Printable View
Hitler also cited hunger as the reason he had breakfast in the morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
To "protect ethnic Ukrainians"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I agree with you, why do you think I am an isolationist? Accession to NATO would stop Russian irredentism in it's tracks. If Russia attacks NATO ally, we would annihilate them. Ukraine qualifies as a nation that we have been interested bringing into the fold for many years, that means we believe there is a security interest there. Why are we prevaricating here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am in favor of moving F16s into Poland and a second CDG into the Black Sea, but this is not enough. We should be preparing to blockade St. Petersburg and Kalingrad if they attack further. We should be working to make the Russian Federation a pariah state.
Nuclear apocalypse, yay!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I can totally see how that would save Ukraine.
Your media is already tirelessly doing that job. They don't even attempt balanced reporting anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Why would conflict turn nuclear? Can't people decimate some military capacity without going nuclear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Balanced reporting? I've been watching balanced reporting. What is the imbalance that you speak of? Fox news is entertainment, not news. I do t get my news from TV. That is your first mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Do you love RT or something? That is like Russian Fox News or MSNBC
It's that they base every article the write on Russia being wrong and the revolution being a noble effort of the people. They downplay or ignore the neo nazis in government and automatically side with the West on the issue. If they are supposed to be neutral on internal affairs, why do they have to side with their government on external affairs automatically? They don't even give any good reasons, they just parrot what Merkel and Obama said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Russia Today is the same on the other side of the issue. A balanced article would not see the strategic needs of Russia as unimportant while the strategic needs of the USA are the holy grail. Russia is not just Putin and he represents the people of Russia as much as Obama represents Americans. Fair and balanced (and I do not just mean Fox News) is about weighing both sides of an argument and giving both sides a chance. What the media does in this and most other s choose a side and then argue for that side. That's propaganda.
I have made the objective decision in my own understanding of events that Russian military involvement in Ukraine is not justified. If there were legitimate reports of Svoboda killing ethnic Russians, it might be called for, but until that time it is unreasonable. Annexing Crimea when 40% of the population is not Russian is not reasonable. Busing or encouraging provocateurs to cross the border and cause additional civil strife by attacking unarmed civilians is not reasonable.
Are people making legitimate allegations that the US and EU bused in protesters?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3cicr91vY-IjMg
Vice is providing some great anecdotal experiences
I'm guessing two reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
1) Most of NATO doesn't wish it
2) Most of the Ukrainian population doesn't wish it
So, unless you apply an enormous amount of pressure on European NATO members it's not gonna happen. It must coincide with a very pro-western government (quite like this one) but if they try to do that officially, they'd have on their hands such a crisis that this Crimea thing would look like a small misunderstanding between friends. If they try to hold a referendum on NATO, it wouldn't pass.
And - before you say it - yes, even after this experience.
No, the US and EU financed the protesters. They bused in themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
We will see. If Russia annexes Crimea, the likelihood of accession talks will probably increase. Former Yugoslav republics are next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Khakasia is Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
But there's more. So much more. Go ahead and dismiss it all as commie propaganda, padawan. Truly blind you are.
http://ura.ru/content/chel/20-02-201...036257620.html
http://primamedia.ru/news/health/10....olnitsu-v.html
Know shit padawan does not.
Know his shit the master does.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, corruption has permeated Russia to a degree unseen in most countries. The common folk are paying for that corruption.
Bad language, Yoda use would not.
To the Dark Side, these terms belong.
Just paid for them, as Sarmatian already said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I actually agree that Russia is going a bit far but it's not something I'd start a war over.
If 40% of Scots do not want independence from GB, should NATO send troops to force them to stay?
I'm aware that the Crimean president is a Russian shill but that's not my problem. I don't think it is illegal to leave Russia if it's that bad.
Syrians also don't all like their president or the rebels and people actually die there. If we want to protect people from horrible things we could start there or in Africa. So far it hasn't worked too well anyway though. Usually a lot of people die and everybody is left with a sour taste while the next dictator rises to power.
After the 2008 crisis I'm not so sure anymore...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Ukraine has been severely putinized lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Unless it loses the touch with reality and starts behaving Yanukovych style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In the case of Ukraine the predatory neighbor is always there. When shall we then find time for a revoultion or two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Again??? Do I really have to go through with you what I've already went through with Gilrandir?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
1) I never claimed that there is no corruption in Russia.
2) I called bollox on your statement that the average salary for a hospital administrator is 8000-12000$ per month
There are hundreds of thousands of hospitals in Russia and more than a million doctors. Statistics please, not individual examples, and quick, before I link to news articles about 5 Serbian billionares and claim it proves entire population is that rich.
And, btw, Khakasia is a part of Russia, not entire Russia. It's indicative of the entire Russia about as much as Monte Carlo is indicative of Europe (size comparison).
We're talking about Russian Federation. You know, the largest country on earth, can be found easily on most maps.
NATO has to attack to force the Ethnic Russians to stay in Ukraine against their will.
