The Soviet Leader Krushchev, of Ukrainian origin, gave it away to the Ukranian SR.
Crimea (and East Ukraine) has been Russian since they took it from the Ottomans a couple of hundred years ago (and cleansed the Tatars).
Printable View
The Soviet Leader Krushchev, of Ukrainian origin, gave it away to the Ukranian SR.
Crimea (and East Ukraine) has been Russian since they took it from the Ottomans a couple of hundred years ago (and cleansed the Tatars).
Of course not. What's I am saying if the legal means, peaceful protests, etc are used to raise the issue of Crimea transfer to Russia, this will take decades, while the locals are being possibly harassed, persecuted, and subjugated by Kiev. Why should Crimeans have to go through this in the name of "International Law" which has failed so many other separatists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
The economy of places like parts of Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, to name a few, are tied to American military bases. So they should be part of America too, right?[/quote:ryj0h1ic]Quote:
[quote:ryj0h1ic]What do you know about what Putin and the rest of Russians feel about their ethnic keens in Crimea as well as the importance of Crimea to Russian history? To Russians, the situation of Russians in the Crimea was the main national cause celebre for the last two decades. The Black Sea Fleet was stationed there for as long as the black sea fleet existed (two centuries?). The majority of Crimea population are Russian and a huge part of their economy is tied to Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
The point here is that Russia gave it away. Talking about taking Crimea back is one thing. A military invasion is quite another.[/quote:ryj0h1ic]Quote:
[quote:ryj0h1ic] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Do not stray away from the main point I meant, which was to call BS on the "ethnic cleansing" fear mongering. I don't want to engage in rhetoric regarding other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
There is absolutely no credible evidence that the Russian population of Crimea was being "harassed, persecuted and subjugated" by Kiev. Though that's the smoke screen Putin has thrown up.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either. Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.Quote:
And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.Quote:
Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?Quote:
In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.Quote:
No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Within the same paragraph you state that: No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did.
It was never Russian property to take back. Maybe you didn't read your own words but Russia as a separate thing didn't exist until after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia did not give anything away; because they did not give anything away, they can not take back what was not theirs.
This is an invasion. Story. End of.
You don't seem to be reading what I was saying. The _future_ path to separating Crimea from Ukraine by legal means is indeed fraught with harassment and persecution for decades. Why should Russia or Crimea pay respect to the law which is never on the side of separatists? Saying why don't you secede by legal means is like asking people to condemn themselves to decades of struggle. What you observe right now is a nice clean break that's a lot better than wars and ugly sectarian mess observed elsewhere. The politicians in Kiev will thump their chests to score some political points at home, and the move on about doing other business. I'd be surprised to find that many in Ukraine are losing their sleep over "losing" Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Couple of things here: First, yes the US has done some not so nice things over the years. That's still no excuse for anyone else to do them either.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]And the United States indeed did a lot of shit around the world. The bloody US sponsored coup in Chile, absolutely illegal attack on Vietnam. The Second Iraq war. Where was the "International Law" then? International Law is basically on the side of those with force. Plain and simple. Sometimes it coincides with the needs of the strong countries in which case everything is done by the law and sometimes the strong do their thing anyways regardless of any laws.
That's not an excuse. I am just stating the fact that the "International Laws" that supposedly make Russian occupation of Crimea illegal are simply bent and twisted to serve the strong. They're meaningless. The strong follow the international law when it suits them, but make mockery of it when they want to do things their way. The USA has set plenty of ugly precedents already. If USA cared for International Laws and treaties, they wouldn't go to war unilaterally with Iraq. But they did? Why is that? They just could. International law always works and has force, except of course when it doesn't.
Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.Quote:
Second, your version of Vietnam is revisionist at best. Both Vietnam and the US were part of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) the east version of NATO and we were obliged by that treaty to come to the aid of SV. It was North Vietnam which sponsored the Viet Cong fighters in the south and later crossed the border into South Vietnam with it's own troops. That several US presidents were eager to honor the treaty doesn't change the fact that the treaty existed.
