Of course. He has just sent the fleet to the far side of the moon of Endor. Everything is happening as he has foreseen.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Printable View
Of course. He has just sent the fleet to the far side of the moon of Endor. Everything is happening as he has foreseen.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Ha ha.
So I guess we just need the Russian view for the next act.
Evil Nazi Ukrainian troops in iron boots frighten poor ethnic Russian. Super Putin and the Army of Light sweep in and save everyone all the way to Odessa and maybe Moldavia, and welcome them home to Mother Russia.
Obama and the EU refuse to honor Russia’s green stamps. Everyone buys more weapons.
Ether that or some fool goes nuclear.
So Russia just agreed to have international observers in Ukraine so that they have a proper challenge in doctoring a reason for the imminent invasion or just so that they can kill them easier in the process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...raine-23009669
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It doesn’t change anything. Observers in Ukraine, other than Crimea! Big Deal!
Elections in two months. Ukraine elects unacceptable candidate, game over.
We'll need to see first if there will be election in two months. Government in Kiev might use the crisis to postpone the elections.
I thought they are all flawless democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Aren’t you listening?
They are ALL Evil Iron booted Neo-Nazis and their lackeys.
It is time to stop the bloodbath. Bring them back to Russia. http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/...ather_lands-0/
Federalize Ukraine! Bring them home to Mother Russia.
A perfect example of Russia's doublethinking: Crimea was recognized as an independent state (before the annexation), while Kosovo was (and is) not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Things start to look black for Tatars and other dissidents. There's been a report that the houses of Tatars (in ethnically mixed communities) were marked with special signs. If you sport any Ukrainian symbols or speak Ukrainian you are looked askance at or get bullied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Is it true that Churchill predicted that fascists of the future would call themselves anti-fascists?
Oh?
And after they all voted to be part of Russia too.
Obviously, these are lies spread by all those Nazis supported by the CIA. The same ones who are machine-gunning all those poor Russian Liberals who also want to join Russia once again.
The sooner the rest of the world sees the wrongs of these evil thugs and the USA supporting them, the better.
You see what the poor Russian people have to endure because of this evil illegal regime! Ukraine needs to rejoin Russia and the sooner they do the freer they will be.
What a load of :daisy:
Indeed. Some people's desire to embrace this :daisy: with open arms comes across as very irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
You all realize that the Russians' lease on Sevastopol was ending soon right? They need that window on the black sea and the Ukrainians did not seem like they were going to renew the lease. As a result the entire situation was going to get messy one way or the other if the Russians were not able to maintain their black sea fleet. Because the Ukrainians couldn't control their own people because they were a corrupt as hell entity. The Russians just jumped on what they saw as a miracle and now the West has to clean up the Ukraine's mess.
Can you define "soon"? The lease was set to expire in 2042, 28 years does not sound like "soon" to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
It had been extended to 2040.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
What I think is, Husar is still trolling, and the problem is not that Russia absorbed Crimea, it's the WAY they did it.
The Crimeans could have had the West on-side for this, we probably would have forced Ukraine to change it's Constitution to make a referendum in just Crimea legal.
Instead we have a smoothly orchestrated takeover by Russia, then a referendum, all in less than a month.
So - why did Putin do this?
To show he could - and show he would get away with it. That's the core problem - the point Putin is making, that he can do what he wants.
28 years is nothing for a nation. When you have 28 years until you lose your southern port and the Ukrainian leader you helped place in power has been deposed and anti Russian sentiment is in the country you take the first chance you can to solidify you won't lose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
to Phillips: As a westerner it isn't that I think what Russia did was unconscionable or doesn't make sense. It is simply not in the West's collective interest for Russia to strengthen itself under any means. And I completely agree with your last point in regards to the Russians wanting to prove they CAN do these things with not backlash.
