On May 09 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote: I think there is a strong tendency in these discourses today that you need to be balanced on every topic or else you're just biased. "Russian and Western media are totally the same, because if I'd say something else I'd be biased and have such a undifferentiated opinion!"
The Russian and Western media landscape are nothing alike. Try to find Russian dissent blogs online, whoops won't work, they're most likely banned again. Turn on the Russian state television, oh Kiselyov is threatening to turn the US into a pile of nuclear waste (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE)
Not every coin has two sides, I think this "yeah but we need to be balanced" just for the sake of it is a little ridiculous.
I made a post concerning this a while ago, and was wondering what Germans think. Some Germans seem to care too much about being independent from United States, and trying to force a neutral position in the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine they end up going against the democratic values upon which Germany is formed.
If you're trying to be neutral in a conflict where one party is clearly the aggressor, than you end up supporting the aggressor. Merkel is too intelligent for that, but there are significant swathes of German population that embrace an anti-Western position at the cost of impartiality.
On May 09 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote: I think there is a strong tendency in these discourses today that you need to be balanced on every topic or else you're just biased. "Russian and Western media are totally the same, because if I'd say something else I'd be biased and have such a undifferentiated opinion!"
The Russian and Western media landscape are nothing alike. Try to find Russian dissent blogs online, whoops won't work, they're most likely banned again. Turn on the Russian state television, oh Kiselyov is threatening to turn the US into a pile of nuclear waste (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE)
Not every coin has two sides, I think this "yeah but we need to be balanced" just for the sake of it is a little ridiculous.
I made a post concerning this a while ago, and was wondering what Germans think. Some Germans seem to care too much about being independent from United States, and trying to force a neutral position in the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine they end up going against the democratic values upon which Germany is formed.
If you're trying to be neutral in a conflict where one party is clearly the aggressor, than you end up supporting the aggressor. Merkel is too intelligent for that, but there are significant swathes of German population that embrace an anti-Western position at the cost of impartiality.
How did you get there from media-bias now?
That literally has zero connection to what we were talking about.
edit: to answer to that though, since you're wrong - no. Germany is not "forcing" itself into a neutral position. Germany in the past had a decent to good relationship with russia, that counts more than the US trying to force the EU/germany into heavy sanctions just because, that in the end hurts us more than russia.
Nobody here in germany is trying to justify what happens, but what you're suggesting is what the US did with the iraq. Not to mention that your statement "if you're not fighting stuff, then you're for it!" is pretty ridiculous, to put it nicely. It's actually extremely childish. Not to mention that russia is not clearly the aggressor. They're as clear an aggressor as the iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we all know how that turned out. Yes, it seems like russia is playing the puppeteer, but i'd go on the street if merkel jeopardizes our economy based on what we "know". And so would many others.
As long as you don't have stone cold facts, neutrality and the search for the truth is alot smarter than war/fearmongering.
edit2: in the end, merkel achieved alot more with talking (at least so it seems for now) than everybody who's screaming for oh so heavy sanctions. Not to mention, to my knowledge, germany so far is the only country where the government actually interefered in already made military deals - france f.e. is still selling their mistrals.
On May 09 2014 07:56 Saryph wrote: m4ini I am pretty sure that Russia annexed Crimea. Does that count as aggression?
Depends. Were they aggressive? Did they receive sanctions for it that, which shoved their economy over the cliff?
If i recall correctly, they had a voting. We all "know" that it was rigged (and not agreed to by the international community), but as long as you don't have proof (and i'm not talking iraq-style proof, i'm done with that), i would not go to war for that. Or have drawbacks in the economy for that.
Not to mention, germany is neither justifying nor ignoring what happened. Crimea is done, there's nothing to be salvaged. If you're delusional enough to think that crimea will be part of the ukraine again in the next 50 years, well, i can't help you there. Not even kiev is talking about crimea at the moment - we're talking about the now. Is russia still the aggressor?
Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
I think it has been pretty established by now that Russia did indeed invade Crimea with Russian troops and forced a very quick and opaque referendum. That certainly sounds aggressive.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes, for instance, the downfall of the Soviet Union took the world by suprise; it seems a stretch to assume that a quickly changing situation will remain so.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
And god i hope i'm not used to talking to zeo.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
Ukrainian government has prepared a draft of Constitutional changes that would greatly decentralize power. Most importantly it will give much financial freedom to the regions. Though federalization is not on the table, experts say there is much more independence on the table than Russian regions ever got (and which has been steadily decreasing lately), despite their federal status.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
There are a few other sources in the bottom of the wikipedia article about the Crimean crisis, but it was several months ago that they were first reporting that they put gunmen into the regional government building and then there was a vote to replace the prime minister with someone who was very pro-Russian who had around 4% of the vote last election.
Also concerning the troops, the agreement between Russia and Ukraine was for a specific amount of troops to be stationed on Russian bases, not for armed troops to be roaming the streets, and definitely not for them to be blockading or entering Ukrainian bases and government buildings.
Whether Russia is still an aggressor is a different question that I admit I had not addressed. That Russia seems to be saying one thing to the international community while seemingly doing another (for example, saying they have removed their troops from the Ukraine border, while satellite images apparently show differently) is troubling to me, but Putin seems to have it in his head to convince the world that they are a mighty power, and today's strategic missile tests in my opinion are not the correct way to do so.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
And god i hope i'm not used to talking to zeo.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
There are a few other sources in the bottom of the wikipedia article about the Crimean crisis, but it was several months ago that they were first reporting that they put gunmen into the regional government building and then there was a vote to replace the prime minister with someone who was very pro-Russian who had around 4% of the vote last election.
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about russian troops ("putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4"), not seperatists. Is russia responsible for those men in the gov building? If so, can you prove it? I know it's weird questions, but we were talking about how bad it is for a country to be neutral nowadays - or do you think it's so obvious, it doesn't need proof?
Also concerning the troops, the agreement between Russia and Ukraine was for a specific amount of troops to be stationed on Russian bases, not for armed troops to be roaming the streets, and definitely not for them to be blockading or entering Ukrainian bases and government buildings.
I condemned russian soldiers blocking military bases vividly in here, so i obviously agree there (in fact, i called it an act of war). Russia received sanctions for that though.
Whether Russia is still an aggressor is a different question that I admit I had not addressed. That Russia seems to be saying one thing to the international community while seemingly doing another (for example, saying they have removed their troops from the Ukraine border, while satellite images apparently show differently) is troubling to me, but Putin seems to have it in his head to convince the world that they are a mighty power, and today's strategic missile tests in my opinion are not the correct way to do so.
As i said. I'm the last one to justify what russia is doing, or (i can't remember the word for the opposite of condemning) something like that - i'm saying, for something "heavy" to happen right now, may it be sanctions or whatever, there has to be actual proof of something. We (well, i) were talking about that it's a bad thing that germany tries to stay neutral to a certain degree, and i disagreed based on that. I as a german citizen do not want our economy and everything to be jeopardized based on what we know right now, which is literally nothing really. Alot of assumptions (and, as you might know, i agree to almost all of them), but that's it. Germany in the recent years was against every "kneejerk reaction", may it be iraq or other stuff - and in the end, we did pretty well with that.
That doesn't mean, if evidence surfaced, we should stay neutral (which is quite an absurd claim anyway since we sanction as heavy/heavier than others anyway, it's just that germans still want to talk it out). I'm saying, until then, it's not the worst idea to do so.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
And god i hope i'm not used to talking to zeo.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
There are a few other sources in the bottom of the wikipedia article about the Crimean crisis, but it was several months ago that they were first reporting that they put gunmen into the regional government building and then there was a vote to replace the prime minister with someone who was very pro-Russian who had around 4% of the vote last election.
