EPTUkraine Crisis - Page 277
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12080 Posts
Though i guess it's just that, once you reach the point where all the people remembering it start dying off, people forget history. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:30 Ghanburighan wrote: Confirmed: Putin will use whatever trumped-up excuse to gain land, power, and influence. This definitely doesn't really matter. Nobody believes Ukraine gets moved to Russia under a legal technicality, it's compatible with Putin's techniques, and it's hardly newsworthy or surprising considering how Putin really uses force when he's serious. Force no matter the pretext.What the Flying Rhinoceros Fuck: Edit: This definitely needs to be confirmed *** More escalation: Troop movements reported near the Eastern border of Ukraine. Source. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:34 Saryph wrote: http://echo.msk.ru/news/1277694-echo.html The link above apparently agrees with your link from twitter, though if we could get a better translation than google it would be nice. the important part translates as "Putin doesn't think that the way Ukraine left USSR was entirely legal" | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 13 2014 01:52 SilentchiLL wrote: Wat How do the russian people explain that their media is obviously lying to them? I mean, when even they know that their troops are there, how can they believe the other stuff they claim? This boggles my mind quite a bit, there have been several russian posters here who defended the official version of Putin, do they selectively choose what of the things the russian media reports they believe or do those who support this kinda know what Putin's doing but support him anyway? The cognitive dissonance the people experience when they notice that their country sucks is just too much so they become nationalistic instead and start to belief that the enemies are just at their borders like their great leader tells them. It's a sad irony of history that the countries that are in bad shape also often are among the most nationalistic and militaristic. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:45 Nyxisto wrote: The cognitive dissonance the people experience when they notice that their country sucks is just too much so they become nationalistic instead and start to belief that the enemies are just at their borders like their great leader tells them. It's a sad irony of history that the countries that are in bad shape also often are among the most nationalistic and militaristic. You mean like Israel, South Korea, China, the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:35 Ghanburighan wrote: They cited Russian laws as legitimization of sending troops into Ukraine. If they consider such laws pertinent to the current situation, they also consider them pertinent with regard to the Baltics, potentially to every Warsaw Pact country, including half of Germany. Mentioning such rhetoric will sound off alarm bells across the world. USSR initially claimed that these secessions were illegal but later it recognized independence of these countries which legalized everything in Soviet system. So yes, it can be considered illegal but no, it doesn't give Russia an excuse to attack any of those countries. I agree that such rhetoric is undesirable but I don't find it worrisome. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:53 Sent. wrote: USSR initially claimed that these secessions were illegal but later it recognized independence of these countries which legalized everything in Soviet system. So yes, it can be considered illegal but no, it doesn't give Russia an excuse to attack any of those countries. The fun part is, russia so far forged reasons from less. Law in russia apparently is whatever putin right about now feels like, more or less nonexistant. Or morals for that matter, but that was never a "perk" of politicians anyway. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:49 Shady Sands wrote: You mean like Israel, South Korea, China, the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? I don't know what you're trying to tell me but besides China(which is pretty nationalistic and militaristic) all these countries have a very high standard of living. I hope you're not trying to tell me Israel or South Korea are aggressive nations, because if that's your point look up what neighbors and history they have. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:55 m4ini wrote: The fun part is, russia so far forged reasons from less. Law in russia apparently is whatever putin right about now feels like, more or less nonexistant. Or morals for that matter, but that was never a "perk" of politicians anyway. That's how international "law" works, Russia isn't some evil exception | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:00 Sent. wrote: That's how international "law" works, Russia isn't some evil exception International "law" so far did not threaten multiple country-borders so far, so while russia isn't an evil exception, they certainly bring it to a new level. edit Not to mention that it didn't came up without any reason, right now. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:49 Shady Sands wrote: You mean like Israel, South Korea, China, the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? Other than the last two that's an incomplete list of countries that are in better shape than the rest of the world so I think he probably doesn't mean like that... Putin is just trying to freak people out with this talk of Ukraine not really leaving the USSR legally, he full well knows if he tried to take over all or most of the Ukraine it would be a big war and a messy war just like the USSR's reoccupation of the Ukraine from 1944-early 1960s was. The Red Army didn't beat Ukrainian guerillas until almost twenty years after Hitler's defeat. Although by the late 1940s it was clear the Ukrainian partisans were going to lose. Russia is not as strong as the USSR was then, Russia cannot afford to fight or win militarily a major land war and then a lengthy and very active insurgency. Putin knows that. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 13 2014 02:59 Nyxisto wrote: I don't know what you're trying to tell me but besides China(which is pretty nationalistic and militaristic) all these countries have a very high standard of living. I hope you're not trying to tell me Israel or South Korea are aggressive nations, because if that's your point look up what neighbors and history they have. I think his point was that militaristic/nationalistic doesn't refer to the shape of the country. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:12 Cheerio wrote: Would be funny if Kazahstan asks for NATO membership in the near future. Can they? http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/faq.htm#A3 As a requirement seems to be that the country is part of Europe, I don't think Kazakhstan's chances are too high :o | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:12 Sent. wrote: No they are not in North Atlantic region. UN system forbids global military alliances. That's why USA had to create ANZUS instead of inviting Australia to NATO. NATO has been stretched a bit farther than the North Atlantic region but you're right I think I don't believe they could stretch it all the way to Kazakhstan. If Kazakhstan wants it some US military bases though we would be happy to oblige. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:12 Sent. wrote: No they are not in North Atlantic region. UN system forbids global military alliances. That's why USA had to create ANZUS instead of inviting Australia to NATO. Poland or Estonia are in the North Atlantic Region? Obviously the banality of Russian legalism is being fully exposed by Putin, but lets use his logic, "Ukraine didnt leave the USSR legally" well neither did Russia -- Yeltsin simply signed a decree banning the Communist Party on the territory of the Russian Soviet Fedrerative Socialist Repulic and then decided with the two other national presidents of Ukraine and Belarus that the Union was over. Gorbachev was told of this afterward. The fact that Russia is recognized as a successor state for some of the roles and responsibilities of the USSR was a pragmatic decision that was justified in international laws but it did not assume the full responsibilities of the Soviet Union. So I hope Gorbachev is read to move back into Kremlin! Anyway, Russia is now in its Alexander III/Brezhnev phase. Autocracy for all, billions of dollars for some, vague nationalism and censorship for the rest. Here is Navalny's interpretation of events. http://navalny.livejournal.com/914090.html Its interesting to see how even an opposition leader -- even someone as relatively weak as Navalny yet as feared by Putin as he is -- basically subscribes to some version of Pan-Slavic nationalism. I guess after the total failure of Soviet ideology you have to subscribe to something, but to reach back to Tsarist era claptrap, for a 'liberal' no less. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
but to reach back to Tsarist era claptrap Hey now a lot of it was authentic, especially with the helping to free southeast Europe and the Caucasus from the Turk. Although Russia then took over the latter and tried to take it over the former numerous times and finally succeeded for a little while... but hey, it's Russia. (that's not an insult) | ||
| ||
