president theodore roosevelt first used the phrase 'speak softly but carry a big stick' in 1900
Russia vs. the World, part whatever....
- Thread starter Ms Erica Phoenix
- Start date
As someone who worked and traveled extensively in eastern Europe just before and after the break up of the U.S.S.R. I am not at all surprised by Putin's/Russia's actions. The Crimea has always been seen by Russia as having tremendous strategic importance. This "invasion" had not occurred earlier simply because the Russians were always confident that their position in the region as well as their naval bases were secure. The lease on the base for the Black Sea Fleet goes until around 2040.
With the sudden turn of events in Kyiv and the real possibility that a new government would be more aligned with the EU (and possibly NATO) down the road, the Russians were facing an uncertain future in all of eastern Ukraine including the Crimean peninsula. Thus Putin saw the current upheaval and the new, inexperienced government as the prime opportunity to seize the region. He knows full well that aside from some tough talk and rhetoric that the west will not intervene militarily and is confident enough in the Russian economy and western Europe's need for Russia's gas and oil that any economic damage will be temporary. Economic sanctions never affect the leaders of the country and we are talking about a people who endured decades of harsh living conditions during WWII and then under the communist regime. Do we really think sanctions are going to work against the Russian people?
That said, Putin will soon realize that it is not gong to be without cost. 20% of the inhabitants of the Crimea are ethnic Tartars who hate Russia. They have endured persecution under Russian rule and will not take being under Russian rule lying down. Add to that some of the 20% of ethnic Ukrainians who will also be opposed to Russian rule and there will be a tremendous potential for Ukrainian Nationalist and other terrorist groups to sprout up.
This is not going to end soon or easily and it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
Right now Putin can do what ever he wants, no one can stop him and he knows it.
With the sudden turn of events in Kyiv and the real possibility that a new government would be more aligned with the EU (and possibly NATO) down the road, the Russians were facing an uncertain future in all of eastern Ukraine including the Crimean peninsula. Thus Putin saw the current upheaval and the new, inexperienced government as the prime opportunity to seize the region. He knows full well that aside from some tough talk and rhetoric that the west will not intervene militarily and is confident enough in the Russian economy and western Europe's need for Russia's gas and oil that any economic damage will be temporary. Economic sanctions never affect the leaders of the country and we are talking about a people who endured decades of harsh living conditions during WWII and then under the communist regime. Do we really think sanctions are going to work against the Russian people?
That said, Putin will soon realize that it is not gong to be without cost. 20% of the inhabitants of the Crimea are ethnic Tartars who hate Russia. They have endured persecution under Russian rule and will not take being under Russian rule lying down. Add to that some of the 20% of ethnic Ukrainians who will also be opposed to Russian rule and there will be a tremendous potential for Ukrainian Nationalist and other terrorist groups to sprout up.
This is not going to end soon or easily and it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
Right now Putin can do what ever he wants, no one can stop him and he knows it.
True enough! They have done it throughout their history. Friedmanites just started pulling strings around the world in the late 60s early 70s...
You really have to wonder just how stupid Rob Ford is. I won't even cross town to be abused. Rob Ford flies down to LA and pays for his own hotel room to be abused. Was there ever any question on what Kimmell was going to do on the show?I just love the hypocrisy is all of this. The US (and John Kerry no less!) yelling at Putin for going into another country under false pretenses. And Putin's condemnation of Americans wanting to aid Syria are just as bad.
The world would be a lot better off if we got rid of the corrupt political class. Speaking of, Rob Ford was on Kimmell last night. :doh:
Ad then both guys went eventually took a giant shit. . . . VERY, VERRRRRRY, interesting.That's just a coincidence, playa.
It should be interesting to see if the money that the EU was promising the Ukraine protesters materializes now that Russia has split Crimea and Odessa away. The money won't come of course. The Ukraine protesters must be feeling like the swamp people in Iraq when US support failed to materialize. Instead, Saddam dammed the river and put paid to their lifestyle.
Oh Well, Putin now doesn't have to pay of Ukraine's debts in order to keep his naval bases. He's taken the "gift" of 1954 back and will happily let the EU have the rest of Ukraine.