28 years is more than a generation. Hell of a long time even for a nation. Besides, the Black Sea in general has a rather limited in its strategic value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
All true - but the Black Sea is the only way Russia can get ships into the Med, unless it sales around the entire Atlantic Coast and runs the Pillars of Heracles, all of which makes fighting through the Dardenelles look like a picnic.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The bullying of people supporting Ukraine already happened before the annexation apparently. The question is what forcing these people to stay with Ukraine would have achieved? Alternatively all countries with a Russian population, i.e. all satellites can risk war and expell all Russians. Otherwise they will always have these problems and expelling them will obviously also cause trouble. So what are we going to do about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Start WW3 to make Russia and their "citizens" in other countries shut up? Then fire the nukes to get it over with. :rolleyes:
Your PhD in psychology is finally paying off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yeah, so maybe 2040 was not long-term enough in case Ukraine is going to join the EU now because that would almost ensure that 2040 is a finite date and the lease would never have been renewed. So Putin annexed it to secure the Black Sea Fleet for Russia. Annoy the West or lose a strategically important fleet in 2040? Maybe Putin won't be around anymore but he is a fan of Stalin who left him these Russian populations in all the satellites as some sort of legacy joker and maybe he wants to leave something for the Russian presidents who follow him. And that would also sort of torpedize the idea that he just wanted the land and is going to get even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But I suppose just mentioning that he may not want more makes me a Putin shill-troll who cannot be taken seriously.
Or maybe, just MAYBE, he as Russian President is actually looking out for Russia's best interest? ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Without Stalinistic theories having to be involved.
Just like Stalin did then. But that was part of my point, yes, I may have overexplained the legacy thing, it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Still doesn't mean that he is going to invade countless other countries which have no real strategic importance or fleet bases.
I'm sure that will be enough to reassure Estonia et al.
Remember you talk with a lot of USAnians here. I think we are both saying and thinking the same thing, just, one has to stay clear of the words that make many USAnians go frothing at their mouth - as they much like dogs then lose all sense of balance and logical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Note: Example of why such generalisation is not acceptable, please avoid it with people of nations.
Note: Re-edited to "many USAnians", I think that makes it a somewhat fair generalization :)
Estonia should know that the EU cannot tolerate an invasion of a member state any more than NATO could. Emphasis on should because apparently noone told them that. Which is just another thing that is worrying about the EU and western overextension against promises made and into regions where nothing can be backed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
So what do you want me to say? That Putin is a bad guy? That we will send our 250 little tanks through Poland to stop him?
Apparently we like to make promises and hold grand speeches and aren't ready to back any of that up or keep our word, but I'm not allowed to criticize us as we are the most trustworthy democratic freedom lovers.
So yeah, Putin is an evil fascist, I hope American nukes will save us all and make me eternally thankful either from the barren wasteland or from heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You are again reasoning from a western point of view. The difference in point of view is partly to blame for the entire crisis. It isn't about power projection, it's about limiting western power projection on Russia's Black Sea coast. Like HT said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Russia doesn't have a blue water navy. They don't plan to build one and they couldn't afford one. Russian fleet serves one purpose and one purpose only - protecting Russian coastline. They can't compete in the Med. In the Black Sea however, when aided by land defense, the Black Sea fleet is useful. Past Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that fleet is floating scrap iron.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.
Russian mindset is completely different - their prime point of concern is protection again hypothetical invasion coming from the west. Everything else is of secondary concern. Until western politicians figure that out, we're gonna have more crisis like this one. And this isn't Putin. This is Russia. This is indoctrinated into their military and political thought. Removing Putin won't change that.
If I'm allowed to quote Einstein - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Actually, I'm taking a sabbatical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
All valid points, but if Putin wants Crimea - looking at his speech - he also wants all of Ukraine and Belarus, along with at least the Russian-speaking parts of the Baltic States, Moldova and Georgia.Quote:
Yeah, so maybe 2040 was not long-term enough in case Ukraine is going to join the EU now because that would almost ensure that 2040 is a finite date and the lease would never have been renewed. So Putin annexed it to secure the Black Sea Fleet for Russia. Annoy the West or lose a strategically important fleet in 2040? Maybe Putin won't be around anymore but he is a fan of Stalin who left him these Russian populations in all the satellites as some sort of legacy joker and maybe he wants to leave something for the Russian presidents who follow him. And that would also sort of torpedize the idea that he just wanted the land and is going to get even more.
But I suppose just mentioning that he may not want more makes me a Putin shill-troll who cannot be taken seriously.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26652058
"Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea"
All of this applies to Kiev, cradle of Russian civilisation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26662721
While we're here - lets kill this idea of NATO's illegitimate expansion.