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about russian troops ("putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4"), not seperatists. Is russia responsible for those men in the gov building? If so, can you prove it? I know it's weird questions, but we were talking about how bad it is for a country to be neutral nowadays - or do you think it's so obvious, it doesn't need proof?
Also concerning the troops, the agreement between Russia and Ukraine was for a specific amount of troops to be stationed on Russian bases, not for armed troops to be roaming the streets, and definitely not for them to be blockading or entering Ukrainian bases and government buildings.
I condemned russian soldiers blocking military bases vividly in here, so i obviously agree there (in fact, i called it an act of war). Russia received sanctions for that though.
Whether Russia is still an aggressor is a different question that I admit I had not addressed. That Russia seems to be saying one thing to the international community while seemingly doing another (for example, saying they have removed their troops from the Ukraine border, while satellite images apparently show differently) is troubling to me, but Putin seems to have it in his head to convince the world that they are a mighty power, and today's strategic missile tests in my opinion are not the correct way to do so.
As i said. I'm the last one to justify what russia is doing, or (i can't remember the word for the opposite of condemning) something like that - i'm saying, for something "heavy" to happen right now, may it be sanctions or whatever, there has to be actual proof of something. We (well, i) were talking about that it's a bad thing that germany tries to stay neutral to a certain degree, and i disagreed based on that. I as a german citizen do not want our economy and everything to be jeopardized based on what we know right now, which is literally nothing really. Alot of assumptions (and, as you might know, i agree to almost all of them), but that's it. Germany in the recent years was against every "kneejerk reaction", may it be iraq or other stuff - and in the end, we did pretty well with that.
That doesn't mean, if evidence surfaced, we should stay neutral (which is quite an absurd claim anyway since we sanction as heavy/heavier than others anyway, it's just that germans still want to talk it out). I'm saying, until then, it's not the worst idea to do so.
While I do not have proof of who the people who went into the building are, I think it is reasonable to think there is a high likelihood they were Russian forces, or those who were supported by the Russian government. It is no longer a debated topic that Russian troops out of uniform were running around the area securing important objectives. Putin has also said that annexing Crimea was important, due to his desire to secure the port as well as hurting the relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
You have to admit that while we do not know for sure, when Russian troops are securing bases, arresting Ukrainian soldiers in the streets and securing key infrastructure points (such as communication points and television towers) that securing the local government building is something highly likely.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
And god i hope i'm not used to talking to zeo.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
There are a few other sources in the bottom of the wikipedia article about the Crimean crisis, but it was several months ago that they were first reporting that they put gunmen into the regional government building and then there was a vote to replace the prime minister with someone who was very pro-Russian who had around 4% of the vote last election.
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about russian troops ("putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4"), not seperatists. Is russia responsible for those men in the gov building? If so, can you prove it? I know it's weird questions, but we were talking about how bad it is for a country to be neutral nowadays - or do you think it's so obvious, it doesn't need proof?
Also concerning the troops, the agreement between Russia and Ukraine was for a specific amount of troops to be stationed on Russian bases, not for armed troops to be roaming the streets, and definitely not for them to be blockading or entering Ukrainian bases and government buildings.
I condemned russian soldiers blocking military bases vividly in here, so i obviously agree there (in fact, i called it an act of war). Russia received sanctions for that though.
Whether Russia is still an aggressor is a different question that I admit I had not addressed. That Russia seems to be saying one thing to the international community while seemingly doing another (for example, saying they have removed their troops from the Ukraine border, while satellite images apparently show differently) is troubling to me, but Putin seems to have it in his head to convince the world that they are a mighty power, and today's strategic missile tests in my opinion are not the correct way to do so.
As i said. I'm the last one to justify what russia is doing, or (i can't remember the word for the opposite of condemning) something like that - i'm saying, for something "heavy" to happen right now, may it be sanctions or whatever, there has to be actual proof of something. We (well, i) were talking about that it's a bad thing that germany tries to stay neutral to a certain degree, and i disagreed based on that. I as a german citizen do not want our economy and everything to be jeopardized based on what we know right now, which is literally nothing really. Alot of assumptions (and, as you might know, i agree to almost all of them), but that's it. Germany in the recent years was against every "kneejerk reaction", may it be iraq or other stuff - and in the end, we did pretty well with that.
That doesn't mean, if evidence surfaced, we should stay neutral (which is quite an absurd claim anyway since we sanction as heavy/heavier than others anyway, it's just that germans still want to talk it out). I'm saying, until then, it's not the worst idea to do so.
While I do not have proof of who the people who went into the building are, I think it is reasonable to think there is a high likelihood they were Russian forces, or those who were supported by the Russian government. It is no longer a debated topic that Russian troops out of uniform were running around the area securing important objectives. Putin has also said that annexing Crimea was important, due to his desire to secure the port as well as hurting the relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
Of course it's reasonable. Reasonable enough to justify sanctions, which i certainly agreed to back in those days, and still do. That's not the question though, it's about now.
You have to admit that while we do not know for sure, when Russian troops are securing bases, arresting Ukrainian soldiers in the streets and securing key infrastructure points (such as communication points and television towers) that securing the local government building is something highly likely.
Again, yes. Very much so. But that was sanctioned. That's "ticked", so to say. Now we have a civil war, more or less(ish), and that's what it's about. How deep is russia involved? I gave my opinions on that in this thread more than once, i sure do believe so - but "believing" in this case is not good enough. There's no proof whatsoever that russia is pulling the strings. Likely, yes - but maybe the seperatists are actually just seperatists, and the IGLAs etc are not from russia but actually from ukrainian bases - who knows? I certainly do not.
m4ini, while asking for proof is laudable, you're mistaken in the architecture of the sanctions. Remember that there are 3 steps, the first was just the visa freeze, etc.
Step 2 of sanctions only requires a lack of de-escalation. That is covered by merely having troops on Ukraine's border and not giving back Crimea. Monday's sanctions would possibly target companies, but that's still most likely step 2.
As for step 3, which would bring far reaching economic sanctions, that requires any further steps which destabilize Ukraine, and there are a large number of things Russia has done: supported the separatists, given ultimatums to invade in favour of separatists, raised gas prices unexpectedly, etc.
On May 09 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote: I think there is a strong tendency in these discourses today that you need to be balanced on every topic or else you're just biased. "Russian and Western media are totally the same, because if I'd say something else I'd be biased and have such a undifferentiated opinion!"
The Russian and Western media landscape are nothing alike. Try to find Russian dissent blogs online, whoops won't work, they're most likely banned again. Turn on the Russian state television, oh Kiselyov is threatening to turn the US into a pile of nuclear waste (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkMT_oLempE)
Not every coin has two sides, I think this "yeah but we need to be balanced" just for the sake of it is a little ridiculous.
I made a post concerning this a while ago, and was wondering what Germans think. Some Germans seem to care too much about being independent from United States, and trying to force a neutral position in the US-Russia conflict over Ukraine they end up going against the democratic values upon which Germany is formed.
If you're trying to be neutral in a conflict where one party is clearly the aggressor, than you end up supporting the aggressor. Merkel is too intelligent for that, but there are significant swathes of German population that embrace an anti-Western position at the cost of impartiality.
How did you get there from media-bias now?
That literally has zero connection to what we were talking about.
edit: to answer to that though, since you're wrong - no. Germany is not "forcing" itself into a neutral position. Germany in the past had a decent to good relationship with russia, that counts more than the US trying to force the EU/germany into heavy sanctions just because, that in the end hurts us more than russia.
Nobody here in germany is trying to justify what happens, but what you're suggesting is what the US did with the iraq. Not to mention that your statement "if you're not fighting stuff, then you're for it!" is pretty ridiculous, to put it nicely. It's actually extremely childish. Not to mention that russia is not clearly the aggressor. They're as clear an aggressor as the iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we all know how that turned out. Yes, it seems like russia is playing the puppeteer, but i'd go on the street if merkel jeopardizes our economy based on what we "know". And so would many others.
As long as you don't have stone cold facts, neutrality and the search for the truth is alot smarter than war/fearmongering.
edit2: in the end, merkel achieved alot more with talking (at least so it seems for now) than everybody who's screaming for oh so heavy sanctions. Not to mention, to my knowledge, germany so far is the only country where the government actually interefered in already made military deals - france f.e. is still selling their mistrals.
I think you misunderstood my post.
The German government as a whole, has responded quite well to the current conflict in my opinion. I'm not for Germany being more involved w/ military support for Ukraine, Ukraine joining NATO, or drastic sanctions against Russia (even though they deserve it....).
I was merely referring to the fact that a higher proportion of German people take a "neutral" position on the conflict than neighbouring countries. Some go as far as justifying Russia's position - "What Russia did was wrong, but it feels threatened and Crimea is historically... and so on."
I have a theory that this is not only cause by economic ties to Russia, but by a desire of some Germans to not be seen as a mere member of the "West", and achieve this by taking a neutral approach on East-West tensions/conflicts. This drives them to take a less harsh view of what's happening in Ukraine, even though Russia is clearly horrifically wrong.
Basically, my point is that an overly strong desire to be neutral can lead you to being more supportive of Russia's actions, than you would if you just looked at the situation neutrally. A "desire to be neutral" is quite different from simply being "neutral".
And to be clear, I am for a strong independent Germany that does in fact believe in neutrality : i.e. condemn the US when it is wrong, condemn Russia when it is wrong (i.e. Iraq and Ukraine). But don't let that neutrality mean you take a neutral position on conflicts when clearly one side is wrong.
On May 09 2014 08:16 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the proof be that the Kremlin released on their website that there was no where close to 83% turnout with 97% approval for annexation, which was the official claim at the time?
Also, putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4 am does sound aggressive to me.
Finally, are you trying to be hostile toward me or something? 'delusional' etc etc really seems unnecessary. Maybe you're used to talking to zeo, but I really don't think I have been rude to you so far, and I hope I have not come across as delusional.
No, it's not proof. Would you consider that actually "a proof"? It's a confirmation of my (our) opinion, but far from evidence. Where exactly did russia "put troops into a neigboring country", that was prohibited? Don't forget they're allowed a certain amount of troops in there. If they don't go over that limit, no, it is not aggressive. The gunpoint thing at 4 am i missed, what do you mean?
And no, i didn't mean to be rude. Delusional isn't a rude word, and i didn't think it comes off like that. It's a normal statement. Crimea is gone, whatever happens now short of annihilating russia (obv. not going to happen) won't change that. Russia received sanctions for what they did, their economy is basically done for. Hence the question: is russia still the aggressor? Because that's what it is about right now. The "civil war", and everybody being convinced that russia holds the strings. They might, i'm the last person to say "they'd never do it", but so far there's nothing out there that would realistically justify "balls to the walls sanctions" now.
And god i hope i'm not used to talking to zeo.
As for the next 50 years, who could had predicted many of the events in the past 50 years? In 50 years time the world will probably see a lot of changes
The 50 years were pulled out of my butt. Take any number. 10 years, whatever - but certainly not in the near future, and certainly not because of "us" throwing sanctions. If russia implodes and has to deal with civil unrests themselve at some point, sure. But that's not related to the situation right now.
There are a few other sources in the bottom of the wikipedia article about the Crimean crisis, but it was several months ago that they were first reporting that they put gunmen into the regional government building and then there was a vote to replace the prime minister with someone who was very pro-Russian who had around 4% of the vote last election.
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about russian troops ("putting troops into a neighboring country, and overthrowing a regions government at gunpoint at 4"), not seperatists. Is russia responsible for those men in the gov building? If so, can you prove it? I know it's weird questions, but we were talking about how bad it is for a country to be neutral nowadays - or do you think it's so obvious, it doesn't need proof?
