|
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see.
Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea.
It's imho (not only mine of course).
But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea
|
On April 15 2014 16:28 Noldo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see. Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea. It's imho (not only mine of course). But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea
If they want autonomy, then why did Russia annex it as Russian territory?
On April 15 2014 15:48 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 14:30 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: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. Enjoy your 4:20 juice haha.
Thanks lol, but in regards to the bolded text, I hate you .
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 16:23 Iduakil wrote:
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???!!!!).
My mistake, i writed wrong.
USSR was agressive. That just part of our history, i really don't like. All XX century of Russia was a big mistake from 1917 year.
And current events in east seem very questionably. But now there is too low information from there, and i afraid, that there is really some russians there (i hope at least not related to our forces or givernment). But events happening there is way too unclear. I see no logic there (It was in Crimea), so now i'm just not talking about that.
If there is much of russian influence, its big mistake. And i hope, it's not.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 16:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
If they want autonomy, then why did Russia annex it as Russian territory?
They had no autonomy in Ukraine. Russia, of course, will provide much of things they wanted. ( money, autonomy. Should we show to all world, that it was best for Crimea or not? :D )
|
On April 15 2014 11:19 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +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'? + Show Spoiler +
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
There's so much wrong about what you wrote, but let me just set the record straight on some of these points.
People bring up Russian aggression for two reasons. a) Historically, there are still plenty of people alive who remember Russia invading in the first place in 1941. They remember the years of oppression and abusive, they have family members killed and deported by Russia. b) Russia has been aggressive against its neighbours in the last 20 years as well. Besides obvious acts of aggression such as Crimea and Georgia (not the actual war, mind you, but what became before and after), gas wars, spying, trade sanctions in case its neighbours have policies they dislike, cyber wars, etc. Let's face it, Japan was right in its rhetoric, Russia has fallen back on its modus operandi of being an expansionist aggressor.
Secondly, people believe that Russia is a violent totalitarian regime because of the numerous reports of restrictions of freedom inside Russia itself. It ranks extremely low in media freedom with constant (and recently much worse) violence against journalists, bogus charges against opinions contradicting the Kremlin, laws enacted to restrict freedom of speech beyond anything known in the west, restrictions of internet freedom inside the country, taking over independent media, centrally governed and funded propaganda channels existing, etc. There's also no freedom of assembly with protests against the Kremlin dispersed by the police and political leaders arrested. It's telling that the best known opposition figures were either in prison or in voluntary exile.
There are also other signs that it's a totalitarian regime such as lack of rule of law and massive corruption. Putin has somehow stolen 28 billion dollars of personal wealth, making him richer than the bloody sultan of Brunei, or the oil sheikhs of Arabia. But any index, any source you ask reports the same. Russia is not a country built on stable institutions and the rule of law. Hell, every Russian you ask will agree.
Regarding Eastern European countries being puppets no matter what, that's blatantly false. There were a number of countries in the region which were historically Russian territories but which resisted the Warsaw Pact and retained their independence. Finland is the best example. The people are extremely similar to Estonia, the latter being slightly wealthier and more developed before the first world war. But as Finland won the Talvisota against Russia (or at least only lost some territories), they retained their independence and are currently a neutral country that isn't allied with NATO. The lesson to be learned is that the people in the region can and should retain their independence, and Russia should keep their corrupt and greedy hands off so people can actually prosper.
|
On April 15 2014 16:28 Noldo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see. Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea. It's imho (not only mine of course). But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea
Crimea has had autonomy since 93 -- in fact, it has more autonomy than any Russian federal subject in Ukraine. Thats why they none of the main parties in Crimea -- who mostly made up the Yanukovich's block -- would provide the leader for the 'independence' group and Russia had to look for someone as obscure as the Russian Unity guy to be the figurehead while creating a referendum that was incredibly biased, rigged and rushed.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 16:53 Sub40APM wrote:
Crimea has had autonomy since 93 -- in fact, it has more autonomy than any Russian federal subject in Ukraine. Thats why they none of the main parties in Crimea -- who mostly made up the Yanukovich's block -- would provide the leader for the 'independence' group and Russia had to look for someone as obscure as the Russian Unity guy to be the figurehead while creating a referendum that was incredibly biased, rigged and rushed.