It was never for the US, the UK or Germany to say NATO would not expand east - because when Poland et al came knocking they were never going to be able to turn them down.
Protect Russia from whom? I hope you realize that Black Sea is heavily regulated by treaties. For instance, nuclear vessels (this includes both nuclear-powered ones and the ones carrying nuclear weapons) cannot enter the Black Sea aquatory. Ever. Now guess what, US carriers are nuclear powered: Turkey is required to deny them entry no matter the cause. If it isn't us then who could possibly be a threat? Romania? Bulgaria? Laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Russian naval base at Severomorsk has a HUGE modern Navy, including nuclear subs and one carrier. Guess what, they can't enter the Black Sea either. While in the Mediterranean they resupply either at the Russian base of Tartus in Syria or sometimes in Cyprus. Once again Black Sea is a non-player.Quote:
Russia doesn't have a blue water navy. They don't plan to build one and they couldn't afford one. Russian fleet serves one purpose and one purpose only - protecting Russian coastline. They can't compete in the Med. In the Black Sea however, when aided by land defense, the Black Sea fleet is useful. Past Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that fleet is floating scrap iron.
Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Putin has proven himself as a megalomaniac both within his country and abroad.Quote:
Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.
Please, tell me more about the intricacies of Russian soul... This is nonsense. This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.Quote:
Russian mindset is completely different - their prime point of concern is protection again hypothetical invasion coming from the west. Everything else is of secondary concern. Until western politicians figure that out, we're gonna have more crisis like this one. And this isn't Putin. This is Russia. This is indoctrinated into their military and political thought. Removing Putin won't change that.
Well yeah, and people also believed Bush when he said he'd invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs. But maybe politicians just say one thing sometimes to legitimate another thing and people who take it at face value are giving those empty words too much value. Maybe. So far Putin seems to have shown quite some readiness to negotiate since he secured his black sea fleet's future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So it was a lie right from the start, should that make Russia feel better about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Dude, you are USANIAN, and you accuse Putin of megalomania?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
From my point of view, he has acted in Russias best interest within his immediate strategic back yard.
I can't say I much like it, but c'mon... compared to USA's not so stellar modern history, who the **** are you to say even one itsy bitsy bit about it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
Heck, look at your own quote in my sig, to understand just how far removed from reality you are here.
Try more question marks. I'm also Russian, and as such I can tell that your understanding of Russia, Russians and Putin leaves much to be desired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Not quite. I think I even stepped in and defended USA somewhere further back in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I just call bollocks when I see bollocks. That the USA has a higher percentage of bollocks, and I thus flame them more, has absolutely nothing to do with my clear line of reasoning.
That the USA is the biggest meddler in world politics, is also a cause why I flame them more than others on this international politics boards.
Honestly, have you seen me let stupidity-by-nations slip by just because the USA was not involved? Ever? Even my own country(/ies)?
If not, please retract that statement.
What reasoning? The drivel that you post is largely just pure irrational hatred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
After 11/9 and Iraq and Afghanistan... it's quite logic resembling the general US foreign policy to frothing dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Heck, I read reports stating that the majority of members of your then biggest political party still several years after the Iraq war believed WMD's to have been found there.
Your school system is failing and your general population is anti-intellectual.
I never said every USAnian is, I say that enough are to dictate your international politics. And that quite honestly SCARES me.
Russia has plenty land on the black sea so this Crimea port thingy is a red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Attachment 12537
Much like the Dutch ports are a Red Herring for EU imports of commerce?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
No need for the EU to defend them, we have plenty of coastal lands?
Riiight... my ignore list needs more specimens. Bye, Kad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Yeah - I get that - but what I also get is that Putin sees parts of other countries as occupied Russian land, and the Crimea episode indicates he's not above using force to "restore" that land to Mother Russia - up to an including potentially the entire Soviet Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Despite me posting the translation of his speech in English, you seem blind to that fact.
For a Russian "containment" means that the other "Great Powers" are trying to limit Russia's operation within what Russia sees as its legitimate sphere of control.
