|
|
On April 09 2014 12:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +Anyway, you saying that the USSR brought a lot of these places (Eastern Europe) out of the medieval era is simply not true, and it shows either that you don't know much about pre 1900's history, or that you're trying to mislead deliberately. I raised and eyebrow, and then bust out laughing when I read the following paragraph. XD Okay...
Nothing to laugh about, in 1945-1989 USSR destroyed any hope of economical progress for Poland.
Show nested quote +Both the polish and the czech although they share the ancient slavic heritage with russia were historically a lot closer to the west. This is why both countries are catholic, rather than orthodox. There's three primary points to be made here. I'll be very polite with you, because this assertion is just silly. 1. West Slavs are not as similar to East Slavs as you make it out to be. I don't see how religion has any role to play in this either. You're implying a general ethnic group should all have the same religion, which is... absurd to say the least. And pre-unification some German kingdoms adopted Lutheranism while others kept with Catholicism. The German kingdoms were significantly closer culturally and linguistically (almost identical) than Czechs and Poles were to Russians way out in the east somewhere on the Volga. Culturally, and linguistically, there's significant differences. 2. These places were already Catholic!! Greek missionaries brought Orthodox Christianity to Russia! Orthodoxy was the first form of Christianity in Russia!! Guess what form of Christianity to Poland and Czech Rep.? Catholicism :D !!! 3. Romania is not Slavic at all!! Their culture and language is overwhelmingly Romantic/Latin-based, and completely non-Slavic. And guess what? They're Orthodox! You know why? Orthodox missionaries/nations!! :D Despite the fact that every Romantic-language country pre-Protestant Reformation was Catholic. But not Romania lol. So as you can see, it has nothing to do with "cultural relations". So basically, your assertion is completely bogus and you don't know this history dude. It's not good to speak about others when you mean to speak about yourself.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Poland, Czech and Romania had always bigger ties to the west, and it is BECAUSE they shared cultural ties through political marriages, common faith and other factors.
But moving forward... Show nested quote + The czech and polish societies have always been greater and more advanced than the russian society, HAHAH!!! When? How? Since Kievan Rus' or earlier, I have yet to see a time or place where either of these two lands in their various forms in history were "greater or more advanced" than Russia's various iterations. And you say ALWAYS been greater and more advanced? LOL This is hilarious. This is among the most ridiculous comments I've seen on this forum. In other news, Colombia is and has ALWAYS been greater and more advanced than the United States of America. Thanks for laughs bro :D
Nice strawman argument. He was speaking about mental advancement of the societies and you ridiculed it speaking of it like was comparing sizes. I guess there is no other measure of the advancement of the society than its population and army strength right? I can tell you one thing bro (using your nomenclature), Poland was more religion tolerant in 17th century than Russia is nowadays and has ever been. Same with Czech, they were onto that stance even earlier, just after Hussite Wars. If that is not one of the measures of society advancement, then we nothing to discuss here. I could go on with other examples, but I have no time to write humongous cynical text walls.
|
On April 09 2014 13:04 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 12:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Anyway, you saying that the USSR brought a lot of these places (Eastern Europe) out of the medieval era is simply not true, and it shows either that you don't know much about pre 1900's history, or that you're trying to mislead deliberately. I raised and eyebrow, and then bust out laughing when I read the following paragraph. XD Okay... Nothing to laugh about, in 1945-1989 USSR destroyed any hope of economical progress for Poland. Show nested quote +Both the polish and the czech although they share the ancient slavic heritage with russia were historically a lot closer to the west. This is why both countries are catholic, rather than orthodox. There's three primary points to be made here. I'll be very polite with you, because this assertion is just silly. 1. West Slavs are not as similar to East Slavs as you make it out to be. I don't see how religion has any role to play in this either. You're implying a general ethnic group should all have the same religion, which is... absurd to say the least. And pre-unification some German kingdoms adopted Lutheranism while others kept with Catholicism. The German kingdoms were significantly closer culturally and linguistically (almost identical) than Czechs and Poles were to Russians way out in the east somewhere on the Volga. Culturally, and linguistically, there's significant differences. 2. These places were already Catholic!! Greek missionaries brought Orthodox Christianity to Russia! Orthodoxy was the first form of Christianity in Russia!! Guess what form of Christianity to Poland and Czech Rep.? Catholicism :D !!! 