Please don't buy into the falsehood that all Americans are stupid and uneducated. I don't need to be an expert to know the basics of the situation.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]Like I said, what do you know about the place of Crimea in Russian History? Apparently nothing.
You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.
I've no issue with Russia talking about taking Crimea back. It's the armed invasion I have a problem with. Just like Georgia. Why not have a UN administered referendum and see what the citizens of Crimea want?[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1] In Putin's view, he is not expanding his influence. He's just taking back what was lost a couple of decades ago. Certainly, right now is the best time to raise the issue of Crimea. After all, why would have Russia raised the issue of Crimea at the time when its relations with Ukraine are at an all time high? When Ukraine was the poster child of the soviet union, they assigned Crimea to Ukraine. On the other hand, once the relationship with Kiev reaches an all time low, it seems like the appropriate time to talk about taking Crimea back.
Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The previous Russian leaders gave Crimea away, so with new leadership its OK to take it back? So anytime a country's leadership changes its alright to void treaties, invade neighbors and do what you will? I guess Mexico will be wanting Texas back; France will be wanting Canada back; Norway will want Iceland back; India will want Pakistan back; China will want large parts of central Asia and the middle east back; etc. etc. etc.[/quote:two08iy1]Quote:
[quote:two08iy1]No. that's the same thing. And Russia did not give anything away. The Soviet leadership did. Ukraine was the poster child of the Soviet Union and has received an amazing amount of resources from the center, besides Crimea. It's only appropriate that once Ukraine, despite all the bribing, Ukraine becomes independent and pursues openly anti-Russian policy that Russians ask for their property back.
You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.
I've highlighted the inconsistent part of this. It looks like you're trying to tell me what will happen in the future. If you can see ahead that well I could use a few stock tips and some lottery numbers. And, to logically follow your reasoning here, Russia should immediately get out of Chechnya.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
[/quote]Really? Have you heard of bullcrap known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which was the nice "legal" excuse used by America to start the Vietnam War? If Americans really wanted to respect the wishes of the people of Vietnam, instead of the puppet government in South Vietnam, they'd just let everyone hold a UN-led referendum on the unification of the country. Americans obviously did not want it as that would mean overwhelming victory of Communists. Instead they sign a bunch of treaties that "oblige" to defend the South, etc. Setting just another precedent of "legal by force of the strongest" proving my point.[/quote]
Now you are the one with a fuzzy grasp of history. SEATO was establish somewhat after WWII (September 1954) more or less at the end of France's war with the communist insurgents in (then) Indochina. The partition into North & South Vietnam was the settlement at the end of that war. Supposedly elections were to be held to resolve the issue, but that never happened as both the USSR & America were using it as proxies in their Cold War struggle and couldn't agree on terms of the election. Your reference to a UN held election is interesting as USSR was the one who objected to that. And, while many Vietnamese were communists, also many wanted no part of communism. The US already was in Vietnam by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin with advisers, helicopter transport for SV troops and supplies.
And what is now the (eastern) United States was an English colony for almost as long as its been a country. So what?Quote:
You're drawing a flawed analogy between a US Military base in Phillipinens and BSF in Crimea. What do you expect me to think? Crimea was Russian territory for over two centuries and with a large Russian populatin. Which part of that hard to understand? It was _the_ base of Russian Black Sea Fleet since pretty much the time it was created. Russians fought for it in three wars.
Actually I do. Not happily, but yes. That election will never happen though because Russia also has veto power.Quote:
Why not? Good question. Do you really believe it could ever happen with US having veto power on the security council?