Crimea has had autonomy not since, but until 93. Since 91. But in 93th they lost big part of it.
Also lets not forget, that Crimea (best ussr recreational zone) became unprofitable in Ukraine (HOW?! X_x) also salaries and pensions here much less than in Russia. How do you think, is it something that could attract people, or not? 
|
Dude please stop posting. Noone here shares Your delusions.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 17:10 Silvanel wrote:
Dude please stop posting. Noone here shares Your delusions.
What exactly you call "delusion"?
|
On April 15 2014 16:53 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 16:28 Noldo wrote:On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see. Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea. It's imho (not only mine of course). But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea Crimea has had autonomy since 93 -- in fact, it has more autonomy than any Russian federal subject in Ukraine. Thats why they none of the main parties in Crimea -- who mostly made up the Yanukovich's block -- would provide the leader for the 'independence' group and Russia had to look for someone as obscure as the Russian Unity guy to be the figurehead while creating a referendum that was incredibly biased, rigged and rushed.
I wonder how many ppl here also think that Crimean referendum was rigged and biased?
Crimea has always been a pro-Russian territory, they all speak Russian there. Same thing Eastern Ukraine.
|
All my Ukrainian relatives are afraid, they are afraid to speak against current Kiev regime, afraid that if they don't shout "Hail heroes!" at every corner they would be beaten up like some kind of traitors they are. They will be traitors and separatists and those who shall have courage to walk into the street shall be treated as terrorists.
How nice is that? What Russian aggression are you talking here about when the real aggression I see is the one that is coming from West Ukraine?
|
And by the way, I've seen a lot of ppl travelling through Belarus from Russia just to get to Ukraine, because they can't/afraid/have difficulties getting home from the Russian side. Pretty neat, don't you think?
|
It's not surprising that it's hard to go across a border that was JUST USED FOR AN INVASION.
As to your relatives being afraid, if Russia wasn't being an asshole and invading, there wouldn't be any need for them to be afraid, because kiev government wouldn't have to be so careful about NOT GETTING INVADED. Also, just standing around isn't much to be afraid of anything for.
If you're just going to lie about Russia not being aggressive (violating international law to invade and conquer territory is aggression), then there's little point in talking.
And around here, pretty much everyone thinks Crimean referendum was rigged and biased, because it was, also pretty blatantly illegal.
|
On April 15 2014 17:25 myminerals wrote:
All my Ukrainian relatives are afraid, they are afraid to speak against current Kiev regime, afraid that if they don't shout "Hail heroes!" at every corner they would be beaten up like some kind of traitors they are. They will be traitors and separatists and those who shall have courage to walk into the street shall be treated as terrorists.
How nice is that? What Russian aggression are you talking here about when the real aggression I see is the one that is coming from West Ukraine?
Funny, I know lots of people in the East (Donetsk), lots of people in the West (Lviv) and also people in Kiev. Yet, none of them say that they are afraid of the government in power. Plenty of them say that either this whole thing is silly, with people running around with Ukrainian and Russian flags mindlessly. Or they say that Russia is trying to steal them. Yet, what you said just happens to fit what the Russian media is claiming people think...
|
On April 15 2014 17:20 myminerals wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 16:53 Sub40APM wrote:On April 15 2014 16:28 Noldo wrote:On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see. Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea. It's imho (not only mine of course). But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea Crimea has had autonomy since 93 -- in fact, it has more autonomy than any Russian federal subject in Ukraine. Thats why they none of the main parties in Crimea -- who mostly made up the Yanukovich's block -- would provide the leader for the 'independence' group and Russia had to look for someone as obscure as the Russian Unity guy to be the figurehead while creating a referendum that was incredibly biased, rigged and rushed. I wonder how many ppl here also think that Crimean referendum was rigged and biased? Crimea has always been a pro-Russian territory, they all speak Russian there. Same thing Eastern Ukraine.