3. Romania is not Slavic at all!! Their culture and language is overwhelmingly Romantic/Latin-based, and completely non-Slavic. And guess what? They're Orthodox! You know why? Orthodox missionaries/nations!! :D Despite the fact that every Romantic-language country pre-Protestant Reformation was Catholic. But not Romania lol. So as you can see, it has nothing to do with "cultural relations". So basically, your assertion is completely bogus and you don't know this history dude. It's not good to speak about others when you mean to speak about yourself. You have no clue what you are talking about. Poland, Czech and Romania had always bigger ties to the west, and it is BECAUSE they shared cultural ties through political marriages, common faith and other factors. Show nested quote +But moving forward... The czech and polish societies have always been greater and more advanced than the russian society, HAHAH!!! When? How? Since Kievan Rus' or earlier, I have yet to see a time or place where either of these two lands in their various forms in history were "greater or more advanced" than Russia's various iterations. And you say ALWAYS been greater and more advanced? LOL This is hilarious. This is among the most ridiculous comments I've seen on this forum. In other news, Colombia is and has ALWAYS been greater and more advanced than the United States of America. Thanks for laughs bro :D Nice strawman argument. He was speaking about mental advancement of the societies and you ridiculed it speaking of it like was comparing sizes. I guess there is no other measure of the advancement of the society than its population and army strength right? I can tell you one thing bro (using your nomenclature), Poland was more religion tolerant in 17th century than Russia is nowadays and has ever been. Same with Czech, they were onto that stance even earlier, just after Hussite Wars. If that is not one of the measures of society advancement, then we nothing to discuss here. I could go on with other examples, but I have no time to write humongous cynical text walls.
No. He never specified what type of "advancement". There's a million types of advancement. Usually when people talk about advancement, they're talking about science, development, industry, culture (Russia is very famous for the fine arts throughout its history), etc. Religion tolerance is rarely ever considered (and I doubt this is what he meant either). So it looks like you're making the strawman here :D
I don't know much about "religious tolerance" in 17th century Poland (I imagine it wasn't good though, unless Poland was an extremely rare case in Europe, which was horribly intolerant at the time, most especially if you were non-Christian), but I'm pretty sure today's Russia is pretty religiously tolerant compared to 17th century countries. Poland would be an extremely rare case, as stated, for your claim to be correct. The Catholic Church in particular was pretty bad historically when it came to religious tolerance, at that. I'm Catholic myself, mind you.
Poland, Czech and Romania had always bigger ties to the west, and it is BECAUSE they shared cultural ties through political marriages, common faith and other factors.
I never said they didn't, nor did I say anything regarding that. Learning to comprehend things would be very helpful. I was just teaching him why certain places are Orthodox and why some are Catholic. He didn't know why.
|
On April 09 2014 13:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
No. He never specified what type of "advancement". There's a million types of advancement. Usually when people talk about advancement, they're talking about science, development, industry, culture (Russia is very famous for the fine arts throughout its history), etc. Religion tolerance is rarely ever considered (and I doubt this is what he meant either). So it looks like you're making the strawman here :D
I don't know much about "religious tolerance" in 17th century Poland (I imagine it wasn't good though, unless Poland was an extremely rare case in Europe, which was horribly intolerant at the time, most especially if you were non-Christian), but I'm pretty sure today's Russia is pretty religiously tolerant compared to 17th century countries. Poland would be an extremely rare case, as stated, for your claim to be correct. The Catholic Church in particular was pretty bad historically when it came to religious tolerance, at that. I'm Catholic myself, mind you.
Yes, you are right Europe was pretty bad, and Poland was a rare case in Europe. And given that you could consider it a advancement. Lets just say, that our kings and nobles had no interest in doing Pope's bidding, when he required them to convert the east territories to be Catholic.
And seriously, there is no need to pick on the language mistakes of non-native English speaker.
I never said they didn't, nor did I say anything regarding that. Learning to comprehend things would be very helpful. I was just teaching him why certain places are Orthodox and why some are Catholic. He didn't know why.
I guess I jumped on you on that quote too hastily then, without understanding your point, my bad.
|
A rare thing:
The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities has been closely following developments in Ukraine since the office was established in 1993 to act as an instrument of conflict prevention at the earliest stage. The successive High Commissioners have paid particular attention to the inter-ethnic situation in Crimea, legislation regulating minority rights and language use, and the education of national minorities.
The High Commissioner’s mandate requires that she works behind the scenes and in confidence. She therefore issues few public statements. This statement provides an update on her most recent visits. Currently, High Commissioner Astrid Thors’ main concerns are language policy and the situation in Crimea.
Thors visited Kyiv, Donetsk, Luhansk and Odessa from 23 to 28 March 2014, and Kyiv from 1 to 3 April. She made an earlier visit, which also included a trip to Crimea, on 4 to 6 March as part of a high-level OSCE delegation together with Ambassador Tim Guldimann, the Special Envoy of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. Her office is also contributing to a Human Rights Assessment Mission, in co-operation with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
During her most recent two visits, Thors was pleased to hear that the interim Government does not intend to make any hasty decisions regarding language policy. “There can be no doubt that the 2012 Law on the ‘Principles of the State Language Policy’ remains in force, and, legally, nothing has changed regarding the status of languages,” she said. “Therefore, there is no need for the Ukrainian Parliament to rush to make any new decisions. I hope that all political forces can adhere to this opinion.”
She reiterated her comments made in her public statement of 24 February that, to avoid increasing tensions, the authorities should ensure that the concerns of all ethnic and linguistic groups are taken into account and that consultations also encompass international organizations to ensure that any new language legislation meets European standards. She added that time is also needed to evaluate the merits and shortcomings of the 2012 Language Law, as well as its implementation in practice.
The High Commissioner has been able to speak to a wide range of interlocutors to assess the situation on the ground. She expressed particular concern that she heard a lot of conflicting impressions that are contributing to a climate of fear and confusion. Contradictory information leads to an “information war”. Any measures taken to restrict access to cross-border transmission of media should strictly comply with international standards, as stated by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. In addition, many people told her they are concerned about security and the presence of militarized groups with an unclear status. Thors commended the interim Government’s efforts to address the security issues in the country, including the disarmament of armed groups that exist outside of the legal framework, in order to combat such perceptions.
Thors also remains concerned about the situation in Crimea. Following her statement on 6 March, the High Commissioner reminded the authorities in effective control of Crimea that they remain responsible for the human rights, including minority rights, of all persons residing on the peninsula. “The people in Crimea, in particular the Crimean Tatars and the Ukrainian community, are in a precarious position. I urge the authorities in effective control to refrain from actions that exclude people from employment in the public and private sectors or force them to give up their property.”
She again drew particular attention to The Bolzano/Bozen Recommendations on National Minorities in Inter-State Relations, which state that while a State might have an interest in supporting persons belonging to national minorities in other States, “no State may exercise jurisdiction over the population or part of the population of another State within the territory of that State without its consent” because “the respect for and protection of minority rights is primarily the responsibility of the State where the minority resides.”
Astrid Thors
OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
|
I think if Russia or US is worse you can discuss all year!
Personally I think, the main problem between those two is, that Russia was never seen a "normal" country. They were always the "evil" country.
After the Soviet Union broke down, Russia was in terrible state. But all in all they were still a quite powerful country and when they got back up on their feet, they were not treated if they could do something to make up for all the Cold War time.
The NATO expanded to the east, because Russia is still evil and dangerous. Just that you understand, what the NATO is: It's not a military alliance of countries that stand together if someone threatens them, it's a military alliance of countries that stand together if Russia threatens them! While I support the idea of getting together and share their powers to live free and in peace, if you exclude some countries, because they are automatically the enemy ... great work for peace, really ...
As JudicatorHammurabi pointed out, there were many double standards with Russian actions in the world.
I posted a CNN video paaaages back, and it still holds true:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/07/ac-stephen-cohen.cnn
If they "go" somewhere they expect "Yes? What do you want?" but they get "What? The evil Russians want something? Probably just something bad and only for their benefit and against us!"
As I pointed out again and again in this thread, the most important part is that the Russians don't want the Ukraine in the NATO! And that's because of Crimea and their Black Sea fleet! But joining the NATO is basically the first thing, Ukraine wants to do! It's crazy: They fear Russia because Russia fears, that they will join the NATO, so they want to join the NATO! It's backwards crazy!
|
On April 09 2014 15:27 Geisterkarle wrote:I think if Russia or US is worse you can discuss all year! Personally I think, the main problem between those two is, that Russia was never seen a "normal" country. They were always the "evil" country. After the Soviet Union broke down, Russia was in terrible state. But all in all they were still a quite powerful country and when they got back up on their feet, they were not treated if they could do something to make up for all the Cold War time. The NATO expanded to the east, because Russia is still evil and dangerous. Just that you understand, what the NATO is: It's not a military alliance of countries that stand together if someone threatens them, it's a military alliance of countries that stand together if Russia threatens them! While I support the idea of getting together and share their powers to live free and in peace, if you exclude some countries, because they are automatically the enemy ... great work for peace, really ... As JudicatorHammurabi pointed out, there were many double standards with Russian actions in the world. I posted a CNN video paaaages back, and it still holds true: http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/07/ac-stephen-cohen.cnnIf they "go" somewhere they expect "Yes? What do you want?" but they get "What? The evil Russians want something? Probably just something bad and only for their benefit and against us!" As I pointed out again and again in this thread, the most important part is that the Russians don't want the Ukraine in the NATO! And that's because of Crimea and their Black Sea fleet! But joining the NATO is basically the first thing, Ukraine wants to do! It's crazy: They fear Russia because Russia fears, that they will join the NATO, so they want to join the NATO! It's backwards crazy!
No one is keeping Russia from applying to be a NATO member...except the Russian elites...
And Ukraine abandoned plans to join NATO, until Russian reminded it why its useful to be protected against a bigger country that declares it has the right to a race based foreign policy.
|
On April 09 2014 15:27 Geisterkarle wrote:I think if Russia or US is worse you can discuss all year! Personally I think, the main problem between those two is, that Russia was never seen a "normal" country. They were always the "evil" country. After the Soviet Union broke down, Russia was in terrible state. But all in all they were still a quite powerful country and when they got back up on their feet, they were not treated if they could do something to make up for all the Cold War time. The NATO expanded to the east, because Russia is still evil and dangerous. Just that you understand, what the NATO is: It's not a military alliance of countries that stand together if someone threatens them, it's a military alliance of countries that stand together if Russia threatens them! While I support the idea of getting together and share their powers to live free and in peace, if you exclude some countries, because they are automatically the enemy ... great work for peace, really ... As JudicatorHammurabi pointed out, there were many double standards with Russian actions in the world. I posted a CNN video paaaages back, and it still holds true: http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/07/ac-stephen-cohen.cnnIf they "go" somewhere they expect "Yes? What do you want?" but they get "What? The evil Russians want something? Probably just something bad and only for their benefit and against us!" As I pointed out again and again in this thread, the most important part is that the Russians don't want the Ukraine in the NATO! And that's because of Crimea and their Black Sea fleet! But joining the NATO is basically the first thing, Ukraine wants to do! It's crazy: They fear Russia because Russia fears, that they will join the NATO, so they want to join the NATO! It's backwards crazy!
Yeah, it's obviously crazy of Ukraine to want to join Nato. Because there is no chance whatsoever that russian troops might invade a part of their country so Russia can annex it. Absolutely no reason to fear russia who has done the exact same thing before already in recent history. Better not try to seek protection, because that is the only reason the russians might invade you. And it is always save to bet on a fascist dictator not invading your country.
|
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something...
|
On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something...
Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt.
|
On April 09 2014 15:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 15:27 Geisterkarle wrote:I think if Russia or US is worse you can discuss all year! Personally I think, the main problem between those two is, that Russia was never seen a "normal" country. They were always the "evil" country. After the Soviet Union broke down, Russia was in terrible state. But all in all they were still a quite powerful country and when they got back up on their feet, they were not treated if they could do something to make up for all the Cold War time. The NATO expanded to the east, because Russia is still evil and dangerous. Just that you understand, what the NATO is: It's not a military alliance of countries that stand together if someone threatens them, it's a military alliance of countries that stand together if Russia threatens them! While I support the idea of getting together and share their powers to live free and in peace, if you exclude some countries, because they are automatically the enemy ... great work for peace, really ... As JudicatorHammurabi pointed out, there were many double standards with Russian actions in the world. I posted a CNN video paaaages back, and it still holds true: http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/07/ac-stephen-cohen.cnnIf they "go" somewhere they expect "Yes? What do you want?" but they get "What? The evil Russians want something? Probably just something bad and only for their benefit and against us!" As I pointed out again and again in this thread, the most important part is that the Russians don't want the Ukraine in the NATO! And that's because of Crimea and their Black Sea fleet! But joining the NATO is basically the first thing, Ukraine wants to do! It's crazy: They fear Russia because Russia fears, that they will join the NATO, so they want to join the NATO! It's backwards crazy! No one is keeping Russia from applying to be a NATO member...except the Russian elites...
Why should the Russians try to apply to the NATO? They are opposite sides!
It's something like if a Manchester United fan would like to join a Manchester City ultra/hooligan group! You don't do that!
And Ukraine abandoned plans to join NATO, until Russian reminded it why its useful to be protected against a bigger country that declares it has the right to a race based foreign policy.
The Ukraine wanted to join the NATO since 2008! Interestingly I found this (sorry, German) article
http://www.welt.de/politik/article2812583/Ukraine-und-Georgien-duerfen-vorerst-nicht-in-Nato.html
That says, that Ukraine can't join the NATO at that point because most of the people are against it! The USA even wanted them to join without the normal procedure to check, if they are ready (supporting human rights, free elections and so on). So there was quite a lot of pushing on a political level!
Yes, after 2010 and the election of Janukowytsch, the NATO plans were abandoned. But that was because Ukraine wanted to be "block free" and join neither side! But that changed quite quickly after Euromaidan...
|
On April 09 2014 13:52 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
No. He never specified what type of "advancement". There's a million types of advancement. Usually when people talk about advancement, they're talking about science, development, industry, culture (Russia is very famous for the fine arts throughout its history), etc. Religion tolerance is rarely ever considered (and I doubt this is what he meant either). So it looks like you're making the strawman here :D
I don't know much about "religious tolerance" in 17th century Poland (I imagine it wasn't good though, unless Poland was an extremely rare case in Europe, which was horribly intolerant at the time, most especially if you were non-Christian), but I'm pretty sure today's Russia is pretty religiously tolerant compared to 17th century countries. Poland would be an extremely rare case, as stated, for your claim to be correct. The Catholic Church in particular was pretty bad historically when it came to religious tolerance, at that. I'm Catholic myself, mind you. Yes, you are right Europe was pretty bad, and Poland was a rare case in Europe. And given that you could consider it a advancement. Lets just say, that our kings and nobles had no interest in doing Pope's bidding, when he required them to convert the east territories to be Catholic. And seriously, there is no need to pick on the language mistakes of non-native English speaker. Show nested quote +I never said they didn't, nor did I say anything regarding that. Learning to comprehend things would be very helpful. I was just teaching him why certain places are Orthodox and why some are Catholic. He didn't know why. I guess I jumped on you on that quote too hastily then, without understanding your point, my bad.
This specific history intrigues me. I certainly need to read about it. It's certainly astonishing to say the least. Thanks for sharing.
On April 09 2014 15:45 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 15:27 Geisterkarle wrote:I think if Russia or US is worse you can discuss all year! Personally I think, the main problem between those two is, that Russia was never seen a "normal" country. They were always the "evil" country. After the Soviet Union broke down, Russia was in terrible state. But all in all they were still a quite powerful country and when they got back up on their feet, they were not treated if they could do something to make up for all the Cold War time. The NATO expanded to the east, because Russia is still evil and dangerous. Just that you understand, what the NATO is: It's not a military alliance of countries that stand together if someone threatens them, it's a military alliance of countries that stand together if Russia threatens them! While I support the idea of getting together and share their powers to live free and in peace, if you exclude some countries, because they are automatically the enemy ... great work for peace, really ... As JudicatorHammurabi pointed out, there were many double standards with Russian actions in the world. I posted a CNN video paaaages back, and it still holds true: http://edition.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2014/03/07/ac-stephen-cohen.cnnIf they "go" somewhere they expect "Yes? What do you want?" but they get "What? The evil Russians want something? Probably just something bad and only for their benefit and against us!" As I pointed out again and again in this thread, the most important part is that the Russians don't want the Ukraine in the NATO! And that's because of Crimea and their Black Sea fleet! But joining the NATO is basically the first thing, Ukraine wants to do! It's crazy: They fear Russia because Russia fears, that they will join the NATO, so they want to join the NATO! It's backwards crazy! No one is keeping Russia from applying to be a NATO member...except the Russian elites... And Ukraine abandoned plans to join NATO, until Russian reminded it why its useful to be protected against a bigger country that declares it has the right to a race based foreign policy.
Considering NATO's original purpose at least was to oppose Moscow and the Communist bloc, do you really think anyone, especially the US govt., would be happy with Russia wanting to join NATO?