Not even then would I seek to overthrow the government before its time. I took pride in voting out the Tories in 1997. People organised themselves to more effectively vote out the Tory candidate, by voting for whichever Labour or LibDem candidate was most likely to beat the Tory. The supposedly natural party of government was reduced to its lowest number of seats in living memory. We threw out the party we saw as corrupt, through legitimate electoral process. And when we changed our mind over time, we voted them back in through legitimate electoral process. Well I didn't vote them in, but I accept that I'm part of the we, as the process was correctly followed and they ended up with the greatest right to form a government. Going by the polls, they'll be voted out in the next election, and that too will be correct. That's how democracy works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Er, by the 19th century when revolutions were all the rage in continental Europe, we'd been at odds with France for nearly 800 years, while we'd been carrying on an on-off global struggle with them for 100 years with constant threats of invasion in either direction (there's a reason why Portsmouth is possibly the most heavily fortified area that size in the world). What was Ukraine's history 800 years ago? Hell, what was Ukraine's history 100 years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You called bollox because you have no clue. I'm trying to give you a clue, but it seems all for naught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Here's one more article, this time with national statistics. It's a comparison between US and Russian hospital staff salaries. The gist of it is that Russian hospital staff make a tiny fraction of money of their U.S. counterparts except (drumbeat!) general managers, who make about the same on both sides.
If this is not enough, then I'm washing my hand off you, padawan.
Some people here spoke of ideology as one of the main incentives (alongside money and power) to seek international domination. I thought I could inform you about some ideological background which is quite obvious for Ukraine-Russia relations in those countries but may not be so obvious to outsiders. Perhaps you would understand why 58% of Russians (according to the poll which claims to be objective, though it goes for all of them) support Putin in his attitude to Ukrainian crisis.
The traditional view (which is agressively propelled now) of Ukrainians in Russia is that they are not a people apart. Ukrainians, Russians and Belorussians have common (east) Slavic roots. They all come from Kyivan Rus which fell apart due to the lack of unity among contending princes but common people of it always felt united. Then Ukrainians and Belorussians were incorporated into Poland and Lithuania. Under those their language, traditions and faith have suffered and have been mauled and distorted. Thus Russians are the only successors of Kyivan Rus who kept the purity of (east) Slavs, their independence, language and orthodox faith intact. Moreover, it is a historic mission of Russia to deliver their long-sundered kindred from all kinds of oppression and even thraldom and bring them all to be united again. This deliverance movement has been termed "gathering of all Russian lands". Most Ukrainians crave for this reunification and there is no sensible reason why they shouldn't.
Many of those tenets could be called incorrect. In the times of Kyivan Rus there were no Russians or Ukrainians. Its territory was inhabited by a dozen tribes which only started to amalgamate when the state was divided into principalities. So this amalgamation was locally limited, there is no sense to claim that inhabitants of southern principalities (Kiyv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Halych, Volyn), which now constitute Ukraine, formed a single people with citizens of Vladimir and Suzdal, now the core Russian lands. Moreover, the lands were Moscow is now situated were originally inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes assimilated by Slavs pushing north (so much for Slavic purity). The very name "Rus" or "Russia" refered to what is now called Ukraine while modern Russia has always been called "Muscovy" until the reign of Peter I (1682-1725). So much for succession.
As a linguist I can say, that Ukrainian is closer than Russian in its vocabulary and phonetic structure to Old Russian. I can't deny a significant influence of Polish, yet many words which in Russian are obsolete or considered as belonging to Old Church Slavonic (as the only literary language of Eastern Slavs) are preserved in modern Ukrainian. I would say that under specific historic conditions Old Russian got stagnated in Ukraine (turning into modern Ukrainian) while it developed in Russia into modern Russian. The same, I believe, happened to Old Norse which "got stagnated" in Iceland (due to limited contacts with the continent) while on the continent it developed into modern Norwegian. Well, Hore Tore will correct me, if I'm wrong in that respect (I wonder how much mutually understandable Icalandic and Norwegian (in any of its forms) are). So much for Russian as a lingustic successor of the Old Russian.
I'm sorry for such a lengthy post, but I hope it will explain much of the popular sentiment in Russia today. History and tradition are much considered, discussed and referred to in Russia (as well as in Ukraine, I should say) while dealing with the Slavic neighbors.
How can you say that after all we have been through? ~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You can find that out yourself if you are really interested. Ukraine was there OK, but was divided and incorporated into empires. The absence of the independent state cannot undo centuries of history. Many countries lost and gained independence agian (Poland, Lithuania, Ireland, to name the few) but that didn't interrupt their history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Did historical Ukraine circa 100 years ago include Crimea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Of course not. Does historical Poland ca 100 years ago include Breslau? Hell no. Does historical Russia ca 100 years ago include Koenigsberg? Nope. Revisionism is a dangerous path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I demand a return of Jemtland and Herjedalen!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Crimea was "given" to Ukraine by Khruschev in 1954 - but not for naught. In exchange Ukraine "relinqushed" a densely populated (1.2 million people) strip of land to the east of modern Lugansk region (including the city of Taganrog). Since that time Crimea (which, as one of the then leaders of Ukrainian Communist Party admitted, presented a deplorable picture) had received its water canal system providing water from the Dnipro, electricity was provided from hydroelectric power plants on the said Dnipro and many other things to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And Vinland!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Keep it, I drink beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So if the Ukrainisation of Crimea is a recent thing, and Crimea depends on Ukraine so much, should it not be a matter between Ukraine, Crimea and whoever else is interested, on how Crimea should be? Why should the EU get involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Same reason why the EU intervened in Libya: it was the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian