russia was in 1940, when they carved up Poland with the Nazis as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to create western extensions to the Ukraine and Byelorussia SSRs. They also annexed Romanian Bukovina to create the Moldavian SSR just for good measure. Ironically while many ethnically Ukrainian residents of these areas initially celebrated the arrival of the Soviets this soon soured and many of the same people ended up fighting both Russian and Nazi forces attempting to crush any form of local self-determination. Funny how things pan out.

Your facts and figures re permitted Russian force levels in the Crimea are quite correct but the conclusion is wide of the mark. While actual sovereign territory rather than leased bases, the British Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus provide an illuminating analogy. British forces are based on Cyprus and have the right of transit between the various base areas and installations. However if those troops were to move off the base areas and surround the parliament building in Nicosia, the international airports at Larnaca and Paphos, to blockade the port at Limassol and to invest all Greek Cypriot military installations across the Republic, that would be correctly termed an invasion.

This is exactly what Putin has done in Crimea, and by then annexing the occupied territory has set a hideously dangerous precedent.

Many people resent American primacy and Western moralising, but is what Putin has to offer a better path?

If might is right and the application of power is tolerated where does it end? Unilateral secession and annexations would create hideous conflicts around the world from S. Asia to the Middle East to Africa. The Biafra War in the late 1960's and the images it created is scarred onto my consciousness.

The pre Crimea world order was imperfect and far from ideal but it functioned with international agreements and borders largely respected. This action by Moscow is a major threat to global stability if borders are ignored and agreements broken at the whim of agenda-driven autocrats.

Ok so here I will grant you a few points, We are not even going to disagree on if it was technically right because it could have been done better but would never been allowed even if the people of Crimea demanded it. It had to be done this way or not at all Ill say again im not a fan of Putin but see the need for action both on a selfish level, national security and for Russians in Crimea.

Yes it is different in a manner but and there is a but Crimea is not historically Ukraine and it has only been so since the administration was handed over while Ukraine was part of the USSR, Russia has always had a strong military presence and an agreement to be there in force, there has been no concern whilst an operating elected Ukraine gov has been in place.This changed drastically only once the election process collapsed and in a large part fascist activists have taken over by force ( bloodily i might add) being recognised by the US and EU as legit is a joke, this may not seem like a big deal to the west but its hardly a democratic process and goes against many rules of the UN yet here it is and recognised. Why ? I would say there was a very real threat to Russian concerns for reasons we have been through and it matters to Russia and Russians. To them is would be a very big deal indeed.

The point I do not miss but just where is the right to recognise these rouge forces as the new regime without election ? Just who gives that the green light, the US and EU because its convenient and it has a majority vote in the UN and NATO ? unacceptable. Russia deemed it unacceptable and if the west is going to recognise an overthrow without free elections then Russias move to give Crimea a choice, have it so decisive an answer and annexe is quite possibly the best move to safety and stability there the Crimean people could wish for.

I would suggest the number of Russians in the Crimea had the right to protection from a rapidly growing threat in Kiev, Putin saw this and moved decisively to annexe yes but with the consent of the people, Iraq set the precedence of acting before having a clear provable reason, the US policy as with Israel has been pre emptive strikes or where there is a perceived threat action is taken. How is Russia reaction different to what I believe is a clear threat from an unstable unelected gov controlling the Ukraine ? apart from asking the people first.

Israel have been systematically reducing Palestine for decades to little more than the Jews had in walled off and strictly controlled areas in Germany. You bet its been annexed, surrounded and walled off Berlin wall style. Lets not get into Israel please what is going on there is nothing less than systematic genocide of Palestine, again backed by the US.

Where does it say American primacy or shifting morality is right or good for the rest of the world ? What right does the west have to impose its ideals on everyone and intentionally attempt to affect change in regimes or nations to further its own agenda ? Where is it written people cannot choose the Russians alternative ? Where does the west get the idea its rules can be broken only by select western powers with no penalty ? Where were the sanctions on the US over Iraq etc etc or for that matter any war its jumped into or invaded feet first ? the US is very very good at making war and also fabricating excuses or incidents to go to war. Financial and military domination is the answer, its not about morals its about as you said before....might makes them right.