The Tatars that were "returning to their homeland" after their grandparents were expelled by Stalin will be expelled by Putin. Putin has a bit of a history with Muslim rebels.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...e-in-crimea-and-warns-west-against-sanctions/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26442381
Oh Well, Putin now doesn't have to pay of Ukraine's debts in order to keep his naval bases. He's taken the "gift" of 1954 back and will happily let the EU have the rest of Ukraine.
The Tatars that were "returning to their homeland" after their grandparents were expelled by Stalin will be expelled by Putin. Putin has a bit of a history with Muslim rebels.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...e-in-crimea-and-warns-west-against-sanctions/
Putin also fired a "test" of an ICBM today - just in case the USA, which has allowed their ICBMs to become inoperable, has forgotten which nation is actually maintaining their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26442381
Last edited:
Corrected that for you.
***
Ford is a salesman. He's buying his own press. He thinks he's an innocent run of the mill guy and is loved by his constituents. Which he is, loved by his constituents that is, but, that doesn't go on to the average individual in North American. He walked innocently into a set up and couldn't handle it.
Actually I don't think Putin is disconnected from reality. He is a bully and he's perfectly willing to kill people, but Russians don't respect wimpy politicians. Obama couldn't get elected in Russia and it has nothing to do with color. The Russians had a Obama type in Gorbachev, they tried to assassinate him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev Boris Yeltsin put a stop to the coup attempt by putting tanks on the streets of Moscow and firing on the Parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
I will always remember that. Anyway, that is how Russia is. You can't govern if you are wimpy.
Gorbachev has commented on the Ukraine http://groundreport.com/interesting-story-gorbachevs-views-regarding-policial-turmoil-in-ukraine/
And let's not forget...what was Putin's last job? KGB!Actually I don't think Putin is disconnected from reality. He is a bully and he's perfectly willing to kill people, but Russians don't respect wimpy politicians. Obama couldn't get elected in Russia and it has nothing to do with color. The Russians had a Obama type in Gorbachev, they tried to assassinate him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev Boris Yeltsin put a stop to the coup attempt by putting tanks on the streets of Moscow and firing on the Parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
I will always remember that. Anyway, that is how Russia is. You can't govern if you are wimpy.
Gorbachev has commented on the Ukraine http://groundreport.com/interesting-story-gorbachevs-views-regarding-policial-turmoil-in-ukraine/
Gorbachev was not wimpy. You could not rise to the top in the dog eat dog world of soviet political life being wimpy.Actually I don't think Putin is disconnected from reality. He is a bully and he's perfectly willing to kill people, but Russians don't respect wimpy politicians. Obama couldn't get elected in Russia and it has nothing to do with color. The Russians had a Obama type in Gorbachev, they tried to assassinate him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev Boris Yeltsin put a stop to the coup attempt by putting tanks on the streets of Moscow and firing on the Parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis
I will always remember that. Anyway, that is how Russia is. You can't govern if you are wimpy.
Gorbachev has commented on the Ukraine http://groundreport.com/interesting-story-gorbachevs-views-regarding-policial-turmoil-in-ukraine/
What he did was to try to reinvigorate Soviet society which had that point had devolved to the point of being virtually a corpse. The problem in doing that was that it released all sorts of aspirations among people in the empire, and then he had the choice of being civilized or being a barbarian.
The "tough guys" who tried to get rid of him turned out to not be so tough, and Yeltsin was a stumbling drunk who turned out to be largely instrumental in breaking up the Soviet Union.
The reality is that if it wasn't for the "tough guys" you so admire who tried to kick him out, the Soviet Union would probably still be here today, but only in a democratic progressive form much like other European countries. Instead we got Putin and his neo-fascist state, not to mention some other places like Belarus who make Putin's Russia look like a bunch of wimps.
Other than some of the Baltic states perhaps, there is not a whole lot of good that came out of the break up of the Soviet Union.
What I know is that I don't really know much about the Crimea and what the people in the Crimea think.
Would they rather be a part of Russia vs. the Ukraine?
How would another other western power react ie. the US or Britain if one of it major military ports was at risk?
Didn't Britain take back the Falkland Island by force. How would that have been viewed by Russia?
I am always weary of our "western centric" view point.
I see a bunch of Ukraine protesters over at Robson street the other night. Are they from the more pro western regions of Kiev.
Maybe the news should ask how the people from the Crimea feel. Perhaps they would rather be under Russian rule?