I understand your position well. Once again, if Crimea wants to rejoin Russia, a UN conducted election would be the best way to accomplish this - NOT an armed invasion.Quote:
You don't understand my position correctly. Russian leadership DID NOT give anything away to Crimea, ever. It was the USSR leadership that did this, the previous overlord country of all 15 Soviet republics. Russia was technically one out of 15 subject republics of USSR in that day. Russians didn't care back then about this issue because nationalism was suppressed and the change was only nominal it was all one country anyways. Everyone thought along the lines "we're brothers and comrades" and the soviet internal borders are meaningless. Russia did not raise the question about status of Crimea until recently because they had the hope to create and maintain a cozy relationship with Ukraine. In terms of fairness and strategy, it's absolutely the best time for Russians to raise the question of Crimea at this time, when the government in Kiev is clearly anti-Russian.
Do you care to explain how the invasion of an Autonomous Republic within the sovereign borders of another country, constitutes anything resembling "fairness"?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
And then this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
So if the same happens to the same group of people at the end of a shotgun barrel, this somehow avoids the issue? I'm sorry, but your argument contains double standards of gross proportion if it leads you to think that legal means subjects people to issues or human rights, while illegal means do not.
It seems in your eyes illegal invasion of a sovereign country is justified due to the possibility that Russians might not be treated fairly if legal means are used, yet you completely ignore that the same violations are already actually taking place against the Crimeans.
Good luck with that. You can go back in history much, much further than your given examples, and you won't find one in which the US or the majority of nations have done such a thing. Well other than the Nazi's, Saddam and other such fine people.
Okay, fine, Crimea is Russian etc. I don't really care as I have no stakes there. Would anybody bother to explain to me, though, how they are going to earn their income now? The only properly functioning segment of their economy is tourism. With their new status, which is nobody is going to recognize, tourists are not coming. The summer season is just two months away. What are they thinking?
Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
[quote=gadjo_dilo]Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:[/quote:320at5gk]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Rudy Tamasz":320at5gk
I don't know if the 2014 season is going to be good enough, but in the long term Russians will vacation there for sure. Abkhazia, another site of a controversial conflict involving Russia and a neighbor country, relies a lot on Russian tourism. This surprises me as I am not sure if I'd want to have a vacation in a possible war zone, but the wikipedia claims they get 300,000 visitors a year. Abkhazia have very beautiful location, and so does Crimea. Unlike Abkhazia, which is formally not a Russian territory, if Crimea becomes a Russian province, it will receive quite a bit of financial investment, from the government and private investors (Russians of course). The Crimean administration already said that they will not seize any property regardless of who owns it, except for military installation.
[quote=gadjo_dilo]Maybe they'll live like people of Transnistria.... ? ?? :confused:[/quote:3bi2k09p]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Rudy Tamasz":3bi2k09p
Which is pretty miserable. Is it worth fighting for, then?
Russia's financial stand is getting worse in both public and private sector. I'm not sure it is realistic to expect Russia come and flood Crimea with money. Russia already has quite a number of depressed regions to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Then, we'll have yet to see whether Russian tourists will risk their safety traveling to an unrecognized region by air, as Russia has no land border with Crimea. If they really want to have vacation close to home, they might prefer that very Abkhazia or Sochi. Tourism market is a tough one and Crimeans should not take their niche on it for granted.
Airshifter, once again, please answer me what is the basis for your fear mongering claim of the upcoming ethnic cleansing in Crimea as you have not backed that claim in any of your posts. Yes, the people at the end of the shotgun barrel, as you say, are the Ukrainian military personnel, and the shotgun is there not because Russians want to cleanse the Crimea of Ukrainians but because Ukrainian military may oppose Russians. So there is a HUGE difference between this and a prelude for "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing is when a group of people goes out and kills or displaces ALL _locals_ that belong to a different group. Is this something I have to spell out for you? Do you also know that there are thousands of ethnic Ukrainians who are living in Crimea without shotguns pointing at them and also that among the ranks of Ukrainian military personnel there are many ethnic Russians, so Russian guns are pointing at them as well? The Ukrainians have also received offers to defect to the Russian military, which isn't consistent with your claims as normally in such cases you don't make the other side offers to become part of your army.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
So if the same happens to the same group of people at the end of a shotgun barrel, this somehow avoids the issue? I'm sorry, but your argument contains double standards of gross proportion if it leads you to think that legal means subjects people to issues or human rights, while illegal means do not.
As evidenced by the puny investment in the 2014 Sochi Olympics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
What's wrong with air travel within the air space of the Russian federation? And besides, just yesterday I read that some Russians already proposed to build a bridge over the Kerch strait. My understanding is that there is also a rail car ferry, so you could just take train. Admittedly, I have no idea what's the tourism situation in Crimea right now, but being Putin's and Russian nationalists cause celebre, they will find money for the bridge and other infrastructure.Quote:
Then, we'll have yet to see whether Russian tourists will risk their safety traveling to an unrecognized region by air, as Russia has no land border with Crimea. If they really want to have vacation close to home, they might prefer that very Abkhazia or Sochi. Tourism market is a tough one and Crimeans should not take their niche on it for granted.
Because, as already previously discussed, this has been Russian land for two centuries, populated by Russians, and home to Russian Black Sea military base? Why fair now? When you divorce with someone, then it's a good time to start splitting up the property. Ukraine just said to Russia, we don't want to have anything with you, so what did you expect Russians to do? Wait until Ukraine becomes NATO members and wait for decades until Crimea is transferred to Russia by "legal means", which of course then could never happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
What you've just mentioned is a part of the problem, not a solution. You spend $44 billion on the Olympics, you no longer have it. You can't have a cake and eat it at the same time. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I completely agree with you zako, well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I for one have always thought that Hitler was long unfairly criticised for his moves to reintegrate the Sudetenland and Western Poland, areas with hundreds of years of German history, culture and heritage, back into Germany. Also I don't think there was any better time to ensure that the ethnic Germans living in Soviet territory would have their rights protected and be freed from Russian persecution than July 1941 when the USSR was weakest.
Armed invasion and annexation is indeed the only proper way to sort out injustices like this. International diplomacy and 'legal means' are indeed tools for the weak and to be looked down upon.
Likewise I'm sure you'll join me in fully supporting China re-absorbing Tibet by force with the long history of Chinese links to the country. Hopefully you'll also heartily endorse their subtle efforts to deal with those Tibetans who somehow fail to see the inherent wisdom in this occupation.
I'm not sure things will work out well for Russia in the future though. Not only will the general cost of doing business rise with increased interest rates, reduced access to foreign markets and capital and restricted travel for certain Russians, this move in Crimea will only reinforce the perception amongst its neighbours that rapid membership of NATO and closer ties with the EU are the only way to go. Russians only understand hard power, in this case I feel that soft power would have been more useful and would be less counterproductive.
Firstly I'd suggest you look further into accepted definitions of ethnic cleansing, and at the same time adjust your attitude of superior intelligence. Per the UN basic definition, ethnic cleansing is ""rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." It does not imply or require killing or removing all such people, it includes assimilating them into another cultural group.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
In this case the military action is doing just this... essentially giving the Ukrainian military the option to become Russian military or go - assimilation or displacement. The referendum being forced is doing the same to the civilian population... become us under threat and intimidation already displayed. It seems quite similar to the elections allowed by Saddam, intended to allow only those casting a certain vote to do so without intimidation.
While it seems you are carrying an attitude that nobody else can possibly understand these things, you are in fact overlooking gross and obvious violations of human rights, international laws, and the freedoms of choice that should be given to the people in Crimea. And these things are actually already happening, and they are not based on the predictions of a crystal ball. The huge difference between the two is that one is reality, the other is speculation.
I have above given a clear example of the ethnic cleansing already taking place, and by what means. Your argument seems to be that such actions are warranted and that the legal process is what people should fear. I would suggest that the legal process is what Putin fears, and what the people deserve.