I would like to imagine a scenario where this is possible, but I don't think it is. Maybe if China begins to become a serious threat to anyone and everyone, such that it would wake up Russia to some reality and everyone else to want to join together, this would be possible? But at this time, even if everyone in the Duma and executive branch and big business, political, and mafia bosses in Russia wanted to join NATO, I don't think it is even possible.
|
On April 09 2014 19:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 13:52 Roman666 wrote:On April 09 2014 13:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
No. He never specified what type of "advancement". There's a million types of advancement. Usually when people talk about advancement, they're talking about science, development, industry, culture (Russia is very famous for the fine arts throughout its history), etc. Religion tolerance is rarely ever considered (and I doubt this is what he meant either). So it looks like you're making the strawman here :D
I don't know much about "religious tolerance" in 17th century Poland (I imagine it wasn't good though, unless Poland was an extremely rare case in Europe, which was horribly intolerant at the time, most especially if you were non-Christian), but I'm pretty sure today's Russia is pretty religiously tolerant compared to 17th century countries. Poland would be an extremely rare case, as stated, for your claim to be correct. The Catholic Church in particular was pretty bad historically when it came to religious tolerance, at that. I'm Catholic myself, mind you. Yes, you are right Europe was pretty bad, and Poland was a rare case in Europe. And given that you could consider it a advancement. Lets just say, that our kings and nobles had no interest in doing Pope's bidding, when he required them to convert the east territories to be Catholic. And seriously, there is no need to pick on the language mistakes of non-native English speaker. I never said they didn't, nor did I say anything regarding that. Learning to comprehend things would be very helpful. I was just teaching him why certain places are Orthodox and why some are Catholic. He didn't know why. I guess I jumped on you on that quote too hastily then, without understanding your point, my bad. This specific history intrigues me. I certainly need to read about it. It's certainly astonishing to say the least. Thanks for sharing.
This is the document I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation
Anyway, lets get back to the main topic.
|
Apparently, talks are going to shift to the subject of unrest in eastern Ukraine. I think the Russian govt. is using this new matter in order to draw attention from Crimea >_>
Senior figures from Russia, Ukraine, the EU and the US are set to meet for talks on the situation in Ukraine next week, it has been announced, in what will be the first meeting of the four since the crisis erupted.
The EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, will join the US secretary of state, John Kerry, his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov and Ukraine's foreign minister, Andriy Deshchytsia.
News of the meeting emerged as a tense standoff between pro-Russian sectarianists and Ukraine security forces continued in the country's east.
Ukraine's security service has said that 56 people held inside a local headquarters in the eastern city of Luhansk occupied by pro-Russian separatists have been allowed to leave the premises.
The Ukrainian government and the US have accused Moscow of fomenting the unrest as a pretext for another Russian military incursion like the takeover of Crimea last month. Up to 40,000 Russian troops are massed along the Ukrainian border, according to Nato.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/09/ukraine-crisis-pro-russia-separatists-release-people
This is a bit interesting:
U.S. intelligence agencies now have detailed information that Russia has amassed the kind of forces needed for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But the Obama administration hasn’t shared with Ukraine the imagery, intercepts, and analysis that pinpont the location of the Russian troops ready to seize more Ukrainian land, The Daily Beast has learned.
President Obama has repeatedly and publicly expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people—and warned Russian leader Vladimir Putin that there will be consequences if he takes over any more Ukrainian territory. Yet Obama’s administration has so far been reluctant to hand over the kind of intelligence the Ukrainians could use to defend themselves. U.S. officials and members of Congress briefed on the crisis in Ukraine tell The Daily Beast that senior U.S. military officers have been instructed to refrain from briefing their Ukrainian counterparts in detail about what the United States knows about the Russians troops amassing on the border.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/08/exclusive-u-s-won-t-share-invasion-intel-with-ukraine.html
|
Russian Federation38 Posts
On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt.
What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now?
Who needs an unstable neighbor?
I hope you can think
|
On April 09 2014 20:40 Dlash23 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt. What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now? Who needs an unstable neighbor? I hope you can think
If they didnt want an unstable neighbor they should have not interfered in the first place. Would have been a whole lot more stable then it is now.
|
On April 09 2014 20:40 Dlash23 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt. What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now? Who needs an unstable neighbor? I hope you can think
So are you saying that Russia will take additional chunks out of the Ukraine to change this situation with an unstable neighbor that they don't want, and that they themselves caused? And further that that is actually an ok thing to do?
