On April 15 2014 09:17 Mc wrote: One could say that this is a "chicken or the egg" type situation. If NATO wasn't at Russia's borders, then Russia wouldn't be so 'aggresive' and controlling in its' sphere of influence. If Russia wasn't so aggressive, NATO wouldn't need to be there. I DISAGREE. Look how Russia treats it's own people (plain Russians, Chechnyans,etc). How about we look at journalists killed by country since 1992: Germany 0 killed, all of Europe except balkans, spain, former-USSR, and england : 0. Russia 56 w/ motive confirmed, 24 motive unconfirmed. This is a violent totalitarian regime, and always has been. Russia is going to behave like this regardless of NATO presence.
Finally, let's assume NATO wasn't in E. Europe, how would it treat E. Europe? Well look at 1945-1990. It subjugated all of E. Europe against it's will, sending in the army whenever there was an uprising.
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Why do so many people keep bringing up the 'aggression' of Russia and it's 'horrible' treatment of Eastern Europe as well as its own people over and over again in this thread? Why do so many people earnestly believe the story of Russia as a 'violent totalitarian regime'?
Pretty much every country in the world had periods where not so pretty decisions were made, you don't have to go looking for examples very far. It's a lot easier to paint an ugly picture of the 'Russian Bear' based on Western media and history books because, let's face it, the West has viewed Russia as an enemy since mass media became a thing due to Cold War etc. It's not very difficult to get a much fuller picture with minimum amounts of digging, however.
Above all, I can't believe you're bringing up the history of 'Soviet occupation' in Germany or it's 'mistreatment' of Eastern Europe as an example of why Russia is 'bad' today... It's not like Western Germany or, heck, Japan were any less 'occupied' during those times? Sure, they had capitalist rather than communist puppet leaders installed, but that's pretty much where differences end.
The whole facade of communism with a socialist dictatorship behind it didn't exactly work out very well in the long run in the USSR, but to discard everything that happened in 20th century Eastern Europe as 'cruel soviet oppression' is pretty ridiculous. It was a tug-o-war and it was always going to end up being either under Germany (and later NATO) or under the USSR. Countries like the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia etc may or may not have kept their independence on paper, but in that geopolitical climate, they would end up being someone's puppet one way or another. And it's not like the Western countries didn't have their own killings and other bullshit going on at that time; a lot of it has just been very conveniently swept under the rug, since let's face it, no one wants to talk about it now. Fact is though, the Western 'front' of USSR had received an awful lot of support from Moscow, and their splintering away from USSR was hardly the glorious struggle for independence that each and every man of their respective country supported.
And again, all the RF's internal goings aside, post-USSR Russia literally never been 'aggressive' towards anyone. They talk a lot of tough shit, but at least they haven't ever bombed anyone, or really gave anyone reason to think they might. As many people pointed out (and had been mostly ignored........) in this thread, the Crimean situation ended up blowing up like this pretty much entirely due to the importance of assets located there. Assets that have always been Russian, mind you.
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
What a bunch of nonsense. No, the US hasn't done anything comparable in the 21st century, not even close. Resisting obvious and grief violation of international law is not 'hypocritical'. The monroe doctrine didn't prohibit 'foreign activity' as a whole but colonization. Ukraine was never about to join the NATO, if anything it has only become possible after the crimean crisis... if you knew anything about the subject (which you obviously don't), you'd know NATO rejected to even negotiate ukrainian membership because they did take russias position account.
Wat?
That's quite wrong. Not NATO rejected anything, but Yanukovich opted out. Because i'm lazy, here wikipedia.
Nope, not wrong. Nothing you quoted contradicts me in the slightest. In 2008 Ukraine applied for MAP and were rejected. The only thing NATO did was to to say that in some distant future ukraine may join. At the time the application was rejected Yanukovich wasn't even president... Yanukovich didn't 'opt out', he just stopped seeking membership. To quote wikipedia for you
In March 2008, under Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine sent an official letter of application a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. These leaders however guaranteed their opposition that membership in any military alliance would not pass without public approval in a referendum.[122] This idea of had gained support from a number of NATO leaders, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe.[123] Russian leaders like Prime Minister and President-Elect Dmitri Medvedev made clear their opposition to Ukraine membership, and leading up to the April 2008 Bucharest summit their emissary actively lobbied against a Ukrainian MAP. After some debate among members at the summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared in a press conference that Ukraine, together with Georgia, would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.[124]
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
What a bunch of nonsense. No, the US hasn't done anything comparable in the 21st century, not even close. Resisting obvious and grief violation of international law is not 'hypocritical'. The monroe doctrine didn't prohibit 'foreign activity' as a whole but colonization. Ukraine was never about to join the NATO, if anything it has only become possible after the crimean crisis... if you knew anything about the subject (which you obviously don't), you'd know NATO rejected to even negotiate ukrainian membership because they did take russias position account.
Wat?
That's quite wrong. Not NATO rejected anything, but Yanukovich opted out. Because i'm lazy, here wikipedia.