And if you don't get what you like, then it's okay 22 years later to break into their house and steal?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
What did we expect Russia to do? Um... not invade a another country?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Wow, nice dodge and redefinition. Suddenly assimilation becomes ethnic cleansing. Is that what you meant? Good one! I think I have made my point by now, as you completely utterly failed to back your absurd claims. Please stop making people laugh. Let's just equate assimilation with Holocaust, shall we? After all, according to your flawed logic, assimilation is just one step away from Holocaust or the ethnic massacres in the Balkans in the 1990s. What a ridiculous analogy you're trying to make here to make the current events in Crimea to fit under "ethnic cleansing". Such great information warfare trick. Senator McCain would have made you a staff member in his office. And if you think assimilation is the same as "ethnic cleansing" why not just use the former word? Oh wait, it doesn't sound as "dramatic", I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
And where did you get the ideas that Russians have the intention of assimilating the minorities in Crimea? Since when switching sides in the militarizes is about assimilation? One again NO ONE IS FORCING THE MINORITIES OF CRIMEA TO ASSIMILATE. They can stay and live normally as usual. However, the military of Ukraine, which in view of Crimea's government, is soon to be a military of a foreign country is not welcome in Crimea. The Ukrainian military personnel, many of whom do not have even permanent homes in Crimea, can go back to Ukraine. The ones to live in Crimea can stay and go to their homes, but not in the capacity of Ukrainian Army or Navi. Please do not equate that with ethnic cleansing. This is just stupid.
And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".
I am not overlooking those. Yes, those issues may exist. I posted my first reply to you about your claim of "ethnic cleansing", the claim you haven't backed.Quote:
While it seems you are carrying an attitude that nobody else can possibly understand these things, you are in fact overlooking gross and obvious violations of human rights, international laws, and the freedoms of choice that should be given to the people in Crimea.
LOL. Just LOL.Quote:
I have above given a clear example of the ethnic cleansing already taking place, and by what means.
Sure, the Russian intervention in Crimea is controversial. But, I would like to wait and see before equating Putin with Hitler. After all, Hitler didn't stop with annexing the land populated by ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia, but also proceeded to attack and annex the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and USSR, and then he proceeded to gas the Jews and other "undesirables". So the analogy equating Putin with Hitler so far is quite false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
And yes, oftentimes I am on the side of the separatist governments who have gained independence, if not de facto, then at least de jure. For example:
South Ossetia
Karabakh
Abkhazia
East Timor
Eritrea
South Sudan
A lot of these had genuine ethnic grievances against the government in the capitals, and yet most of them probably would never have gained even cultural autonomy, much less independence, without armed struggle even though armed resistance could have been against the law, local or international.
That has to be one of the most foolish arguments in this thread. How many members of the military of ANY COUNTRY have permanent homes in the places where they are stationed?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
By your argument, even though Crimea has no land border with Russia, because a majority of the people there are ethnic Russian it was OK to invade. The Brighton Beach area of New York is loaded with ethnic Russians. Should we be expect Russia to invade soon? By the way, I fully expect Putin to fix the "no land border" issue shortly by invading eastern Ukraine.Quote:
And, have you heard that Crimean parliament has just made a move to guarantee broader rights to the Crimean Tatar minority of Crimea? Such broader rights will include teaching Tatar language in schools and reserving a number of seats to Tatars in the Crimean parliament. Is this consistent with assimilation of minorities to you? I don't know about the situation with the rights of the Ukrainian minority of Crimea, but it is the Tatars who were the most opposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. They were immediately provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation. This doesn't sound like an assimilation to me, or much less like "ethnic cleansing".
This says it all: "the Tatars" ....."provided guarantees to having a degree a political empowerment and cultural preservation." So the Tartars, who have lived there for centuries will be second class (at best) citizens of the new Russian province.
I can't help but notice that you have carefully avoided the instances of Georgia and Chechnya which I had brought up earlier in this thread. Could you please explain how those fit into the arguments you are espousing?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I also would like to know if those, who support the idea of Crimea suddenly deciding to break away from Ukraine,
also would support a sudden declaration from let's say Kaliningrad to change belonging from Russia to Poland?