What we have here is Russia invading a neighboring country, destabilizing it, then continuing to destabilize the non-invaded parts of that country even further. If you say that they don't want an unstable neighbor, that only leaves the conclusion that they will want to take more out of that so that unstability is only a temporary thing leading to some goal.
|
On April 09 2014 20:50 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 20:40 Dlash23 wrote:On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt. What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now? Who needs an unstable neighbor? I hope you can think So are you saying that Russia will take additional chunks out of the Ukraine to change this situation with an unstable neighbor that they don't want, and that they themselves caused? And further that that is actually an ok thing to do? What we have here is Russia invading a neighboring country, destabilizing it, then continuing to destabilize the non-invaded parts of that country even further. If you say that they don't want an unstable neighbor, that only leaves the conclusion that they will want to take more out of that so that unstability is only a temporary thing leading to some goal.
I think he's saying that Ukraine is unstable, so Russia would not want to conquer it.
Generally I'm in agreement with Salazarz's sentiment. Crimea was a very unique case (again, doesn't mean it's justified), so I'd honestly be extremely astonished if the Russians were to take any further action.
|
On April 09 2014 20:52 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 20:50 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2014 20:40 Dlash23 wrote:On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt. What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now? Who needs an unstable neighbor? I hope you can think So are you saying that Russia will take additional chunks out of the Ukraine to change this situation with an unstable neighbor that they don't want, and that they themselves caused? And further that that is actually an ok thing to do? What we have here is Russia invading a neighboring country, destabilizing it, then continuing to destabilize the non-invaded parts of that country even further. If you say that they don't want an unstable neighbor, that only leaves the conclusion that they will want to take more out of that so that unstability is only a temporary thing leading to some goal. I think he's saying that Ukraine is unstable, so Russia would not want to conquer it.
Is that why conquered unstable Crimea? Which they themselves btw made unstable.
Is that why they are doing the same thing to eastern Ukraine now?
|
On April 09 2014 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 20:52 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 09 2014 20:50 Simberto wrote:On April 09 2014 20:40 Dlash23 wrote:On April 09 2014 17:43 Fjodorov wrote:On April 09 2014 17:29 Salazarz wrote:
For all the silly things in this thread, the one thing I totally can't get over is this burning convinction people have that Russia is so eager to invade and annex whatever country it can get to. Do people seriously not get what a unique case Crimea is, and why Russia is so adamantly determined to do whatever they can to make sure it will never fall under the Western influence? It's not like Russia is looking for reasons to invade some country or the other because they are developing WMDs or they want to bring the light of democracy to them or something... Putin is not done with Ukraine. If he cant get more parts of Ukraine he will make sure chaos rules. And I wish I could say it was unique for one country to annex a part of another country but sadly it isnt. What if I say you that Russia is the last country who benefit from this situation in Ukraine as it is now? Who needs an unstable neighbor? I hope you can think So are you saying that Russia will take additional chunks out of the Ukraine to change this situation with an unstable neighbor that they don't want, and that they themselves caused? And further that that is actually an ok thing to do? What we have here is Russia invading a neighboring country, destabilizing it, then continuing to destabilize the non-invaded parts of that country even further. If you say that they don't want an unstable neighbor, that only leaves the conclusion that they will want to take more out of that so that unstability is only a temporary thing leading to some goal. I think he's saying that Ukraine is unstable, so Russia would not want to conquer it. Is that why conquered unstable Crimea? Which they themselves btw made unstable. Is that why they are doing the same thing to eastern Ukraine now?
The matter is whether Russia is interested in eastern Ukraine. It's a different scenario from Crimea, and of significantly less strategic and military value than Crimea obviously. This is why in my edit I'd be extremely surprised if Russia did anything further. But at least in looking at Russian strategic interests, Crimea makes a lot of sense. Eastern Ukraine does not at all.
And while it's rather possible Russia may be directly responsible for at least some of the unrest in eastern Ukrainian cities, I have not seen anything conclusive on the matter, so let's not immediately conclude this is a Kremlin konspiracy.
|
Of course they are interested in Eastern Ukraine, it's land, and Putin needs Lebensraum for the russian people.
It's one of the basic workings of a dictatorship, they invade whatever they can get away with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