I am concerned with the minorities there of course but what is done is done and so far without blood, attempting to escalate it further is not being instigated by Russia and will not help anyone. I do not believe Russia will be persecuting people in the Crimea, it is not the old soviet block and not closed off as in the past. Why not give the peaceful and overwhelming agreement by the people of Crimea a chance ? it is very possible it was the best thing they could have done as they now have the protection those in the rest of Ukraine do not if it spirals out of control.

You ask If might is right and the application of power is tolerated where does it end? Well the US has been doing exactly this in one form or another for a long long time, they set the standard of might is right even when its not right they use thier financial or military might all too often . It ends when the people of the world say enough and stop being sucked in by state media and propaganda .. that is btw the same in all nations. Russia is no better in the use of propaganda.

Might = right, tough luck, shut up and go away. We will do what we want with or without you if it is seen as being in the interest of the US, THIS is the precedence that has been set over decades. I do not blame Putin for doing the same and I might add less bloody than any US invasion or deployment has managed, ever.

Moscow is counting on getting away with it, in the interest of the bloodless manner it was done and in light of the fact the EU and US is happily prepared to sanction an unelected gov in kiev hand picked by them I personally think the west has nothing really to shout about having given rise to this crisis, two wrong do not make a right true but the west has been destabilising things in the Ukraine for a long time and couldnt wait to ratify to what amounts to just another puppet governed nation under what will soon be the control of the IMF for funding... i would say this is classic politics for furthering fascist corpocracy under the guise of distorted democracy but I digress.

Create a problem wait for the reaction and offer a solution, this is what has been going on in the Ukraine since the orange revolution, the problem is insecurity and a destabilised economy, the reaction comes from the peoples discontent as expected, the solution was supposed to be help by the EU and finance deals that would cripple the country further by imposing hiked gas prices and erroding living standards even further this in turn leads back to yet another problem, further reactions until all self determination and ability to govern would result in whatever the west required or demanded for returning more help (financial aid) in this case an unelected fascist party government yet backed and ratified and recognised by the west.

I believe Moscow just took the Crimea out of that equation. Of course it is entirely possible the reaction wanted was exactly Moscows intervention thereby causing problems that could be now palmed off and laid at the feet of Putin as the bad boy and all the woes of the Ukraine over the past decade refocused on Russias invasion/liberation/annexing/repatriation of Crimea , it didnt cause the destabilisation of the Ukraine it has been a reaction to it, but you can bet thats the way its going to be sold from here on. Misdirection is always a good tool to use.

Edited March 22, 2014 by englishoak

[Scott]

I more reminder about emotive posts. If you are going to use examples, then please do not do so in an inflammatory manner or your post will get deleted. Stick to the topic.

[benalibina]

The new government was never a threat for the inhabitants of Crimea.

The new government would be stupid to piss of its mighty neighbour Russia.

The precedent Russia now set is dangerous. I gave something years ago but i take it back now without discussion and care nothing about the consequences.

Power, greed, selfishness and pride as parameter.

From whatever angle one looks at it....it is wrong, regardless of all the wrongs the US of A has done in the past.

Anyway nationalism is rife nowadays by sily little make leaders who suffer from an inferioritycomplex and are only there for themselves. Example i saw on TV today is the PM of Turkey regarding blocking Twitter because of unpleasant remarks about him.

[Pakboong]

Some very interesting post regarding what happened. I for one am more interested in why it happened. It is looking very much like 1941 where the Ukrainian Army surrendered to the Nazis. Why they surrendered to the Nazis is IMO why we are seeing the surrenders and defections among the Ukrainians. For Crimea, it was a total no brainer. Go with Russia or relive the 1930s. Regardless of the details, this is what they voted for and against.