We want everybody to be a European democracy just for the sake of it, including Russia, but Russia sees that prospect as an existential threat.
And, for the moment Russia = Putin, in so far as decision making goes.
The most subtle of trolls. I love it, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
On one hand, Kad is a bozo. On the other, to be made a target of rvg's petulance is no mark of shame.
/flame war
Why didn't Ukraine move its fleet away before Russia took it over? They have plenty of coastline left.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Yeah, let's continue with more guesswork.
http://www.stripes.com/news/analysts...rests-1.270904
Also no mention of nuclear submarines as that guy in Germany claimed. Oh yeah, he was pro-Putin and I actually noticed that some of his "facts" were off. Again, there is propaganda and baseless support on both sides IMO. "He's a Hitler and wants more Lebensraum" is not a very convincing argument either.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Quite honestly, if it were the other way around I guess it would be a response to "Russian aggression" but I suppose the US placing more ships in the Mediterranean is not about aggression, just fishing destroyers bringing freedom to plankton and jellyfish. I'm not convinced that placing more NATO allies, nukes, missile shields and armed forces all around Russia will make Russia any less paranoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
When Russia wanted to station nukes on Cuba people like to call it Russian aggression and tend to forget that this was in response to the USA stationing nukes in Turkey, which was incidentally right across from Russia and no more or less aggressive than Russian nukes on Cuba. Additionally they were meant to prevent further attempts of the US to invade Cuba, sounds rather defnsive rather than aggressive. There are usually two sides to a fight and if one wants to solve the conflict it can help to look at the issue from both sides.
If everybody agrees and noone dares to counter-argue, you end up with groupthink, it's not nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I see it more as "educating" than "trolling". But that's just me, Bozo :clown:
Lol, do people in European countries really call it 11/9? Considering it was an American event, and is called the "September 11th attacks", I don't see why you would call it 11/9 other than to be frustrating to USAnians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
This fellow seems about as coherent as that Kurdish dude. Why do you all encourage his childish and laughable views? He is straight out of a European, I hate the USA cookie cutter. On every thread I've seen he has posted nothing which but inane drivel that weakens the discourse and pisses people off. But I guess he is simply a superior life form with his Nordic blood so I guess we are all just lucky to be blessed by his presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
You are completely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Still though, if you are to speak English, learn to do it properly :clown:
NAILED IT!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
I bow to your wisdom :bow:
EDIT: That note from a new member is actually worth a better response.
I (very) occasionally contribute to these boards as well. When I don't, I tell hypocrites what idiots they are. Beating a dead horse, I know...
Most people around here has seen enough of me not to judge my behavior from some Saturday night postings at local time 3am and onwards.
Not that I don't make sense, not that I am wrong. Just that I tend to have very limited tolerance for stupidity and I don't always explain my points to the fullest. Luckily, plenty of other intelligent people around to enhance the points I drunkenly point my fingers at. So I still contribute, in my very own way ~:smoking:
EVERYONE POSTS DRUNK, IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STAND EACH OTHER
This is what I call a sober and measured discussion.
“Protect Russia from whom?” From you, or people who think like you, who considered Russia like an enemy, people who are still in the Cold War. I read here a lot of texts telling me that Russia is our enemy, and they look surprise if Russia looks at us as enemy.
Al these countries, in the region, fought each other’s for centuries. And this didn’t stop long time ago, but around 30 years ago, one was still occupying others. Then, the former occupied don’t like very much the former occupier, some even hate him. So the Former Occupier, knowing what they think, has reasons to believe they might take revenge as soon as they can. And what the Former occupier is seeing is exactly this. More of the Former Occupied making alliances with Countries that openly say your country is an enemy (note, not a former enemy, an actual enemy).
Then, when Russia, having signed an agreement with a legitimate Government of Ukraine sees openly hostile forces over-taking power with “kill the Russian” propaganda, and running in the arms of an hostile coalition, which has proved several time to be an offensive weapon used to enforced Western (so anti-Russian) Politic, what the Russians should have thought?
“This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.” And your? What did it for yours?
“I'm also Russian, and as such I can tell that your understanding of Russia, Russians and Putin leaves much to be desired.” Laughable! I am French and there is one think I don’t pretend is to understand or speak for all French. When you get 3 French speaking politic you’ve got 5 opinions… But YOU understand (how many 380 million?) all Russians. And I really, but really, don't understand the mindset of this F***** actual French President, liar, traitor, coward and one of the worst piece of garbage never elected in a country (this including Sarkozy).
Only 143,533,000, Russia alone has often seemed overrated to me in terms of its population. It's probably easy to overestimate it given the size of the country and its political significance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
In the case of a hypothetical NATO-Russia conflict, those agreements wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on. Possibly only in a case if Turkey decides to stay neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
NATO control of Crimea would allow the alliance to base more ships in the Black Sea under Ukrainian flag, in the central location in the Black Sea, and limit severely Russian options of responding.
That's the Northern Fleet. If you believe that either Northern or Black Sea fleet can realistically challenge US fleet anywhere except in the near vicinity of Russia coast, then you're really out of touch with reality.Quote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Russian naval base at Severomorsk has a HUGE modern Navy, including nuclear subs and one carrier. Guess what, they can't enter the Black Sea either. While in the Mediterranean they resupply either at the Russian base of Tartus in Syria or sometimes in Cyprus. Once again Black Sea is a non-player.
We'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, Putin has proved that he is cold, cautious and calculated.Quote:
Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Putin has proven himself as a megalomaniac both within his country and abroad.
Military and political doctrines have little to do with soul or genes. That would be like saying that Monroe Doctrine is about American soul or genetic traits.Quote:
Please, tell me more about the intricacies of Russian soul... This is nonsense. This mindset has been brought on not by some genetic trait or cultural upbringing, but by a dozen years of Putin's propaganda machine. Nothing more.
Ports don't usually spring up anywhere on the coast. Natural conditions are extremely important. Why doesn't Germany just increase the size of Hamburg port and imports directly everything, rather than using Dutch ports? Because Hamburg port can't handle that sort of traffic, while Rotterdam can.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Same with Crimea. Sevastopol is a natural port. To create a port of Sevastopol's quality, if it were at all possible, they would have to spend billions and billions. It would also signify the loss of a strategic position in the Black Sea. Do you think it is coincidence that from ancient times Crimea was always the most important trading and military port in the Black Sea?
So even if were possible to build a similar port, Ukraine in NATO means Crimea is in control of NATO.
Well, the Russian propaganda machine isn’t exactly taking a sabbatical either, is it.
Putin’s speech opens the door to the repartition of Eastern Europe.
It was fine for Russia to crush break-away nationalists within their own borders but not for others to do it to Russian speakers. They become protectorates or part of Russia. Very reasonable and honorable.
The Ukraine is longing to come home. They just don’t know it yet.
Why not just go back to where the borders were 100 years ago and have done with it! Oh! Waite…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's quite naive to base someone's long term foreign policy on a speech, which was clearly intended for domestic audience, most of which can not understand the strategic importance of Crimea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
If we were to do that, that we would have to assume that US is actively planning to invade:
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Cuba
4. Syria
5. Belarus
6. Zimbabwe
7. Burma
... because they were mentioned in the "Axis of Evil' or "Outposts of Tyranny" speech.
No, that sounds fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/p...Europe1914.gif
Much simpler, a streamlined EU with fewer members, sounds good.
We kinda do, I know exactly where I was, was at home because I had called in sick. My mom called, she was crying, as I am now when I think of it, yeah I am a pussy. Turned on the tv and the pleasure of seing the second plane hit. I have never been that disgusted, completily taken over by what I saw, and speculation of what was going on over there, without anything I could do. It's not just an American event.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Blob blob blob, falling people who jumped. Ffs. My brother was on that building exactly a week before.
The laughable audacity of the fact that you just posted all about the "Russian mind" and how their culture is making them predisposed to treat 'x' by doing 'y' and then told RVG,
And you understand the Russian mind apparently? Not to mention the absolute rant that the above was.Quote:
"Laughable! I am French and there is one think I don’t pretend is to understand or speak for all French. When you get 3 French speaking politic you’ve got 5 opinions… But YOU understand (how many 380 million?) all Russians. And I really, but really, don't understand the mindset of this F***** actual French President, liar, traitor, coward and one of the worst piece of garbage never elected in a country (this including Sarkozy)."