A province that historically have no connections with Russia pre-ww2.
The bottom three of your examples became independent. The first three did not become independent in anything beyond name but merely Russian protectorates. They are merely tools for Russian expansion and to apply pressure on Russia's neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
It is also interesting to note that at least in Crimea there was no sign of an armed insurrection fighting against rule from Kiev indicating that whatever secessionist movement there was it wasn't particularly significant in either its intentions or ambitions, almost certainly because their sense of grievance wasn't great.
You seem to find it extremely difficult to understand that the principle you are using is extremely dangerous if applied everywhere. Few land borders cleanly divide populations along ethnic lines. If everyone used Putin's principle, ie annexing ajoining territory simply because there was a significant ethnic minority or even a majority of the same ethnic grouping as your own there would be war everywhere. I can think of several countries in Europe that could be sliced up by its neighbours and made to disappear based on your thinking.
BTW that Hitler went on to commit mass genocide while Putin probably won't is irrelevant. The arguments Hitler used for the annexation of the Sudetenland, western Poland, Alsace and also Anschluss were exactly the same as Putin is using in Crimea. At least have the honesty to acknowledge that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
It's apparent that the definitions threaten your shielded view. Please continue with the ignorance or supporting actions that are entirely illegal and trying to prop them up by making an argument against things never stated.
But then you state those that don't have permanent homes can leave. One of the "freedoms" involved in not being Russian? :laugh:
As for making people laugh, you might want to look at all the views opposing your own. I doubt any of them are laughing, as they probably see it in a way similar to me... violation of basic international laws and human rights. Hope you here some good jokes if you ever end up in the Gulag.
I still don't get it. This is a Euro deal. You guys need to stop this if it is wrong. fcuk the furnace if it is wrong it is wrong.
But I will support what the Euro's do. There should be no involvement by us.
It took me a while to figure out that post of yours was ironic. When I did understand it, I laughed. Brilliant stuff! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Its quite hard to believe that there are actually people who believe that invading and annexing part of a neighbouring country is acceptable and that this doesn't demonstrate warlike intentions. Some of this thread borders on the surreal.
Split it in two: Russia recovers East Ukraine and Crimea, and Poland recovers West Ukraine :dozey:
Well the result was never in doubt, looks like the situation is becoming more grave as we speak.
Hear hear, HARUMPH!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
That would be like Mexico taking the whole South-west of 'merikuh!
It's ours fair and square....(what possible claim could they have??? Harumph!)
They should do like "we" do and invade countries far away that they have little to no contact with...
So much easier when your citizens can't find it on the map..eh, wot, ol' chum?
And Germany recovers Western Poland, job done, everybody's happy!Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
jawohl, and Elsaß-Lothringen ! :andrea:
You guys don't get it. Your sarcasm is out of tune. How can you be not sympathetic to the great cause of Crimean independence. Never ever since 1991 have the Crimean people put up with the Ukrainian occupation. Millions of them, young and old equally, lived and breathed the dream of independence. Their powerful multi-million pro-independence rallies showed to the whole world their unbroken spirit. The head of their independence movement became a spiritual guru for all the progressive people on the planet. Too bad I forgot his name. Has none of you participated in protests near Ukrainian Embassies against the torture of Crimean activists, death camps and martial law? Now our brothers in Crimea are free and we all celebrate this.
And once again I remember the thread about Kosovo independence......Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
So with Putin signing Crimea into Russia, which country will be next for Putin to target. He says Crimea was and is rightly a part of Russia, but the point is this is not how a democracy (which they inform us they are :rolleyes: ) should or would go about this. Its not legal.
Now he states retaliation to any sanctions. Europe's power source is under threat then perhaps? So who would have thought it. Trusting Russia for fuel is a bad idea. :eek:
Fair enough but it still doesn't make what Russia have done right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz