|
|
On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine.
Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't.
Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ).
I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it.
|
On March 02 2014 01:43 shell wrote:
I have only one thing to say about Russian ways..
They seem to very worried because they feel that Crimeans need to have independence and shouldn't be under a nation they don't want to belong.. why don't they have the same worries about the peoples of Ossetia, Tchetchenia and all the other regions that want independence from Russia?
I think you are confused, both Ossetia's want to be part of Russia.
|
On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it.
Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language.
|
On March 02 2014 02:23 Mafe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:14 Twoflowers wrote:On March 02 2014 02:07 zeo wrote:Some media are stuck in the cold war: + Show Spoiler + Okay, I'll bite. I actually see no faults in the picture. Care to explain it to me? Czechoslovakia doesnt exist anymore; its czech republic and slovakia today. I just hope nothing tupid happens in Ukraine. From what I recently read iin media here, most inhabitants of Crimea are actually pro-Russia. But then again, wasnt it the other way around in Chechnya, and russia didn't let them go either (This is a real question, I'm not sure but I think it was that way)? There are probaly a lot of double standards involved from all parties, so I find it really hard to make my opinion. Let's just hope it doesn't escalate any further.
Well, yes. The Chechen government decided to leave the russian federation. This was after dissolving the parliament to avoid a vote of nonconfidence and a wave of violence against the nonchechen population. The russian invasion began after a coup from the opposition was followed by a call of assistance to russia.
|
On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language.
This is discrimination, I hope a Russian intervention will change the minds of these Ukraine nationalists.
|
On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language.
I dont think you read my post, I never said Russian language was banned.
|
On March 02 2014 02:36 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language. I dont think you read my post, I never said Russian language was banned.
You do seem to say so right there in bold even.
|
On March 02 2014 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:36 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language. I dont think you read my post, I never said Russian language was banned. You do seem to say so right there in bold even.
you missed the point where he says that they tried to
usually that implies they failed
|
On March 02 2014 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:36 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language. I dont think you read my post, I never said Russian language was banned. You do seem to say so right there in bold even.
Tried banning = banned ?
|
On March 02 2014 02:41 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On March 02 2014 02:36 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 02:30 r.Evo wrote:On March 02 2014 02:26 kukarachaa wrote:On March 02 2014 01:16 Derez wrote:
My main question would be how putin stops this logic: You take crimea because there's russians to protect, but there's also russians in the neighboring regions and the regions next to those, and he can't just annex the entire ukraine. Crimean area was gifted to the Ukraine Republic by Kruschev somewhere in the late 1960's if I remember my history right, for no real good reason. The area at a time was occupied by Russians and Crimean Tattar's, with virtually no Ukrainians. When USSR broke apart, Russia should have taken Crimea back, since it was still mostly Russians and native Tatars living there, but they didn't. Now you have very nationalistic government in power after Maiden, who with one of their first orders of business tried to pass language reform, banning Russian languages from schools etc. ( a lot of people in the eastern Ukraine took it as a first of many steps to come, to oppressing not just Russians but other minorities in Ukraine, especially when you consider the history of Svoboda's party ). I guess to answer your question, it depends on percentage of Russians and the history behind it, Crimea should have never been give to Ukraine in the first place, and now you have a vast majority of the population that want nothing to do with the new Ukraine's government. At least Russian's intervention makes sense to me, their protecting their people, even if I don't agree with it. Please check your facts. In no way Russian languages were "banned", it has been explained multiple times over the course of this thread. All that happened was reversing a (recent, introduced under Yanukovych) law that made Russian a second official language. I dont think you read my post, I never said Russian language was banned. You do seem to say so right there in bold even. Tried banning = banned ?
My bad in that case, it's just awkward because the "ban on Russian languages" usually gets confused with "reversing a law that made Russian an official language". Sorry. I actually didn't know about further attempts to get Russian banned, got a source for me?
|
I am not sure why you are so obsessed, with taking parts of my posts out of context, I said Russian in schools. That would fall under Russian being an official language part.
|
So it seems like Germany is not really that bothered
"What is happening in Crimea worries us," was all Merkal bothered to say.
Britain meanwhile has summoned the Russian ambassador for what is the usual political crapfest of saying "Well we don't like what you are doing so please tell putin that" over port and cigars.
|
I doubt anything will happen until the UN security meeting. Hopefully that will actually bring something more then calling Putin naughty.
|
On March 02 2014 02:49 zeonmx wrote:
So it seems like Germany is not really that bothered
"What is happening in Crimea worries us," was all Merkal bothered to say.
Britain meanwhile has summoned the Russian ambassador for what is the usual political crapfest of saying "Well we don't like what you are doing so please tell putin that" over port and cigars.
I'm pretty sure we won't hear anything more decisive from Merkel. If anything controversial is going to be said our minister of foreign affairs will say it.
|
On March 02 2014 02:48 kukarachaa wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed, with taking parts of my posts out of context, I said Russian in schools. That would fall under Russian being an official language part.
No it wouldn't. Lots of schools teach in languages that is not their country's official language.
|
On March 02 2014 02:53 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 02:48 kukarachaa wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed, with taking parts of my posts out of context, I said Russian in schools. That would fall under Russian being an official language part. No it wouldn't. Lots of schools teach in languages that is not their country's official language.
Almost all schools in Ukraine teaching ukrainian/russian and some foreigner language, mosly english.
|
On March 02 2014 02:48 kukarachaa wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed, with taking parts of my posts out of context, I said Russian in schools. That would fall under Russian being an official language part.
I learned Russian in school before that language law and also a lot of russian school existed at that time. Now they are just reverting to that times.
About Crimea: its Constitution gives as many rights to Russian language as to Ukrainian.
|
Taking politics completely out of the situation. Why isn't the headline "Russia Invades The Ukraine"?
|
On March 02 2014 03:07 LongShot27 wrote:
Taking politics completely out of the situation. Why isn't the headline "Russia Invades The Ukraine"?
cuz they havent invaded anything yet?
|
On March 02 2014 03:07 LongShot27 wrote:
Taking politics completely out of the situation. Why isn't the headline "Russia Invades The Ukraine"?
Because all that is happening right now is the legacy of euromaidan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VLlORnH.jpg)