Also concerning the troops, the agreement between Russia and Ukraine was for a specific amount of troops to be stationed on Russian bases, not for armed troops to be roaming the streets, and definitely not for them to be blockading or entering Ukrainian bases and government buildings.
I condemned russian soldiers blocking military bases vividly in here, so i obviously agree there (in fact, i called it an act of war). Russia received sanctions for that though.
Whether Russia is still an aggressor is a different question that I admit I had not addressed. That Russia seems to be saying one thing to the international community while seemingly doing another (for example, saying they have removed their troops from the Ukraine border, while satellite images apparently show differently) is troubling to me, but Putin seems to have it in his head to convince the world that they are a mighty power, and today's strategic missile tests in my opinion are not the correct way to do so.
As i said. I'm the last one to justify what russia is doing, or (i can't remember the word for the opposite of condemning) something like that - i'm saying, for something "heavy" to happen right now, may it be sanctions or whatever, there has to be actual proof of something. We (well, i) were talking about that it's a bad thing that germany tries to stay neutral to a certain degree, and i disagreed based on that. I as a german citizen do not want our economy and everything to be jeopardized based on what we know right now, which is literally nothing really. Alot of assumptions (and, as you might know, i agree to almost all of them), but that's it. Germany in the recent years was against every "kneejerk reaction", may it be iraq or other stuff - and in the end, we did pretty well with that.
That doesn't mean, if evidence surfaced, we should stay neutral (which is quite an absurd claim anyway since we sanction as heavy/heavier than others anyway, it's just that germans still want to talk it out). I'm saying, until then, it's not the worst idea to do so.
While I do not have proof of who the people who went into the building are, I think it is reasonable to think there is a high likelihood they were Russian forces, or those who were supported by the Russian government. It is no longer a debated topic that Russian troops out of uniform were running around the area securing important objectives. Putin has also said that annexing Crimea was important, due to his desire to secure the port as well as hurting the relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
Of course it's reasonable. Reasonable enough to justify sanctions, which i certainly agreed to back in those days, and still do. That's not the question though, it's about now.
You have to admit that while we do not know for sure, when Russian troops are securing bases, arresting Ukrainian soldiers in the streets and securing key infrastructure points (such as communication points and television towers) that securing the local government building is something highly likely.
Again, yes. Very much so. But that was sanctioned. That's "ticked", so to say. Now we have a civil war, more or less(ish), and that's what it's about. How deep is russia involved? I gave my opinions on that in this thread more than once, i sure do believe so - but "believing" in this case is not good enough. There's no proof whatsoever that russia is pulling the strings. Likely, yes - but maybe the seperatists are actually just seperatists, and the IGLAs etc are not from russia but actually from ukrainian bases - who knows? I certainly do not.
Russia is still aggressive. They basically imposed economical sanctions on Ukraine and raised the gas prices to a ridiculous extent. They also have 40k troops on the border. They're doing nothing to deescalate so further sanctions do seem appropriate to me.
According to SBU and State Division for Financial Monitoring, Russian Main Department of Military Improvement (Главное Управление Благоустройства Войск) through their subsidiary in Sevastopol was trying to transfer around $3 million to a phantom firm in Donetsk for the nonexistent construction services. According to SBU intelligence, the money was supposed to finance the separatists.
Under Lugansk two Toyota FJ Cruiser cars were sprayed with gunfire after failing to stop at separatist's checkpost. A female and male driving the cars (husband and wife) were shot dead. Their 10 year old daughter who was in one of the cars was hospitalized and is in a critical condition.
About Mariupol. Despite Ukrainian military presense in the city, attacks on police department and some army block were held. The fire and smoke near (or inside as well) the Local Adminstrative Building is because of the tires being burned.
Not much video is available right now. This one shows a military (or police) bus being blocked. Military men fire shots in the air and open the way.
Though it looks kind of scary, at the end the officer and one of the blockers shook hands.
EPT
