|
|
On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty.
If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside.
I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad.
|
On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad.
I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians  ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out.
|
On March 03 2014 12:46 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:
... an autonomous Republic where the local population has extensive political rights and all three languages of the major ethnic groups in it: Ukrainians, Russians and Tatars, are equally respected before the law.
Thing is, this part got reaaaaally sketchy a couple days before the Russians invaded. A whole bunch of laws were passed by the new government - mostly due to recommendations from the nazis (far right, w/e you wanna call them), including the ban of any language other than Ukrainian being used in government. Things went south fast after these laws were passed, it sure looked like the nazis were calling the shots in the interim government. Regarding the West's approach to the whole situation, I don't understand what realpolitik bright minds thought that aligning themselves with far right groups would bring about happy times. If they really didn't want to involve themselves with such company, they could've forced the interim government to not accept those people in their ranks or they'd drop their support. Maybe Putin was gonna invade regardless and this all was just an unhappy coincidence, but there it is.
And those laws were vetoed. Specifically though, the laws were not 'banning all minority languages', they were repeal of a 2012 law on Russian. Because Crimea has already extensive autonomy, in Crimea the language laws were already more flexible than they are anywhere else in Ukraine, with Tatar, Russian and Ukrainian being treated equally as languages of government, and the new laws did not alter them. Which is why the new 'leader' of Crimea is not from one of the parties that actually has a large number of representatives in the Crimean Parliament (Party of Region or the Tatar Party or the Ukrainian party or even the Communist Party) but instead is a guy who in the last non-Russian invasion elections had all of 4% of the vote, just enough to get him 3 seats in a parliament of 100.
The West, contrary to the imaginations of some, is not controlling the interim government. And the rational reason why the Nazis were allowed in power was to defuse their bands and stabilize the situation, since Svoboda represents only 8% of the last Parliament it seems logical -- to me -- that they would be subbed out after the May elections by more normal MPs. But I also agree with you, the way that law was passed was both stupid and unnecessarily inflammatory and as someone who speaks Ukrainian with his mother and Russian with his father I agree that both languages should have legal status.
|
On March 03 2014 13:22 m4ini wrote:German foreign minister Steinmeier: Show nested quote +Bundesaußenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier steht dem von US-Außenminister John Kerry angedrohten Ausschluss Russlands aus der Gruppe der führenden Industrieländer (G8) ablehnend gegenüber. “Ich glaube, wir müssen sehen, dass wir zur Deeskalation in der Ukraine beitragen und jetzt nicht jedmögliche Verschärfung der Situation herbeireden”, sagte Steinmeier am Sonntagabend in der ARD. Über das Thema würden die Regierungschefs im Laufe der Woche miteinander sprechen. Er selbst sei eher bei jenen, die sagten, “das G-8-Format ist eigentlich das einzige Format, in dem wir aus dem Westen auch mit Russland unmittelbar sprechen”. Steinmeier fügte hinzu: “Sollten wir wirklich dieses einzige Format opfern?” Allerdings gebe es auch Regierungschefs, die mit dem Ausschluss Russlands ein starkes Signal senden wollten. Foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier opposes the exclusion russias out of the group of leading industry-countries (G8), as was threatened by John Kerry. "I think, we have to try to help to deescalate the situation in the ukraine, rather than aggravate it in every possible way.", said Steinmeier on Sunday evening to the ARD. The governments would talk about that topic at some point in the next week. He himself is leans more towards those who say "the G-8 format is actually the only format where we from the west can talk directly to russia.". Steinmeier adds: "Should we really sacrifice this single format?". However, there are government(leaders), who want to send a strong signal with the exclusion of russia. http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/03/02/westen-uneinig-gegen-putin-steinmeier-gegen-g-8-ausschluss/Translated briefly by me, if any of the fellow germans find a mistake, correct it please.
I thought he said this before the G7 statement was issued? Or is he repeating this in another interview?
|
On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out.
How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection.
And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention?
|
On March 03 2014 14:09 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out. How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection. And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention?
Except first question, what has rest of your post have to do with my post ?
As for how I know that. Because of what current government stated in regards to the Crimean situation and the fact that even more enlightened countries have issues with letting territories voluntarily go.
EDIT: Also are you not contradicting yourself, recently you stated there were no attacks on anyone and now that there were confrontations in Kharkov ? Also there were disturbances in Crimea prior to Russian involvement.
|
I'm amazed by the warmongering in here. People are calling getting neutral observers into the area spineless and some 'muricans are like "If we had Bush we'd just roll in there and party!"
The goals here should be to get as neutral as possible eyes on the ground and to prevent further escalation. You don't just mobilize your shit and start shooting at Russian troops.
|
On March 03 2014 15:15 r.Evo wrote:
I'm amazed by the warmongering in here. People are calling getting neutral observers into the area spineless and some 'muricans are like "If we had Bush we'd just roll in there and party!"
That was one troll. But please, don't let that get in the way of your anti-american soapboxing.
The goals here should be to get as neutral as possible eyes on the ground and to prevent further escalation. You don't just mobilize your shit and start shooting at Russian troops.
No one has suggested anything of the sort.
|
3 random posts suggesting/supporting military action and 3 more calling the whole "We need neutral observers" spineless/weak when it's literally the biggest action anyone with a say in the western world has suggested so far. I even ignored the super-troll.
That's the type of warmongering that's really, really disappointing.
e: Bonus, someone suggesting that trying to talk instead of escalating equals Chamberlain policy pre-WW2 (while misquoting his speech) and calling Putin Hitler.
On March 03 2014 08:31 BeaSteR wrote:
Just crush the russian military, it's easy with the combined NATO & EU forces
On March 03 2014 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. The problem is that this gives Russia everything it wants and will make it do this over and over again while the countries at its borders live in fear if there next. Sometimes you need to tell a bully to back off instead of waiting for the entire yard to run out of lunch money. Yes this gives Russia what it wants and that sucks. But at this point there's nothing the West can do about it. Or what are you proposing instead? We should better learn a lesson from it, get Russias neighbour states into the NATO and settle the borders so Russia doesn't get the opportunity to pull such a move next time. How can they do nothing about it? Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases.
You now show Russia you will uphold your promises and that they should back off.Let the Ukraine people decided how to handle Crimea. Russia took half a dozen small steps before they crossed the border to see how far they could push it. The west did not react at all. Ofc they just roll in at that point.
On March 03 2014 08:12 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 08:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. The problem is that this gives Russia everything it wants and will make it do this over and over again while the countries at its borders live in fear if there next. Sometimes you need to tell a bully to back off instead of waiting for the entire yard to run out of lunch money. Yes this gives Russia what it wants and that sucks. But at this point there's nothing the West can do about it. Or what are you proposing instead? We should better learn a lesson from it, get Russias neighbour states into the NATO and settle the borders so Russia doesn't get the opportunity to pull such a move next time. How can they do nothing about it? Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases. You now show Russia you will uphold your promises and that they should back off. Let the Ukraine people decided how to handle Crimea. Russia took half a dozen small steps before they crossed the border to see how far they could push it. The west did not react at all. Ofc they just roll in at that point. And what if someone shoots? The NATO troops or whoever you want to sent in there shoot back? It sucks for the Ukraine that Russia gets away with taking control over Crimea, but no one wants to risk starting a WW III. Russia knows that. They'd just call every bluff. you dont have to start shooting, just do more target visa bans and asset seizures.
On March 03 2014 08:23 xM(Z wrote:
Germany should've sided with Russia from the beginning and ditch France and the whole EU mess.
they would've had balls (borrowed, but still balls), energy assured and the ex-soviet states as market for its goods.
now they're just having bitchy hissy fits 'cause their allies/EU have no real balls.
historically/territorially, EU is so messed up that if a war were to begin, you'll have like 20 states claiming territories from other 30.
On March 03 2014 07:49 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Of course the Germans wilt and allow military invasion with no justification to go unpunished. Merkel should grow a spine.
On March 03 2014 07:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:49 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Of course the Germans wilt and allow military invasion with no justification to go unpunished. Merkel should grow a spine. You're right. If she's never done anything to oppose everything the US is done, I doubt she'll grow a spine now with the Russians. rofl
On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior.
On March 03 2014 07:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. Wouldn't it be cool if Merkel gives a "peace in our time" speech?
|
On March 03 2014 15:36 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 15:15 r.Evo wrote:
I'm amazed by the warmongering in here. People are calling getting neutral observers into the area spineless and some 'muricans are like "If we had Bush we'd just roll in there and party!" That was one troll. But please, don't let that get in the way of your anti-american soapboxing. Show nested quote +The goals here should be to get as neutral as possible eyes on the ground and to prevent further escalation. You don't just mobilize your shit and start shooting at Russian troops. No one has suggested anything of the sort. Sure they did.
It looks to me like 90% of US posters here say something along the lines of "Obama shows weakness" / "he is not handling the situation firmly enough".
But Obama is threatening Russia with sanctions and 'diplomatic costs'. Since that is apparently not enough, the next step would be mobilization...
|
On March 03 2014 14:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 14:09 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out. How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection. And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention? Except first question, what has rest of your post have to do with my post ?
Just asking you for your feel on things
As for how I know that. Because of what current government stated in regards to the Crimean situation and the fact that even more enlightened countries have issues with letting territories voluntarily go.
statements like 'we dont like Russia annexing part of our country'?
EDIT: Also are you not contradicting yourself, recently you stated there were no attacks on anyone and now that there were confrontations in Kharkov ? Also there were disturbances in Crimea prior to Russian involvement.
No I am not. There were confrontations in Kharkiv, which is our friend whose dad may or may not work for Metalist reported. But contrary to the claims of the Russian government, they did not involve any Nazis -- well, unless you accept zeo's definition that everyone involved in Maidan is a Nazi. As far as I can see, not one article has been posted about neo nazis actually executing any kind of nazi-race project -- the most provocative thing we have is a BBC interview of some Nazis patrolling Kiev and upon being interviewed by BBC responding in perfect Russian.
But there were scuffles in East Ukraine, unlike Crimea -- yet Kharkiv doesnt want Russian troops, and neither does the rest of East Ukraine. But in Crimea were the only confrontation was a couple of guys reading about the Maidan getting beat up by people -- that were posted by friend zeo earlier -- there has been no reports of violence against Russians.
|
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyX
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
|
well, to be honest i wouldnt count on the americans in this situation. the whole mess in ukraine is much more important to the western european states and russia than to the usa. lets hope for the best.
|
Please stop talking about the change in minority language laws. That law was vetoed by Yatsenyuk 4 days ago.
|
On March 03 2014 15:49 r.Evo wrote:3 random posts suggesting/supporting military action and 3 more calling the whole "We need neutral observers" spineless/weak when it's literally the biggest action anyone with a say in the western world has suggested so far. I even ignored the super-troll. That's the type of warmongering that's really, really disappointing. e: Bonus, someone suggesting that trying to talk instead of escalating equals Chamberlain policy pre-WW2 (while misquoting his speech) and calling Putin Hitler. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 08:31 BeaSteR wrote:
Just crush the russian military, it's easy with the combined NATO & EU forces Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. The problem is that this gives Russia everything it wants and will make it do this over and over again while the countries at its borders live in fear if there next. Sometimes you need to tell a bully to back off instead of waiting for the entire yard to run out of lunch money. Yes this gives Russia what it wants and that sucks. But at this point there's nothing the West can do about it. Or what are you proposing instead? We should better learn a lesson from it, get Russias neighbour states into the NATO and settle the borders so Russia doesn't get the opportunity to pull such a move next time. How can they do nothing about it? Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases.
You now show Russia you will uphold your promises and that they should back off.Let the Ukraine people decided how to handle Crimea. Russia took half a dozen small steps before they crossed the border to see how far they could push it. The west did not react at all. Ofc they just roll in at that point. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 08:12 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 08:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:52 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. The problem is that this gives Russia everything it wants and will make it do this over and over again while the countries at its borders live in fear if there next. Sometimes you need to tell a bully to back off instead of waiting for the entire yard to run out of lunch money. Yes this gives Russia what it wants and that sucks. But at this point there's nothing the West can do about it. Or what are you proposing instead? We should better learn a lesson from it, get Russias neighbour states into the NATO and settle the borders so Russia doesn't get the opportunity to pull such a move next time. How can they do nothing about it? Ukraine asked the US/UK to uphold its sovereignty. You mobile and move in some troops with there support to "observe". They dont even need to leave military bases. You now show Russia you will uphold your promises and that they should back off. Let the Ukraine people decided how to handle Crimea. Russia took half a dozen small steps before they crossed the border to see how far they could push it. The west did not react at all. Ofc they just roll in at that point. And what if someone shoots? The NATO troops or whoever you want to sent in there shoot back? It sucks for the Ukraine that Russia gets away with taking control over Crimea, but no one wants to risk starting a WW III. Russia knows that. They'd just call every bluff. you dont have to start shooting, just do more target visa bans and asset seizures. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 08:23 xM(Z wrote:
Germany should've sided with Russia from the beginning and ditch France and the whole EU mess.
they would've had balls (borrowed, but still balls), energy assured and the ex-soviet states as market for its goods.
now they're just having bitchy hissy fits 'cause their allies/EU have no real balls.
historically/territorially, EU is so messed up that if a war were to begin, you'll have like 20 states claiming territories from other 30. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:49 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Of course the Germans wilt and allow military invasion with no justification to go unpunished. Merkel should grow a spine. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 03 2014 07:49 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Of course the Germans wilt and allow military invasion with no justification to go unpunished. Merkel should grow a spine. You're right. If she's never done anything to oppose everything the US is done, I doubt she'll grow a spine now with the Russians. rofl Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Nice job, Germany. Way to sanction bad behavior. I suggest you take off your Reagan fanshirt and be happy that some people on this planet actually try to talk before they further escalate the situation. Wouldn't it be cool if Merkel gives a "peace in our time" speech?
Don't forget the Olympics just happened in Russia as well!
|
Finaly a real-world analysis, thank you very much.
|
On March 03 2014 16:00 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyXShow nested quote +
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
That quote couldn't be more realistic to be honest. See, here's what I don't get. Even though they're still recovering from the Soviet collapse and 1998 collapse, basically Russia's back in the saddle. Russia can do whatever they want with Ukraine and all Obama can do is a truffle shuffle and more threats in response. Still, even with imperial movements, their restraint seriously surprises me. For example, I need not even say what the US would do in Putin's shoes in this scenario, but to give a hint it would most likely involve lots of booms and ratatatata. But Russia could get away with so much more, it's absurd and doesn't make sense from the standpoint of modern-era politcs that they don't do so, but it's good. The world needs less war and hegemonic imperialism.
|
This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier).
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source.
|
On March 03 2014 15:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 14:21 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 14:09 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is. I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population. The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave. This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out. How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection. And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention? Except first question, what has rest of your post have to do with my post ? Just asking you for your feel on things Show nested quote +
As for how I know that. Because of what current government stated in regards to the Crimean situation and the fact that even more enlightened countries have issues with letting territories voluntarily go.
statements like 'we dont like Russia annexing part of our country'? Show nested quote +
EDIT: Also are you not contradicting yourself, recently you stated there were no attacks on anyone and now that there were confrontations in Kharkov ? Also there were disturbances in Crimea prior to Russian involvement.
No I am not. There were confrontations in Kharkiv, which is our friend whose dad may or may not work for Metalist reported. But contrary to the claims of the Russian government, they did not involve any Nazis -- well, unless you accept zeo's definition that everyone involved in Maidan is a Nazi. As far as I can see, not one article has been posted about neo nazis actually executing any kind of nazi-race project -- the most provocative thing we have is a BBC interview of some Nazis patrolling Kiev and upon being interviewed by BBC responding in perfect Russian. But there were scuffles in East Ukraine, unlike Crimea -- yet Kharkiv doesnt want Russian troops, and neither does the rest of East Ukraine. But in Crimea were the only confrontation was a couple of guys reading about the Maidan getting beat up by people -- that were posted by friend zeo earlier -- there has been no reports of violence against Russians.
You want to get my feel on things by asking loaded rhetorical questions ?
Before Russia got directly involved the Ukrainian government officials were already calling the uprising in Crimea terrorists and implicitly suggesting what they think should be done with them.
I was referring to your absolute statement that there were no attacks (you did not limit it to nazis, but maybe context was unclear). In Crimea I was not talking about violence against Russians, I was just saying that there were incidents, not against pro-Russians, actually the other way around before Russia got involved. But again, now I see what you were trying to say. I also heard about some requests from Donbas about wanting to leave Ukraine or at least protection from Russia, but nothing that can be confirmed I assume.
As for my opinion on this,what I find as best solution right now I pointed out earlier.
|
On March 03 2014 15:49 r.Evo wrote:
3 random posts suggesting/supporting military action and 3 more calling the whole "We need neutral observers" spineless/weak when it's literally the biggest action anyone with a say in the western world has suggested so far. I even ignored the super-troll.
It's still spineless and weak. Vague talk about "dialog" is exactly what's not needed right now. There's nothing to negotiate, Russia has staged a de facto invasion of a sovereign, democratic nation. They've installed a puppet governor in Crimea who promptly asked for them to invade. They're on Ukrainian soil, telling the Ukrainian army to disarm.
This sort of action is unacceptable, and should result in immediate sanctions.
That's the type of warmongering that's really, really disappointing.
It's not warmongering. Calling for a harsher diplomatic tone is not remotely the same as saying we need to start bombing Russia. The fact that we're calling for "escalation" is entirely in your head. We're calling for strong sanctions against an obviously criminal act of aggression, not hedging your bets so you can keep burning Russia's fossil fuels and winning brownie points with idiot voters by closing your zero-emission nuclear plants.
e: Bonus, someone suggesting that trying to talk instead of escalating equals Chamberlain policy pre-WW2 (while misquoting his speech) and calling Putin Hitler.
Putin is certainly trying really, really hard to make history rhyme. Comparing Crimea to the Sudetenland is completely appropriate, since the casus belli is literally identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
