|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 15:16:00 GMT
Y'know...The first thing I think is that the US should stay out of it entirely. Everybody rightfully gets on their high horse about how the US is meddling in everybody else's business, but now that the Russians are doing something that others don't happen to like, it's suddenly the US business to straighten it out. Well, screw that....figure out your own business and leave us out of it. I don't think many of us here endorsed the invasion of Iraq, and the USA (like the EU and other states) do things mostly in accordance with ITS OWN INTERESTS; if the USA live in the vacuum, it might safely bear no concerns of this mess.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 18, 2014 15:34:03 GMT
I certainly did not endorse US involvement in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, I did what I could as an American citizen to prevent my country from being involved. But aside from that, I will note that neither Afghanistan, nor Iraq, is on the border of the US, nor were portions of either nation ever part of the US, and there are next to zero native American speakers in either country. And, yet, the greater part of the EU went along, the UK with merry gusto.
No...the US need not live in a vacuum, but refusing to be militarily involved in an issue half way across the globe for some tenuous objective of 'protecting Ukraine sovereignty', when only weeks before the Ukraine was teetering on the edge of a civil war....that's not living in a vacuum, that's merely being smart enough to stay out of other people's really sticky business. Would that we had done so with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no objection to the US trying to broker deals and get the various parties to diplomatically settle their differences, but military posturing and sword-rattling is foolish, dangerous, and most likely counter-productive (like how our pre-emptive involvement in Afghanistan engendered, encouraged, and subsidized the growth of what is now known as al-Qaeda, the global terrorist organization...talk about unintended consequences of far-reaching import).
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 17:33:36 GMT
I agree with you Goats. I don't want to see any military actions. Is there anything to do besides war? Honestly I don't know what's going to work right now.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Mar 18, 2014 18:08:50 GMT
Unsurprisingly, 95% of those who actually voted, voted for integration in Russia. There were no numbers available on how many people actually voted though, but reporters and specialists on the news suspected it would be less than 50% of the entire population. Very valid vote. Not.
I'm most worried about the Tartars though. If Crimea becomes part of Russia again, they appear to be in danger. They have been driven from Russia before under horrible circumstances. I'm quite sure not many political entities will have their best interests at heart.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 18, 2014 19:27:25 GMT
Yes, I agree, they are in a minority and will be fearful of their homes and livelihood.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 18, 2014 19:38:09 GMT
Just out of interest, why is it any different for the Tartars in Ukraine than it is in Russia? Aren't there major communities of Tartars already in Russia? Be that as it may, whereever they are, they are minority populations, so far as I know. Except for maybe Tatarstan (which, according to the wiki page, is the most economically developed region of all Russia).
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 20:21:51 GMT
I cannot answer for the Tatars. I am only grateful that my dad moved to Taiwan before it was too late. My dad went back to mainland China a few years ago, and his village where some of his relatives still live didn't have electricity. It was heartbreaking to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 19, 2014 2:04:39 GMT
Unsurprisingly, 95% of those who actually voted, voted for integration in Russia. There were no numbers available on how many people actually voted though, but reporters and specialists on the news suspected it would be less than 50% of the entire population. Very valid vote. Not. I'm most worried about the Tartars though. If Crimea becomes part of Russia again, they appear to be in danger. They have been driven from Russia before under horrible circumstances. I'm quite sure not many political entities will have their best interests at heart. I've read that 80% voted but I think they are fewer. Ukrainians and Tartars said they were going to boycott the referendum. There are 58% Russians, 24% Ukrainians and 12% Tartars living on Crimea. 90% of Crimean Tatars ignored the referendum. Ex-head of Mejlis of Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Jemilev told about this. “Even if some individuals were noted at the polling stations, those were isolated cases,” he said. qha.com.ua/90-of-crimean-tatars-didn-t-take-part-in-referendum-jemilev-130874en.htmlMany Tartars have already left Crimea. They have bad erperience of Russian rule. They were once deported by Stalin and many died during the deportation. Now they returned to their homeland but feel forced to leave it.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 19, 2014 2:13:21 GMT
Timothy Snyder seems to know what he's talking about. No, we can't. Not military anyway, maybe economically. But 30% of EU's energy is from Russian gas.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 19, 2014 2:41:13 GMT
It was only a question of time. First the new "nations" (acknowledged by hardly any other nations), then they want to be part of the Motherland. Putin has said that Ukraine not legally, that is what happened in 1991 when Ukraine left Soviet.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 19, 2014 2:50:48 GMT
Y'know...The first thing I think is that the US should stay out of it entirely. Everybody rightfully gets on their high horse about how the US is meddling in everybody else's business, but now that the Russians are doing something that others don't happen to like, it's suddenly the US business to straighten it out. Well, screw that....figure out your own business and leave us out of it. Who has asked that US should fix it? But what if Russia invades any of the Baltic states (lots of Russians to "protect" in Estonia and Latvia), should not Nato incl USA intervene? Actually all democratic states should be negative of invasions like this. Borders should be respected. Other states' sovereinities should be respected. Unless there is a genocide going on. Which was not the case here. The organization to intervene is UN but we know this will not happen. Though nobody in the security council supported Russsia; even China laid down its voice. What you say about Finns and Swedes I don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 20, 2014 6:48:51 GMT
|
|
DGoeij
Very Regular
 
Pan Narrans
Poehee
Posts: 601
|
Post by DGoeij on Mar 20, 2014 9:57:36 GMT
In principle I'm all for people in their various homesteads deciding amongst themselves how to arrange their administrative set up in the world, but add powerful states looking at their resources, territories and access to these into the mix and it soon becomes messy, dishonest, full of empty rhetoris and potentially far too volatile. Besides, the new Tsar of Russia can't really come across as a great bloke to any reasonable person anyway. I mean, strong push-back against freedom of speech, protest, curtailing of minority rights, organised youth groups and street gangs, and now (re)expansion of territory in order to come to the aid of ethnic brethren... It's a bit too cynical even for me to draw too many parallels to Sudetenland, right? And nobody wants Belgium, even the Belgians themselves. Overall friendly people that produce great food in general and wonderful beers, chocolate and chips in particular, but that country seems incapable of anything else. 
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 20, 2014 16:56:20 GMT
Waffles!
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 22, 2014 0:37:25 GMT
Just out of interest, why is it any different for the Tartars in Ukraine than it is in Russia? Aren't there major communities of Tartars already in Russia? Be that as it may, whereever they are, they are minority populations, so far as I know. Except for maybe Tatarstan (which, according to the wiki page, is the most economically developed region of all Russia). I think you can see the answer if you read this thread thoroughly. Or you can read this: www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/18/crimea-disappeared-man-found-killed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 22, 2014 1:58:37 GMT
The author, journalist and former soldier Arkady Babchenko welomes the new Russian citizens: This is my translation of the Swedish text translated from Babchenko's Russian text. The Russian conscript army is infamous. You don't if your son will survive life in the army. And I'm not talking about goint to war but in peacetime. He might be beaten to death, or he might find it so unbearable that he kills himself. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DedovshchinaI fond an English translation of Babchenko's whole "welcoming piece": blog.simpletask.se/post/welcome-to-russia-dear-crimeans
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Apr 9, 2014 21:40:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Feb 20, 2022 11:09:20 GMT
Spammers in THIS thread? Hello Russians!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 20, 2022 15:19:53 GMT
Not any more.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 20, 2022 22:51:06 GMT
Strange that this is just as relevant today as it was when first posted though
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 20, 2022 22:58:13 GMT
Russia is known for invading countries. Afghanistan, Ossetia, Crimea...
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 20, 2022 23:04:40 GMT
And we're not I suppose?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 21, 2022 9:59:18 GMT
Not since the League of Nations was formed in 1920. Britain has since entered a period of decolonisation and a 'wind of change' as Macmillan put it. Iraq was an exception but the purpose of invading Iraq was to prevent Saddam Hussein from terrorising the world with nuclear weapons and not to gain territory. I'm not aware of any other exceptions.
Russia's invasion of Ossetia was humanitarian, protecting Russian-speaking people there and so could arguably be excused. But Russia's invasion of Afghanistan was purely to gain territory.
In contrast to Britain's decolonisation, Soviet expansion into Europe took place immediately after WWII, from 1945 to 1948 and would have continued, I believe, if it had not been for the Cold War.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 22, 2022 4:54:17 GMT
The Soviets made common cause with Nazi Germany to split Poland. That's a pretty tawdry history. And less than a century ago.
Soviet expansion into Europe came during WWII. At the prodding of the Germans. They were part of the same occupying force as were the NATO nations.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 17, 2022 12:51:30 GMT
"Not since the League of Nations was formed in 1920. Britain has since entered a period of decolonisation and a 'wind of change' as Macmillan put it."
Um. Tangent?...It seems that you've conveniently forgotten the Suez Incident of 1956-57. So, yes, Britain continued to invade other countries.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 17, 2022 12:57:09 GMT
Hmmm...That assertion seems to have met considerable resistance since March, Russian gas or not. Are 'European values' now 'defending themselves'?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 17, 2022 13:21:24 GMT
Well, that situation has changed fast. Both Sweden and Finland are now fast-tracked to NATO membership and Ukraine is to become part of EU toute suite. Russia can rattle its sabers at Finland, and by extension, Sweden, but when they've their military hands overly full tangling with a badly misperceived opponent in Ukraine, it's not like they can do much about it. They, the Russians, set up all the preconditions and then, the excluded nations used the opportunity to become included. So, I'd say it is more of a Nelson Muntz moment. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdOPBP9vuZA
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 18, 2022 6:33:15 GMT
"Not since the League of Nations was formed in 1920. Britain has since entered a period of decolonisation and a 'wind of change' as Macmillan put it." Um. Tangent?...It seems that you've conveniently forgotten the Suez Incident of 1956-57. Not really, the context of my comments was invasion for territorial gain and/or colonisation. I said that Russia was known for its invasions but after 1920, Britain was not. Of course, the UK invaded many countries in WWII, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Kosovo in 1995 etc and I had discounted them but those invasions were not intended for territorial gain.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 18, 2022 17:45:48 GMT
"Not since the League of Nations was formed in 1920. Britain has since entered a period of decolonisation and a 'wind of change' as Macmillan put it." Um. Tangent?...It seems that you've conveniently forgotten the Suez Incident of 1956-57. Not really, the context of my comments was invasion for territorial gain and/or colonisation. I said that Russia was known for its invasions but after 1920, Britain was not. Of course, the UK invaded many countries in WWII, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Kosovo in 1995 etc and I had discounted them but those invasions were not intended for territorial gain. Excuse me, but with regards the Suez Incident, the territory sought was the canal. It was rather explicit and obvious. Britain and France were both complicit. Not only that, Britain was complicit in the western dabbling in Iranian affairs. Does the Anglo-Persian Oil corporation not ring bells? Britain tried to make Iran into an oil-producing colony. In the late 1950s.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jun 22, 2022 15:53:34 GMT
At any rate. I don’t believe Putin will stop. It’s just a prelude to the future of Russia China push to remove the west off their perch by doing things little by little. While we argue and fight they will take.
|
|