I think the west should just stay out of this.
Google the history of the Crimea region.
Would they rather be a part of Russia vs. the Ukraine?
How would another other western power react ie. the US or Britain if one of it major military ports was at risk?
Didn't Britain take back the Falkland Island by force. How would that have been viewed by Russia?
I am always weary of our "western centric" view point.
I see a bunch of Ukraine protesters over at Robson street the other night. Are they from the more pro western regions of Kiev.
Maybe the news should ask how the people from the Crimea feel. Perhaps they would rather be under Russian rule?
I think the west should just stay out of this.
Google the history of the Crimea region.
Yes, let's look at the Falklands War some 5000 miles from Britain vs Crimea which is 5 miles from Russia and contains the main Russian Naval Base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
So far the Russians have been pretty restrained and haven't killed any Ukraine military in direct engagement. vs the Americans and British dancing in the streets at the deaths of over 600 Argentine military.
As usual, Western Shit is supposed to smell like roses, while any other nation's fart is supposed to stink up the world.
Couldn't be said better.
And that West-centric view of the world is what fuels, for example, the nit-picky mean bullshit every time a country like Russia or China holds a world event, like the Olympic Games, instead of looking at what holding these events mean in the context of the financial and political status of that nation. Or even worse, in military affairs when China wants to arm itself and secure its borders, or crush violent uprisings, or seize breakaway states like Tibet, the West is all over it like blood-sucking mosquitoes on pregnant cows - ignoring its own vastly worse record of actual ethnic cleansing of First Nations peoples or awful illegitimate wars like the Iraq War or Vietnam War where hundreds of thousands of civilians perished in totally asymmetrical warfare or under the use of cruel weapons like napalm.
I'm no scholar of history but didn't Austria welcome becoming part of the Third Reich?
You're comparing it wrong. If we're equating the current Crimean situation with the Falklands War (which isn't actually a great comparison in the first place), then Russia is Argentina, and the Ukraine is Great Britain. Here's why: in the Crimea and in the Falklands, the nations involved have territorial claims to the land in question. In the Falklands Great Britain was the nation that actually had possession of the territory, while Argentina moved military forces in to pursue their territorial claims and take that possession away. In the Crimea Ukraine was the nation that actually had possession of the territory, while Russia has moved military forces in - presumably to pursue their territorial claims and take that possession away (although it could be argued that they have yet to actually take that step).
Like I say though, the comparison with the Falklands isn't a good one. The main reason is that the Falklands wasn't in a state of civil unrest and government collapse, and there was no possible concern that a volatile situation there could cause significant problems to other nations. In other words, if you're going to compare the Crimea to the Falklands, then Russia is the equivalent of Argentina, but Russia has a much better excuse for moving military forces in than Argentina did.
As I was the one who used the Falklands as an example I will rebut your assertions.
Both the Crimea and the Falklands have been ruled by various countries over and over again.
You say that the British had legal possession of the territory well that depends on who's side you are on. Google Falkland Islands sovereignty and you will see Argentina has never recognized British sovereignty over the island and that prior to 1833 had claimed control of the islands. So who is invading who is really a question of which side one is on.
The same goes for the Crimea region. Based on its strategic location, the Crimea region has been ruled by most of the great powers in history. It has been a part of Russia several times over.
My point was that I am wary of our "western" view point. How many times has the US, France, or Britain done something similar but in our view it was appropriate because that is what the people of the region wanted. They were going in as the saviors.
It all just depends on your point of view and we need to be always aware of that.
No, I never said they had legal possession. I said they had possession. As in they were the ones who were, from a practical standpoint, in actual possession. Whose claim should be considered legal is another matter entirely. Same with the Crimea. The Ukraine had actual possession from a practical standpoint, but both Russia & the Ukraine have territorial claims. Which claim should be considered legal is a totally separate question from which nation had actual practical possession. The Falklands are still a bad example for trying to prove your point, as the political situation in the Falklands was entirely different from the political situation in the Ukraine. Argentina's only possible excuse for invading the Falklands was to press their territorial claim. Russia has that as a reason for moving troops in, but can also claim to be protecting the interests of the people of the Ukraine against an illegal armed coup. Additionally, they can claim to be trying to ensure that unrest doesn't reach their borders and pose a threat to their national security. That's why it's a bad example.