Nope, not wrong. In 2008 Ukraine applied for MAP and were rejected. The only thing NATO did was to to say that in some distant future ukraine may join. At the time the application was rejected Yanukovich wasn't even president... To quote wikipedia for you
In March 2008, under Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine sent an official letter of application a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. These leaders however guaranteed their opposition that membership in any military alliance would not pass without public approval in a referendum.[122] This idea of had gained support from a number of NATO leaders, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe.[123] Russian leaders like Prime Minister and President-Elect Dmitri Medvedev made clear their opposition to Ukraine membership, and leading up to the April 2008 Bucharest summit their emissary actively lobbied against a Ukrainian MAP. After some debate among members at the summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared in a press conference that Ukraine, together with Georgia, would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.[124]
Same page.
On December 3, 2008 NATO decided it will work out an Annual National Programme of providing assistance to Ukraine to implement reforms required to accede the alliance without referring to MAP.[3] Foreign Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko intrepertated this as a de facto obtaining of the NATO Membership Action Plan.[42] On February 18, 2009 the Ukrainian Parliament approved by 239 votes (only 226 votes were required for their approval) the creation of a NATO information and documentation center in Ukraine and the appointment of NATO communications officers in Ukraine.
To say "NATO never wanted Ukraine as member, they even rejected MAP" is grossly neglecting what happened next to big words like MAP. Try to look for "partnership". NATO is trying hard to pull Ukraine in, they just can't do it blatantly for obvious reasons.
Why do so many people earnestly believe the story of Russia as a 'violent totalitarian regime'?
Because it is. A government, or a "leader" utilizing political showprocesses to get rid of political opposition (that's if you're lucky), a utterly corrupted and warped justice-system (dashcams, pretty much mandatory in russia, not just for insurance reasons, to name just one weird result of that), etc etc. I'm not disagreeing with your posting as a whole, but this part, russia is seen as a "violent totalitarian regime" because it is, a "violent totalitarian regime".
On April 15 2014 09:17 Mc wrote: One could say that this is a "chicken or the egg" type situation. If NATO wasn't at Russia's borders, then Russia wouldn't be so 'aggresive' and controlling in its' sphere of influence. If Russia wasn't so aggressive, NATO wouldn't need to be there. I DISAGREE. Look how Russia treats it's own people (plain Russians, Chechnyans,etc). How about we look at journalists killed by country since 1992: Germany 0 killed, all of Europe except balkans, spain, former-USSR, and england : 0. Russia 56 w/ motive confirmed, 24 motive unconfirmed. This is a violent totalitarian regime, and always has been. Russia is going to behave like this regardless of NATO presence.
Finally, let's assume NATO wasn't in E. Europe, how would it treat E. Europe? Well look at 1945-1990. It subjugated all of E. Europe against it's will, sending in the army whenever there was an uprising.
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Pretty much every country in the world had periods where not so pretty decisions were made, you don't have to go looking for examples very far. It's a lot easier to paint an ugly picture of the 'Russian Bear' based on Western media and history books because, let's face it, the West has viewed Russia as an enemy since mass media became a thing due to Cold War etc. It's not very difficult to get a much fuller picture with minimum amounts of digging, however.
Above all, I can't believe you're bringing up the history of 'Soviet occupation' in Germany or it's 'mistreatment' of Eastern Europe as an example of why Russia is 'bad' today... It's not like Western Germany or, heck, Japan were any less 'occupied' during those times? Sure, they had capitalist rather than communist puppet leaders installed, but that's pretty much where differences end.
That's not nearly true. First, Germany and Japan were on the losing side. Poland and Czechoslovakia technically 'won' but were occupied and had communist regimes installed all the same. Contrast the independence France enjoyed in their foreign policy to that of Poland.
The Soviet Union treated their allies as occupied territories where they were free to do whatever they wanted. Even beyond the failure of their economic system and their reliance on autocratic (or at times totalitarian) regimes, their approach to foreign policy was different. The US tried to exert influence in many ways but never had to resort to violence in Europe. For the USSR threats and violence was the norm.
Fact is though, the Western 'front' of USSR had received an awful lot of support from Moscow, and their splintering away from USSR was hardly the glorious struggle for independence that each and every man of their respective country supported.
Well, not literally everyone, that would be silly. But yes, breaking free from the Warsaw pact enjoyed widespread support in every former communist country at the time.
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
What a bunch of nonsense. No, the US hasn't done anything comparable in the 21st century, not even close. Resisting obvious and grief violation of international law is not 'hypocritical'. The monroe doctrine didn't prohibit 'foreign activity' as a whole but colonization. Ukraine was never about to join the NATO, if anything it has only become possible after the crimean crisis... if you knew anything about the subject (which you obviously don't), you'd know NATO rejected to even negotiate ukrainian membership because they did take russias position account.
Wat?
That's quite wrong. Not NATO rejected anything, but Yanukovich opted out. Because i'm lazy, here wikipedia.
Nope, not wrong. In 2008 Ukraine applied for MAP and were rejected. The only thing NATO did was to to say that in some distant future ukraine may join. At the time the application was rejected Yanukovich wasn't even president... To quote wikipedia for you
In March 2008, under Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine sent an official letter of application a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. These leaders however guaranteed their opposition that membership in any military alliance would not pass without public approval in a referendum.[122] This idea of had gained support from a number of NATO leaders, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe.[123] Russian leaders like Prime Minister and President-Elect Dmitri Medvedev made clear their opposition to Ukraine membership, and leading up to the April 2008 Bucharest summit their emissary actively lobbied against a Ukrainian MAP. After some debate among members at the summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared in a press conference that Ukraine, together with Georgia, would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.[124]
On December 3, 2008 NATO decided it will work out an Annual National Programme of providing assistance to Ukraine to implement reforms required to accede the alliance without referring to MAP.[3] Foreign Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko intrepertated this as a de facto obtaining of the NATO Membership Action Plan.[42] On February 18, 2009 the Ukrainian Parliament approved by 239 votes (only 226 votes were required for their approval) the creation of a NATO information and documentation center in Ukraine and the appointment of NATO communications officers in Ukraine.
To say "NATO never wanted Ukraine as member, they even rejected MAP" is grossly neglecting what happened next to big words like MAP. Try to look for "partnership". NATO is trying hard to pull Ukraine in, they just can't do it blatantly for obvious reasons.
Nope, that's not NATO membership but cooperation. Obviously they are interested in cooperation.Sure, they could do it 'blatantly', there's nothing stopping them. They certainly aren't pushing hard. As the source given in the wiki you quote is some newpaper article that doesn't exist anymore there isn't much I can respond to.
A contentious discussion at Bucharest occurred over whether to admit Georgia and Ukraine to the MAP. U.S. State Department officials have contended that only Germany opposed the MAP for the two governments because Berlin was concerned about a negative reaction in Moscow to putting two neighboring countries on the road to membership.14 However, interviews of representatives of allied governments indicate a more complicated discussion, and broader opposition. NATO makes decisions on the basis of consensus, and a vote is sometimes not taken on an issue that cannot be fully resolved. That was the case in this instance. According to CRS interviews, in addition to Germany, representatives of France and at least two other governments indicated that they wish the MAP process to go more slowly; they opposed Georgia’s and Ukraine’s entry into the MAP at this time. Several other governments also opposed the MAP for Georgia and Ukraine but would not have blocked consensus had it been within reach, which it was not. While some governments indicated a desire not to antagonize Russia, they said that larger issues were also considered.15 A majority of Ukraine’s population opposes NATO membership; some allies believe that Kiev must persuade its population of the value of membership before the MAP process can begin. Some allies also believe that Georgia must first stage its parliamentary elections in May and achieve acceptable international standards, and that it must make progress on resolving its two “frozen” conflicts within its territory. Some allies also raised another subject, not directly related to the two countries’ qualifications. These allies believe that progress must be made to ensure greater energy security in countries vulnerable to a Russian cut-off of their energy resources.16
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
What a bunch of nonsense. No, the US hasn't done anything comparable in the 21st century, not even close. Resisting obvious and grief violation of international law is not 'hypocritical'. The monroe doctrine didn't prohibit 'foreign activity' as a whole but colonization. Ukraine was never about to join the NATO, if anything it has only become possible after the crimean crisis... if you knew anything about the subject (which you obviously don't), you'd know NATO rejected to even negotiate ukrainian membership because they did take russias position account.
Wat?
That's quite wrong. Not NATO rejected anything, but Yanukovich opted out. Because i'm lazy, here wikipedia.
Nope, not wrong. In 2008 Ukraine applied for MAP and were rejected. The only thing NATO did was to to say that in some distant future ukraine may join. At the time the application was rejected Yanukovich wasn't even president... To quote wikipedia for you
In March 2008, under Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine sent an official letter of application a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. These leaders however guaranteed their opposition that membership in any military alliance would not pass without public approval in a referendum.[122] This idea of had gained support from a number of NATO leaders, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe.[123] Russian leaders like Prime Minister and President-Elect Dmitri Medvedev made clear their opposition to Ukraine membership, and leading up to the April 2008 Bucharest summit their emissary actively lobbied against a Ukrainian MAP. After some debate among members at the summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared in a press conference that Ukraine, together with Georgia, would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.[124]
Same page.
On December 3, 2008 NATO decided it will work out an Annual National Programme of providing assistance to Ukraine to implement reforms required to accede the alliance without referring to MAP.[3] Foreign Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko intrepertated this as a de facto obtaining of the NATO Membership Action Plan.[42] On February 18, 2009 the Ukrainian Parliament approved by 239 votes (only 226 votes were required for their approval) the creation of a NATO information and documentation center in Ukraine and the appointment of NATO communications officers in Ukraine.
To say "NATO never wanted Ukraine as member, they even rejected MAP" is grossly neglecting what happened next to big words like MAP. Try to look for "partnership". NATO is trying hard to pull Ukraine in, they just can't do it blatantly for obvious reasons.
Nope, that's not NATO membership but cooperation. Obviously they are interested in cooperation.Sure, they could do it 'blatantly', there's nothing stopping them. They certainly aren't pushing hard. As the source given in the wiki you quote is some newpaper article that doesn't exist anymore there isn't much I can respond to.
Hardly my fault though. Here's an article from 2007 of said/quoted person.
Can't really be arsed to dig up more, since it's pretty obvious anyway. One thing came up though that is a bit confusing now (4.15am, maybe that's why)
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
Doesn't seem like not being interested in more than a cooperation. Which, btw, is already bad enough, considering the black sea fleet is "next door".
Don't expect russia to believe for a second that the NATO would keep promises etc, why would they. We don't expect them either. And the bad thing from russias view is certainly the deployment of the missile shield in the ukraine. Which could be done even without them being a member, but a partner. Don't need to mention that this is one of the biggest reasons for all this now in the first place.
A contentious discussion at Bucharest occurred over whether to admit Georgia and Ukraine to the MAP. U.S. State Department officials have contended that only Germany opposed the MAP for the two governments because Berlin was concerned about a negative reaction in Moscow to putting two neighboring countries on the road to membership.14 However, interviews of representatives of allied governments indicate a more complicated discussion, and broader opposition. NATO makes decisions on the basis of consensus, and a vote is sometimes not taken on an issue that cannot be fully resolved. That was the case in this instance. According to CRS interviews, in addition to Germany, representatives of France and at least two other governments indicated that they wish the MAP process to go more slowly; they opposed Georgia’s and Ukraine’s entry into the MAP at this time. Several other governments also opposed the MAP for Georgia and Ukraine but would not have blocked consensus had it been within reach, which it was not. While some governments indicated a desire not to antagonize Russia, they said that larger issues were also considered.15 A majority of Ukraine’s population opposes NATO membership; some allies believe that Kiev must persuade its population of the value of membership before the MAP process can begin. Some allies also believe that Georgia must first stage its parliamentary elections in May and achieve acceptable international standards, and that it must make progress on resolving its two “frozen” conflicts within its territory. Some allies also raised another subject, not directly related to the two countries’ qualifications. These allies believe that progress must be made to ensure greater energy security in countries vulnerable to a Russian cut-off of their energy resources.16
Hardly 'pulling hard'.
Wait, out of 28 memberstates, 4 states blocking (one of which is germany, having decent relations with russia at that point in time) is not "pulling hard"? Not to mention, far more important - what was americas/bushs stance on the MAP?
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Should he (we) now?
I personally am not okay with what russia is doing (posting history in here kinda shows), but to tell someone that based on his ethnicity he "should be outraged" without even knowing if he actually experienced that, is stupid. Obviously it's driving russias economy to the ground. Russians will soon feel the drawbacks of what putin has done.
That doesn't give you the right to tell other people when they should be "outraged". I drove to the Hoff-concert back in the days, to give you a hint about my age, and even i wouldn't know why someone should be outraged. The soviet occupation happened for a reason, it's not like they came out of the blue and marched into germany. What happened to crimea is in no way comparable to the soviets in east germany. It's silly to even think about a comparison.
In fact, even though i am one of the louder "condemners" in this thread, i sure do understand the reason why putin does what he does. I don't approve, obviously, but that doesn't matter. In a bubble where there is no "russia/us/eu" but just "country a/b/c" without "brandings", everyone would see the reason behind these actions.
Not that it makes them less retarded, but fact of the matter is, the US/EU/West had it coming. Big time. Even idiots like sarah palin could foresee it. That alone should give you a hint.
Edit: in fact, may i ask where you are from?
I'm from USA and live in Poland. I did let my emotions get to me at the end so sorry. With regard to any particular person, I have no right to demand or tell someone how they should feel about this situation and it is stupid.
I am in general a big supporter of Germans and am a supporter of a lot of the principles they tend to exhibit- especially their pragmatism (I know I'm stereotyping an entire population- but I think we can all agree that their is truth to this). However, on such a touchy subject it has put me off a bit. If one is supportive of basic Western Democratic values, such as one has in Germany today and didn't have in half of Germany 25 years ago, it seems ironic to me to be defending someone taking away those rights that you so enjoy.
I also see 'reason' behind his actions but it only makes it 'reasonable' if he does not care about weakening Russia economically and politically, while his main goal is restoring a Russian sense of power and pride. I agree the West have had it coming for a while... I guess we got used to a peaceful Russia, and our leaders forgot who they were.
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Should he (we) now?
I personally am not okay with what russia is doing (posting history in here kinda shows), but to tell someone that based on his ethnicity he "should be outraged" without even knowing if he actually experienced that, is stupid. Obviously it's driving russias economy to the ground. Russians will soon feel the drawbacks of what putin has done.
That doesn't give you the right to tell other people when they should be "outraged". I drove to the Hoff-concert back in the days, to give you a hint about my age, and even i wouldn't know why someone should be outraged. The soviet occupation happened for a reason, it's not like they came out of the blue and marched into germany. What happened to crimea is in no way comparable to the soviets in east germany. It's silly to even think about a comparison.
In fact, even though i am one of the louder "condemners" in this thread, i sure do understand the reason why putin does what he does. I don't approve, obviously, but that doesn't matter. In a bubble where there is no "russia/us/eu" but just "country a/b/c" without "brandings", everyone would see the reason behind these actions.
Not that it makes them less retarded, but fact of the matter is, the US/EU/West had it coming. Big time. Even idiots like sarah palin could foresee it. That alone should give you a hint.
Edit: in fact, may i ask where you are from?
I'm from USA and live in Poland. I did let my emotions get to me at the end so sorry. With regard to any particular person, I have no right to demand or tell someone how they should feel about this situation and it is stupid.
I am in general a big supporter of Germans and am a supporter of a lot of the principles they tend to exhibit- especially their pragmatism (I know I'm stereotyping an entire population- but I think we can all agree that their is truth to this). However, on such a touchy subject it has put me off a bit. If one is supportive of basic Western Democratic values, such as one has in Germany today and didn't have in half of Germany 25 years ago, it seems ironic to me to be defending someone taking away those rights that you so enjoy.
I also see 'reason' behind his actions but it only makes it 'reasonable' if he does not care about weakening Russia economically and politically, while his main goal is restoring a Russian sense of power and pride. I agree the West have had it coming for a while... I guess we got used to a peaceful Russia, and our leaders forgot who they were.
Don't worry mate, i might've come off a bit annoyed or something, but i'm not. We all get a bit steamy in here, i'm the first to admit that.
I would not call myself pragmatic though, i do care what happens around me. Alot of people i know do. Fact of the matter is, it's a bit more complicated than it looks. For me, for example, it is easy to condemn russias actions etc, since i know germany has a leader who is "pragmatic" (she, btw, is from east germany as well, it just doesn't work like "they took something a long time ago, why u no hate?"). You have to consider the general age in this forum, alot of the people here weren't even born when the wall fell (god i'm so old -,-). Not to mention, the guy wasn't defending putin, he said he doesn't agree. He understands, to me, there's a difference.
In the end, yeah. I think what i'm trying to say is, most people here were born in the BRD (germany as of today), and not in the DDR/Westgermany, so there's no reason for those to "outrage" against something like that.
We weren't talking about "reasonable" though. I don't think it's reasonable. I see a reason why he would do it, but "reasonable" it is not (it makes sense in german, dunno if it translates properly).
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Should he (we) now?
I personally am not okay with what russia is doing (posting history in here kinda shows), but to tell someone that based on his ethnicity he "should be outraged" without even knowing if he actually experienced that, is stupid. Obviously it's driving russias economy to the ground. Russians will soon feel the drawbacks of what putin has done.
That doesn't give you the right to tell other people when they should be "outraged". I drove to the Hoff-concert back in the days, to give you a hint about my age, and even i wouldn't know why someone should be outraged. The soviet occupation happened for a reason, it's not like they came out of the blue and marched into germany. What happened to crimea is in no way comparable to the soviets in east germany. It's silly to even think about a comparison.
In fact, even though i am one of the louder "condemners" in this thread, i sure do understand the reason why putin does what he does. I don't approve, obviously, but that doesn't matter. In a bubble where there is no "russia/us/eu" but just "country a/b/c" without "brandings", everyone would see the reason behind these actions.
Not that it makes them less retarded, but fact of the matter is, the US/EU/West had it coming. Big time. Even idiots like sarah palin could foresee it. That alone should give you a hint.
Edit: in fact, may i ask where you are from?
I'm from USA and live in Poland. I did let my emotions get to me at the end so sorry. With regard to any particular person, I have no right to demand or tell someone how they should feel about this situation and it is stupid.
I am in general a big supporter of Germans and am a supporter of a lot of the principles they tend to exhibit- especially their pragmatism (I know I'm stereotyping an entire population- but I think we can all agree that their is truth to this). However, on such a touchy subject it has put me off a bit. If one is supportive of basic Western Democratic values, such as one has in Germany today and didn't have in half of Germany 25 years ago, it seems ironic to me to be defending someone taking away those rights that you so enjoy.
I also see 'reason' behind his actions but it only makes it 'reasonable' if he does not care about weakening Russia economically and politically, while his main goal is restoring a Russian sense of power and pride. I agree the West have had it coming for a while... I guess we got used to a peaceful Russia, and our leaders forgot who they were.
Don't worry mate, i might've come off a bit annoyed or something, but i'm not. We all get a bit steamy in here, i'm the first to admit that.
I would not call myself pragmatic though, i do care what happens around me. Alot of people i know do. Fact of the matter is, it's a bit more complicated than it looks. For me, for example, it is easy to condemn russias actions etc, since i know germany has a leader who is "pragmatic" (she, btw, is from east germany as well, it just doesn't work like "they took something a long time ago, why u no hate?"). You have to consider the general age in this forum, alot of the people here weren't even born when the wall fell (god i'm so old -,-). Not to mention, the guy wasn't defending putin, he said he doesn't agree. He understands, to me, there's a difference.
In the end, yeah. I think what i'm trying to say is, most people here were born in the BRD (germany as of today), and not in the DDR/Westgermany, so there's no reason for those to "outrage" against something like that.
We weren't talking about "reasonable" though. I don't think it's reasonable. I see a reason why he would do it, but "reasonable" it is not (it makes sense in german, dunno if it translates properly).
I was born before the wall too so it's easier for me to see these events in 'our' perspective. On top of that I get drilled by US/Polish medias on the situation ... more British/Polish/international now that I think of it :p
I agree there is a difference between "agree" and "understands", but he did specifically say Russia's actions are "entirely reasonable"- that's what annoyed me.
We seem to basically agree on everything, but I just felt like flaming him (he also used the straw-man argument "but the USA...")
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Should he (we) now?
I personally am not okay with what russia is doing (posting history in here kinda shows), but to tell someone that based on his ethnicity he "should be outraged" without even knowing if he actually experienced that, is stupid. Obviously it's driving russias economy to the ground. Russians will soon feel the drawbacks of what putin has done.
That doesn't give you the right to tell other people when they should be "outraged". I drove to the Hoff-concert back in the days, to give you a hint about my age, and even i wouldn't know why someone should be outraged. The soviet occupation happened for a reason, it's not like they came out of the blue and marched into germany. What happened to crimea is in no way comparable to the soviets in east germany. It's silly to even think about a comparison.
In fact, even though i am one of the louder "condemners" in this thread, i sure do understand the reason why putin does what he does. I don't approve, obviously, but that doesn't matter. In a bubble where there is no "russia/us/eu" but just "country a/b/c" without "brandings", everyone would see the reason behind these actions.
Not that it makes them less retarded, but fact of the matter is, the US/EU/West had it coming. Big time. Even idiots like sarah palin could foresee it. That alone should give you a hint.
Edit: in fact, may i ask where you are from?
I'm from USA and live in Poland. I did let my emotions get to me at the end so sorry. With regard to any particular person, I have no right to demand or tell someone how they should feel about this situation and it is stupid.
I am in general a big supporter of Germans and am a supporter of a lot of the principles they tend to exhibit- especially their pragmatism (I know I'm stereotyping an entire population- but I think we can all agree that their is truth to this). However, on such a touchy subject it has put me off a bit. If one is supportive of basic Western Democratic values, such as one has in Germany today and didn't have in half of Germany 25 years ago, it seems ironic to me to be defending someone taking away those rights that you so enjoy.
I also see 'reason' behind his actions but it only makes it 'reasonable' if he does not care about weakening Russia economically and politically, while his main goal is restoring a Russian sense of power and pride. I agree the West have had it coming for a while... I guess we got used to a peaceful Russia, and our leaders forgot who they were.
Don't worry mate, i might've come off a bit annoyed or something, but i'm not. We all get a bit steamy in here, i'm the first to admit that.
I would not call myself pragmatic though, i do care what happens around me. Alot of people i know do. Fact of the matter is, it's a bit more complicated than it looks. For me, for example, it is easy to condemn russias actions etc, since i know germany has a leader who is "pragmatic" (she, btw, is from east germany as well, it just doesn't work like "they took something a long time ago, why u no hate?"). You have to consider the general age in this forum, alot of the people here weren't even born when the wall fell (god i'm so old -,-). Not to mention, the guy wasn't defending putin, he said he doesn't agree. He understands, to me, there's a difference.
In the end, yeah. I think what i'm trying to say is, most people here were born in the BRD (germany as of today), and not in the DDR/Westgermany, so there's no reason for those to "outrage" against something like that.
We weren't talking about "reasonable" though. I don't think it's reasonable. I see a reason why he would do it, but "reasonable" it is not (it makes sense in german, dunno if it translates properly).
I was born before the wall too so it's easier for me to see these events in 'our' perspective. On top of that I get drilled by US/Polish medias on the situation ... more British/Polish/international now that I think of it :p
I agree there is a difference between "agree" and "understands", but he did specifically say Russia's actions are "entirely reasonable"- that's what annoyed me.
We seem to basically agree on everything, but I just felt like flaming him (he also used the straw-man argument "but the USA...")
Why by Thor's thunderous beard did you move from the USA to Poland? Family? (You don't have to answer if you don't want, just curious).
I get drilled by US/Polish medias on the situation
lol. I've been drilled most my life. I grew up as a very young lad being taught Germans are genocidal monsters (emphasized Holocaust education was all I ever learned about Germany from schooling) and Russians were basically evil in all ways, despite the fact I played a fair amount of German and Russian (and Polish, American, etc.) classical music on the piano growing up, which isn't exactly indicative of the barbarians they were portrayed as to me. It was not until my interest in history brought me to study things beyond the ancient era and reading about other places that actually exist today that I could see this was not exactly the case.
EDIT: Posting on the 420th page Gonna have a cup of tea at 4:20 am
On April 15 2014 04:22 Saryph wrote: It's a real shame there are so many people (especially from Germany) who can agree with a country that is aggressively putting military personnel into neighboring countries with the intent of annexation and destabilization of the world. Also even more so is the idea that these same people can agree with a country who is on a legislative level declaring themselves superior to all of the other countries and races of the world. It just comes across as a little too 1930s for me.
Edit: Not trying to call out Germans here, it was just that they have been mentioned several times in this thread as having much higher support for Putin and Russia's actions than the rest of (western) Europe.
(The US government (NSA and CIA) did the same in the past, stop being so hypocritical) I don't support the action of Russia in any way. However I understand why they are doing it. And it is entirely reasonable. Look at the situation from the russian point of view. Since the USSR fell, we haven't exactly been non-provocative. Ideas like 'Zones of Control' or 'Areas of Influence' are not a thing of the past, to think so would be ludicrous. The US for example has the Monroe Doctrine, which basically prohibits any foreign activity anywhere in The Americas. North and South America. That is a huge zone of control and yet we think it is perfectly fine for Ukraine to join the NATO? Where does that make any sense? Lets put the USA in a similar position. Think about it this way: Lets go back to the sixties and seventies. What would the US do if Mexico was to join the Warsaw Pact? I assure you, they would not let that happen. Or how about something that actually happened: Operation Northwoods. The US wanted to stage a cuban terrorist attack - they were willing to kill their own citizens - in order to go to war with cuba and increase their 'zone of control' or 'zone of influence'. Exactly what Russia is doing now. The U.S would not let Russia set up military bases in cuba again. Just in case a dictator in South America were to do something bad. But the NATO is doing exactly that in Europe. Why do the Russians have to put up with that but we don't? Now I don't mean to justify what Putin is doing by saying "BUT BUT BUT THE USA DID IT TOO!!!111". Again I DO NOT support Putins actions in any way. However I can understand his side, what Russia goes through. It is a World Power (yes it is) that tries to defend it's "Area of Influence".
You as a German with your Soviet occupied history should be outraged, rather than passively saying "it's wrong, BUT I understand Putin and what he is doing 'is entirely reasonable' ". And as to that "reasonable" thing you mentioned, it's driving the Russian economy into an even bigger hole.
Should he (we) now?
I personally am not okay with what russia is doing (posting history in here kinda shows), but to tell someone that based on his ethnicity he "should be outraged" without even knowing if he actually experienced that, is stupid. Obviously it's driving russias economy to the ground. Russians will soon feel the drawbacks of what putin has done.
That doesn't give you the right to tell other people when they should be "outraged". I drove to the Hoff-concert back in the days, to give you a hint about my age, and even i wouldn't know why someone should be outraged. The soviet occupation happened for a reason, it's not like they came out of the blue and marched into germany. What happened to crimea is in no way comparable to the soviets in east germany. It's silly to even think about a comparison.
In fact, even though i am one of the louder "condemners" in this thread, i sure do understand the reason why putin does what he does. I don't approve, obviously, but that doesn't matter. In a bubble where there is no "russia/us/eu" but just "country a/b/c" without "brandings", everyone would see the reason behind these actions.
Not that it makes them less retarded, but fact of the matter is, the US/EU/West had it coming. Big time. Even idiots like sarah palin could foresee it. That alone should give you a hint.
Edit: in fact, may i ask where you are from?
I'm from USA and live in Poland. I did let my emotions get to me at the end so sorry. With regard to any particular person, I have no right to demand or tell someone how they should feel about this situation and it is stupid.
I am in general a big supporter of Germans and am a supporter of a lot of the principles they tend to exhibit- especially their pragmatism (I know I'm stereotyping an entire population- but I think we can all agree that their is truth to this). However, on such a touchy subject it has put me off a bit. If one is supportive of basic Western Democratic values, such as one has in Germany today and didn't have in half of Germany 25 years ago, it seems ironic to me to be defending someone taking away those rights that you so enjoy.
I also see 'reason' behind his actions but it only makes it 'reasonable' if he does not care about weakening Russia economically and politically, while his main goal is restoring a Russian sense of power and pride. I agree the West have had it coming for a while... I guess we got used to a peaceful Russia, and our leaders forgot who they were.
The 'West' has a real do as I say not as I do attitude. For all the spewing it does about so-called 'human rights' and 'peace' our track record doesn't give us any moral standing. The 'West' have flung themselves into vastly more wars and caused much more suffering internationally than Russia has since the wall came down. Sure, what Russia is doing isn't exactly right either, but the West has no standing to point the finger. It reeks of high order hypocrisy and colonial hegemony once again.
I get drilled by US/Polish medias on the situation
lol. I've been drilled most my life. I grew up as a very young lad being taught Germans are genocidal monsters (emphasized Holocaust education was all I ever learned about Germany from schooling) and Russians were basically evil in all ways, despite the fact I played a fair amount of German and Russian (and Polish, American, etc.) classical music on the piano growing up, which isn't exactly indicative of the barbarians they were portrayed as to me. It was not until my interest in history brought me to study things beyond the ancient era and reading about other places that actually exist today that I could see this was not exactly the case.
EDIT: Posting on the 420th page Gonna have a cup of tea at 4:20 am
Family and University is free in Poland, not 50,000$/year I also feel a strong draw to Russian culture (music, film, literature).... and women! It's just that I hate their aggressiveness, as individuals and especially as a nation.
Things now going on on ukraine is so sad.. And i cant understand, why ukrainian government cant negotiate with regions. It's really strange, from the first day when they started to rule, they do very unpolite things. They could keep crimea easily if they just do some polite negotiations, but from first day there was only threatening. Same with south-easter ukraine now. Promise amnesty to protesters and reforms of self-government system, and there won't be any problems. People there started to act just like euromaidan did, but appeared, that they are not allowed to use euromaidan methods (You only could occupy administrative buildings and build barricades if you want to became european sales market). So now they are "enemies" and criminals (for same things that euromaidan did) without any choise. I hope, ukraine wont lose any more territories, but actions of rada making me think like "WTF are you doing, your country is in economical crisis and you have great inner political problems, but you doing some shit that meaningless (conditions of detention prisoners) or insulting east (russian-speaking) part of countries (projects about status of russian language or dismantling of the USSR-related monuments). Are you enemies to your own country?" Are they just want to lose half of country? They NEED to be polite with own people. They NEED to do economical and political reformes. But they are not doing anything in that directions and losing latest money to army.
I hope, that they will stop acting so brainless and will keep ukraine whole. Noone needs that conflict and separating of east regions, imho. Separating of eastern regions will became problem for russian people (that regions need a LOT of money and will provide lot of problems in relationships with other countries) and will became great loss for ukraine.
On April 15 2014 15:48 Mc wrote: Family and University is free in Poland, not 50,000$/year I also feel a strong draw to Russian culture (music, film, literature).... and women! It's just that I hate their aggressiveness, as individuals and especially as a nation.
Enjoy your 4:20 juice haha.