The part you quoted dealt with him stating you can't understand the mind of millions of people, so saying I was born/I lived/I have friends... is idiotic. It's not idiotic on its own, but claiming that it gives one special insight in the minds of 150 millions Russians, or 50 millions French, or 300 millions Americans is idiotic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
The second part was him giving his opinion about current French president. So, what are you on about?
Oh it was you but you pleasantly stepped into the hypocrites role yourself despite my mistake.
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Quote:
It's not idiotic on its own, but claiming that it gives one special insight in the minds of 150 millions Russians, or 50 millions French, or 300 millions Americans is idiotic.
...Quote:
Showing off? Muscle flexing? Sabre rattling? Random land grabs? Empire building? Dreams of world domination? I don't know which one of these thesis is more ludicrous.
Russian mindset is completely different
The Serb makes no inconsistancy, a country is not it's government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
In terms of political and military doctrines. It doesn't mean that 150,000,000 Russians think the same way. I thought it was pretty clear given the rest of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Aetius
Ask, and ye shall be answered.
Let's stick to discussing the Ukraine and not UrMomma please. :focus:
You know, the US has no coherent foreign policy. What usually gets offered up to the public is some well meaning idea that is a disaster looking for a place to happen but will make a bundle of money for those who are well placed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Putin is the current leader of Russia. Bush is no longer in office. So Evil Empires is just so much tripe. Obama will deal with those his handlers tell him to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlfyR4v0rE
I supported the Ukrainians in their bid for a less corrupt government. Russian or Western interests played no part in it from my point of view.
I am not a fan of the interim government taking them either east or west in their policies. The problem with revelations are that they usually get hijacked.
I could even stand behind a fair vote in Crimea seeking independence. I am very skeptical of what has occurred there. I see it as nothing more than a thinly veiled Russian land grab.
I don’t think the EU or Russia have a legitimate role in Ukrainian politics other than the guarantee of their national boundaries.
As for NATO, my view is that it was taken over as a US policy tool after the cold war but realistically the Russians have little to fear from that direction, that may not be of their own making. At least for now.
I don’t see Putin as the devils step-son any more than I see Obama as the anti-Christ. I see them as self serving politicians, which may well make them just about the same.
I still expect Russia to grab more land. I don’t see any justification for that.
This east-west rivalry and those who try to justify it is just paramount stupidity. It most surely can lead to a war.
A speech to both houses of Parliament, long, detailed and clearly intended for the ears of foreign diplomats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Putin laid out his legal, moral and idealogical justification for the annexation - all are worrying.
Especially worrying is his reference to God judging the Soviet Government for the transfer of "Russian" lands to Crimea - it implies that the current borders infringe on "natural" boundaries - which further implies that Putin has a Divine Mandate to restore these lands to Russia.
Powerful stuff - and not good news for Ukraine, because he may well be looking to annex the South East next, and unlike a leader in a democracy he doesn't have to do it before the next election. Mind you, annexing Crimea will likely win him that election anyway.
You know what: I agree with PVC. It is as worrying than the Western Speeches, when they proclaimed their moral Rights and Duties, and all theses Great Principles to go to war and as they did in the past, the right to do whatever they want for the good.
And when 2 blocks are equal certain of their "legal, moral and ideological justification for the annexation"/interventions, that is the path to confrontation.
So, instead to escalate the problem, perhaps it is time for talks, communication to take off. Not sure it will be enough to bring back Crimea in Ukraine but it might help in what left of Russian Ukrainians to wish to join Russia.
I'd disagree with the assessment that US has no coherent foreign policy. That doesn't mean that every single administration holds the exact same view and would approach every single issue from the same point of view, but there have been so many constants in the US foreign policy that it would be foolish to disregard them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Evil empire actually make an interesting example in that regard. I omitted two countries from that list - Iraq and Libya. Iraqi government was toppled during Bush administration, Libyan under Obama and there was serious danger of Syria becoming another example in that regard.
I'll respond to NATO-Russia relations in my reply to Seamus, because it will tie in nicely to that.
Seamus, I'm sorry, I've read your post but didn't have time to reply, and you've raised some interesting point.