I think the referendum was rigged but I have no doubt that most of people there prefer Russia. What I don't understand is why Russian goverment needs to show everyone that they have a 140% support in whatever they do.
|
On April 15 2014 17:38 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 17:20 myminerals wrote:On April 15 2014 16:53 Sub40APM wrote:On April 15 2014 16:28 Noldo wrote:On April 15 2014 16:20 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
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, I have no idea what reasoning there is for that. There isn't much that I can see. Crimea is just example of 'island mentality'. All the way, the main thing they wanted is autonomy. They simply want to live on they own. And if Kiev just promise real autonomy to them, then Russia would have much more problems in Crimea. It's imho (not only mine of course). But mainly i'm talking about fact, that there was no attempts from kiev to reech some agreement with Crimea Crimea has had autonomy since 93 -- in fact, it has more autonomy than any Russian federal subject in Ukraine. Thats why they none of the main parties in Crimea -- who mostly made up the Yanukovich's block -- would provide the leader for the 'independence' group and Russia had to look for someone as obscure as the Russian Unity guy to be the figurehead while creating a referendum that was incredibly biased, rigged and rushed. I wonder how many ppl here also think that Crimean referendum was rigged and biased? Crimea has always been a pro-Russian territory, they all speak Russian there. Same thing Eastern Ukraine. I think the referendum was rigged but I have no doubt that most of people there prefer Russia. What I don't understand is why Russian goverment needs to show everyone that they have a 140% support in whatever they do.
I don't think most people prefer Russia. All surveys done before the invasion showed single digit support for joining Russia. (The latest was posted in the thread.)
***
Ouch, now I know for certain that this is not the PR Germany wants.
|
Russian Federation39 Posts
On April 15 2014 17:38 Sent. wrote:
I think the referendum was rigged but I have no doubt that most of people there prefer Russia. What I don't understand is why Russian goverment needs to show everyone that they have a 140% support in whatever they do.
You wont understand.
Russian dont understand that too.
But that is what happens on all russian elections. Why are they doing falsifications even when undoubtedly win? Nobody knows ;D
|
On April 15 2014 17:37 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2014 17:25 myminerals wrote:
All my Ukrainian relatives are afraid, they are afraid to speak against current Kiev regime, afraid that if they don't shout "Hail heroes!" at every corner they would be beaten up like some kind of traitors they are. They will be traitors and separatists and those who shall have courage to walk into the street shall be treated as terrorists.
How nice is that? What Russian aggression are you talking here about when the real aggression I see is the one that is coming from West Ukraine? Funny, I know lots of people in the East (Donetsk), lots of people in the West (Lviv) and also people in Kiev. Yet, none of them say that they are afraid of the government in power. Plenty of them say that either this whole thing is silly, with people running around with Ukrainian and Russian flags mindlessly. Or they say that Russia is trying to steal them. Yet, what you said just happens to fit what the Russian media is claiming people think...
Well I would not call it mindless running with flags considering this is mindless running with flags AND guns. So your "lots of people in the East" are either as silly or just products of somebody's imagination.
|
On April 15 2014 17:33 zlefin wrote:
It's not surprising that it's hard to go across a border that was JUST USED FOR AN INVASION.
As to your relatives being afraid, if Russia wasn't being an asshole and invading, there wouldn't be any need for them to be afraid, because kiev government wouldn't have to be so careful about NOT GETTING INVADED. Also, just standing around isn't much to be afraid of anything for.
If you're just going to lie about Russia not being aggressive (violating international law to invade and conquer territory is aggression), then there's little point in talking.
And around here, pretty much everyone thinks Crimean referendum was rigged and biased, because it was, also pretty blatantly illegal.
I have a strong feeling that if Russia didn't take Crimea it would have lost it to current Ukrainian government which most certainly would give it to NATO troops or anything of this sort. But it is all very debatable of course And yet Putin didn't want to take chances in this regard.
Needless to say Crimea has always been a Russian territory with a strong Russian support. So whatever the legal regulations are if people speak Russian and say they are Russians -- they are. It was an invasion only in legal terms, in terms of national sovereignty it was a historical reconciliation.
So whether you ask me if this Russian invasion was legal, I would say no. If you ask if it was the right thing to do, I'd say it was.
|
***
An illegal act in international politics cannot be the right thing to do. Whether it is right or not is measured against said laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