Russian people are not agressive in fact. (Russian tourists are completely other story.) And Russia as country is agressive not more, then west countries is agressive to Russia. For me it's thing, that i dont understand, but from 11th century west countries was much more agressive to Russia, then to other European countries, so 10 centuries of history is telling to russia, that all western countries is acting like enemies (or pretending to be ally just to strike more surprisingly). Not so long ago all western world was at war against ussr, so it's not easy, thinking about all other countries like they are not enemies. (especially because there was no any friendly actions in last any time)
On April 15 2014 15:52 Noldo wrote: Things now going on on ukraine is so sad.. And i cant understand, why ukrainian government cant negotiate with regions. It's really strange, from the first day when they started to rule, they do very unpolite things. They could keep crimea easily if they just do some polite negotiations, but from first day there was only threatening. Same with south-easter ukraine now. Promise amnesty to protesters and reforms of self-government system, and there won't be any problems. People there started to act just like euromaidan did, but appeared, that they are not allowed to use euromaidan methods (You only could occupy administrative buildings and build barricades if you want to became european sales market). So now they are "enemies" and criminals (for same things that euromaidan did) without any choise. I hope, ukraine wont lose any more territories, but actions of rada making me think like "WTF are you doing, your country is in economical crisis and you have great inner political problems, but you doing some shit that meaningless (conditions of detention prisoners) or insulting east (russian-speaking) part of countries (projects about status of russian language or dismantling of the USSR-related monuments). Are you enemies to your own country?" Are they just want to lose half of country? They NEED to be polite with own people. They NEED to do economical and political reformes. But they are not doing anything in that directions and losing latest money to army.
I hope, that they will stop acting so brainless and will keep ukraine whole. Noone needs that conflict and separating of east regions, imho. Separating of eastern regions will became problem for russian people (that regions need a LOT of money and will provide lot of problems in relationships with other countries) and will became great loss for ukraine.
Crimea is an extremely important Russian strategic interest. Not in recent years, but since it was conquered from the Crimean Khanate. I'm sure you know this, and it was considered one of Yekaterina's great feats.
Chaos in Ukraine + the possibility of Ukraine falling to EU/NATO bloc could very well lead to compromising Russia's military assets in Crimea (much like was done with Ukrainian forces in Crimea when Russian forces came in). There is nothing the new Ukrainian government could have done that would have made the Kremlin not attack Crimea, because there is nothing that would have given the Kremlin peace of mind to keep the status quo. There isn't a whole lot more than that, and yes I believe the "protecting Russian people" is mostly bs >_> . As for what's going on with eastern Ukraine from Russia, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see.
On April 15 2014 16:08 Mc wrote: Noldo, this is what Russian news is like. That's why I can't discuss anything with you, because your news is based propoganda and lies.
It's NTV. Noone expecting anything adequate from them. And yes, it's problem. Now there is no adequate TV news channels. But internet users almost does not look TV. For example I'm reading news on russian forum, where all sides are represented (ukrainian russian haters or adequate ukrainians, russians paranoid with conspiracy theories about west or adequate russians).
In fact, this is another reason, why i want that crisis to end. Too many histerics in mass-media and internet and TOO MUCH propaganda (on both sides, you are make great mistake if you think, that western mass media free from propaganda). But thing, i writed above are not something propaganda related. There was no any messages from anyone about attemps of negotiations with crimea or eastern regions. And all projects rada worked and working with is available online. And i can't understand why rada doind that.
On April 15 2014 15:48 Mc wrote: Family and University is free in Poland, not 50,000$/year I also feel a strong draw to Russian culture (music, film, literature).... and women! It's just that I hate their aggressiveness, as individuals and especially as a nation.
Enjoy your 4:20 juice haha.
Russian people are not agressive in fact. (Russian tourists are completely other story.) And Russia as country is agressive not more, then west countries is agressive to Russia. For me it's thing, that i dont understand, but from 11th century west countries was much more agressive to Russia, then to other European countries, so 10 centuries of history is telling to russia, that all western countries is acting like enemies (or pretending to be ally just to strike more surprisingly). Not so long ago all western world was at war against ussr, so it's not easy, thinking about all other countries like they are not enemies. (especially because there was no any friendly actions in last any time)
Based on the fact your a Russian Noldo I understand your position and your opinions. But there are certain parts in your post that doesn`t have even a slightest sense faced with historical facts and reality. To be honest I facepalmed at your claimed non aggresive Russia, Russia not aggresive any more, whole western world against you .... Well thats the thing, you are Russian, you support your country, your view on the history, at the same time the Eastern Ukrainians backed by your country (please don`t deny this at least, if you do then im off, further discussion will be pointless) have a stronger feelings for Russia than thier own country and I can understand that, don`t agree with it, but faced with facts about countrys economical situation, the well being of their families and any hopes for some kind of future I might even consider their rally to be part of Russia. Current situation apears to be similar to what happend in Kiev .... but only appears. In reality theres a HUGE DIFFRENCE between common rally of non-armed peacful civilians that came to Kiev in thousands reaching on peek moments more than 100 thousands and couple of hundred people backed up by professionaly equipped and trained "separatists" (seriously Chakrov is a 1.5 mil city, Donetsk is nearly 1mil, where are all those ppl?where are alll those Russia loving supporters???!!!!).
Yes, I agree. Media can be bad. The Russophobia of old is getting stirred up in these parts. But at least on this matter, the media here and elsewhere isn't completely falsifying certain things as apparently is the case with Russian media.
There was no any messages from anyone about attemps of negotiations with crimea or eastern regions.
This doesn't mean Russian soldiers march into Crimea :|
EPT