You have me at a disadvantage now, as I haven't read that piece of work. Remember that I live in a 3rd world country where Amazon doesn't offer deliveries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'll try to respond the best I can from what I've been able to gather from the second part of your post. Now, I'd agree that during a crisis irrational evaluations are put forth to decision makers, perhaps even more than rational. During Cuban crisis, I'm sure there was chaos when politicians tried to decide on the best course of action, both in Moscow and in Washington. That was a crisis in the true sense of the word. It happened fast, it got out hand quickly and the stakes were as high as they get. Considering Iraq, there was a year and half between 9/11 and the invasion, so there was ample time to take into account all aspects. What we have seen though, is that most of that time was spent methodically organizing support for an invasion, even though allied intelligence agencies were giving different information.
I feel it is highly unlikely that US intelligence agencies, which may not be the best but certainly are most funded, got that one completely wrong and disregarded information all other intelligence, from Paris to Beijing.
I pretty much agree with this assessment. USSR hardly could've pulled an invasion of USA, but European NATO members could have been invaded theoretically. In USA, I believe, there was more fear about domino effect of additional communist revolutions in Europe and elsewhere, which could have left USA isolated on the world stage, and, potentially, even bring one to USA.Quote:
I have little doubt that such factors, in reverse of those applied by the USA, applied to the CCCP's efforts in those instances you cite. Nor do I blame the decisions made as acts of evil. I find the comm0-disctatorship of the Soviets anathema because it stifles the individual so badly and works so inefficiently -- but their foreign policy efforts were actually a bit more consistent than ours and clearly motivated by their sense of self preservation. I have often thought that THAT is why "trust but verify" went over so well with them.
As to the fear factor, the Sov's truly did think that NATO could come after them and possibly destroy them. One NATO member, operating alone under different management, had come perilously close to doing so. Equally, however, the West really did fear that we would not be able to stop a massive Soviet attack short of the use of nuclear weapons -- which were anathema to us for any number of psychological reasons.
That line of thought is perfectly logical up until 1990's, possibly even before. With the dissolution of the CCCP, the threat of a communist invasion was gone. It didn't have the calming effect it should have had. Instead, it brought unprecedented enlargement of NATO and a general increase of US interventionism around the world.
I feel that the war on terror was a convenient excuse to further other US interest. The public demanded some kind of response. The opportunity was there to do something to which there would have been much more opposition a year or two earlier. There was never any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, nor did Iraq harbour terrorists. Relationship between Saddam and fundamentalist movements was strenuous at best.Quote:
As to the War on Terror, the whole thing is a bit nebulous. Warring on an idea/concept/cause cannot be accomplished solely by military means. The 9-11 attackers very much shattered our illusions that we were fundamentally safe on our relatively peaceful continent -- even though the numbers lost here do not hold a candle to the civilian "collateral" casualties caused in our response. Yet we could not not respond -- a frustrating dilemma. We then tacked on all sorts of other projects -- such as Iraq -- that were AT BEST tangentially related to countering Islamist terrorism. We still haven't achieved the appropriate combination of military, investigative, financial and diplomatic force required.
We can argue that Afghanistan was a mess for various reasons, but at least there was a clear link between the government and terrorists. In Iraq, no such connections existed.
Now, to go back on the principal reason why I tend to mention American foreign policy decision in relation to Russian. Indeed, they do not excuse what Russia did in Ukraine, but, at least in my opinion, they're illustrative as an example that what Russia did in Ukraine or Georgia isn't indicative of their desire to dominate the world, or proof that they're led by a megalomaniac, or that they want to grab indiscriminately as much land as they can. It is, from where they're standing, a rational decision which they didn't make easily and likely which they didn't wish for in the first place. It is that the possible alternative, for them, was much worse.
Powerful nations across the globe want influence. Denying them influence comparable to their power is actually detrimental to stability. That is especially true for Europe and Russia. Russia is the elephant in the room that everyone's trying to ignore, hoping that if they ignore it real hard, it will go away. Stability of Europe for the last few centuries was based principally on four nations, Russia, Germany, France and to a slightly lesser degree, UK, as they've had to balance their interests on the continent with their global interests. Anything involving security and stability of Europe that doesn't involve all of them is inherently flawed.
In addition, any conflict, even small scale, between Russia and USA will be felt by us all, especially us Europeans, irregardless of whether we're involved directly. In that sense, I blame USA more than Russia, as Russian actions were a response to US actions. Staple of Russian foreign policy in relation to the west since Gorbachev was "No more NATO on our borders". Why the need to push for more NATO members? Why Ukraine and Georgia? Does it enhance the security of core NATO members that much it is worth doing the one thing Russia made clear will ruin relations? Even against the wishes of local populations? Against the wishes of core NATO members? Even Kissinger said multiple times that Ukraine shouldn't be a NATO member and we would be hard pressed to find a more experienced person when it comes to global politics...
That's why I stand by what I've said earlier - until western, in particular US, politicians are willing to accept that Russia will wield considerable influence comparable to its power, this won't be the last crisis of this type.
So there not allowed to decide if they want to join themselves?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
There has never been the kind of propaganda you speak of on Maidan. There were Russians (from Russia) on Maidan, Russian flags were flying above some tents, Russian was heard aplenty there. The population of Kyiv is predominantly Russian-speaking and they helped Maidan in every possible way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.
I am not a fan of such radical moves on the part of an interim government either, but you must understand a difference between an interim government and an interim government at war. The latter can't shut themselves in to the news from outside and keep chanting:"This is not our business, we must hold an election".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939 (of perhaps earlier, in 1938?). The same rhetoric on vicissitudes of ethnic brethren in other countries, call to save them from oppression of any kind and claiming that Danzig is a German city (like Sevastopol is a Russian one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Unfortunately my computer skills are not that good, so I can't give a link or something like that. Perhaps others will find the speech in question and corroborate or correct what I say.
“If you mean "Putin TV propaganda turning the protesters into anti-Russians" then you are right.” No. I mean Western Media saying Pro-European against Pro-Russian.
“Many people here liken this speech to the one Hitler made in September 1939” Ooops Hitler… That is Western Propaganda I was referring to as well….
You mean no similarity whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Did you not read the post????Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.
Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.
Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?
@Sarmatian:
Here is a decent downloadable précis of Allison's 3 perspectives.
The point of the multiple perspectives is that numerous constraints and "interior" political agenda influence decisions and that those constraints are persistent. Thus it is NOT necessarily true that decisions made over the course of months have had time to "revert" to the rational. There were, almost certainly, elements in the US government who wanted to "finish the job" in Iraq -- Schwarzkopf felt that stopping short of Turkish border in Gulf One was the wrong choice for example -- and that segment was reinforced by the neocons who saw the neutralization of Iraq and Afghanistan as the means to "cloister" the greatest threat in the region, Iran. That made for a whole lot of minds predisposed to see what they wanted to see in the data (and in our case to put our faith in a humint resource who had an axe to grind against Saddam and wanted to seem valuable (and get a better payoff) package after defecting) despite skeptical opinions from numerous NATO allies regarding the quality of the intelligence.
Regarding the Ukraine etc.
Sarmatian is making a good point about the Russian idea of defense. Is it paranoid of them to be so aggressive when defending their interests within Eastern Europe? Probably. On the other hand, as students of history you are all aware of WHY Russia tends to be a bit paranoid about invasions. or strong opponents sharing their borders. Presuming that they will act like "us" is a little silly. This Russian attitude has not always been well addressed in our foreign policy interactions with them.
Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The world is only as deep as one can see...Quote:
But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...
In my post I didn't speak of likening ANYONE to ANYONE. It is too general. I spoke of likening the particular speech of Person 1 to the particular speech of Person 2. I heard some abstracts (translated) which seem to bear out this likening. I was interested if anyone (for Germans it seems easier) could provide it in full so that we all of us could draw our own conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
According to latest polls the figure of those who wish to join NATO is 75%. In southeast it is 57-45%, in the center - 80%, in the west - more than 90%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That's understandable given the situation, but it's a momentary spike. It will drop back to more manageable levels as soon as the crisis is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
People will naturally assume that NATO membership would have protected them during this crisis, unaware that it was the possible NATO membership that was the prime reason for the crisis itself.
Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.