Russia Discussion

antihenry said:
I don't know where you get that this is one of the very first things the Crimean government will deal with. I don't know their list of priorities, but I'm sure, it's something they'll address in due time. Just because it said in an interview, it's going to be done, doesn't mean it'll start tomorrow. Ignoring this issue will not make it go away, though. It's how they handle it, that's what matters. It'll take many years, if not decades to heal old wounds, but I hope for the best.

Also, Crimean Tatars will have a representation in Crimean government, both legislative and executive branches, with the position of a vice speaker and a deputy prime minister specifically given to them, and their language will be one of the state languages of Crimea, along with Russian and Ukrainian. These are just first steps on the way to make up for grave injustice that befell that nation during Soviet times.
Click to expand...

When did I say it would start tomorrow? ' Russia threatening to 'relocate' some of the Tartars, as one of their very first acts'. Threatening to. That is their act, not the actual relocation. Just as the Ukrainians haven't yet actually annulled Russian as a language.

Nobody said the issue doesn't need to be resolved (though perhaps it would have been nice to ask the Tartars what they thought?). However, you have just undertaken a contentious takeover of a peninsula which is the historical homeland of a people you have fecked over severely just a few decades ago. Part of the population despises you rightly. And you're talking about relocating some of them again. The population that you relocated just decades before. Incredible.

Everybody 'hopes' for the best but there's an element of realism here as well. Frankly, I don't care about the Russians or Ukrainians here as much as the Tartars. They have undergone an ethnic cleansing, perhaps even a genocide depending on your views from the Russians. Many finally return to their homeland and even finally break free of Russia. Just a few decades later, here come the Russians again! And one of the first things they talk about is moving you from the land that you had to take because the land you tried to return to was already taken by Russians and Ukrainians.

How would you feel as a Tartar? Cos I certainly wouldn't feel too enamoured.
 
Silva said:
Are you the type of person who gives someone a birthday present then wants it back soon as they get a better boyfriend?
Click to expand...
Except the present here is not an object, but human beings who have the right to be with whom they want. So it's actually more like you and your wife having a son (who is older than 18 years old), and then your wife decides to marry somebody else, but your son wants to come live with you.

Are you the kind of person who forces his son to live with him even if he doesn't want to?
 
Danny1982 said:
Except the present here is not an object, but human beings who have the right to be with whom they want. So it's actually more like you and your wife having a son (who is older than 18 years old), and then your wife decides to marry somebody else, but your son wants to come live with you.

Are you the kind of person who forces his son to live with him even if he doesn't want to?
Click to expand...
I'm the kind of person who'd think "well, he's 18 now, I shouldn't force him to do anything." Russia isn't being a reasonable parent here, she's the kind of mother who puts a gun to your head if you don't do everything she says.
 
It would indeed. Its one of the few Visa free places where they can go.
 
Silva said:
I'm the kind of person who'd think "well, he's 18 now, I shouldn't force him to do anything." Russia isn't being a reasonable parent here, she's the kind of mother who puts a gun to your head if you don't do everything she says.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were guns pointed out at the heads of millions+ people who overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
 
africanspur said:
When did I say it would start tomorrow? ' Russia threatening to 'relocate' some of the Tartars, as one of their very first acts'. Threatening to. That is their act, not the actual relocation. Just as the Ukrainians haven't yet actually annulled Russian as a language.

Nobody said the issue doesn't need to be resolved (though perhaps it would have been nice to ask the Tartars what they thought?). However, you have just undertaken a contentious takeover of a peninsula which is the historical homeland of a people you have fecked over severely just a few decades ago. Part of the population despises you rightly. And you're talking about relocating some of them again. The population that you relocated just decades before. Incredible.

Everybody 'hopes' for the best but there's an element of realism here as well. Frankly, I don't care about the Russians or Ukrainians here as much as the Tartars. They have undergone an ethnic cleansing, perhaps even a genocide depending on your views from the Russians. Many finally return to their homeland and even finally break free of Russia. Just a few decades later, here come the Russians again! And one of the first things they talk about is moving you from the land that you had to take because the land you tried to return to was already taken by Russians and Ukrainians.

How would you feel as a Tartar? Cos I certainly wouldn't feel too enamoured.
Click to expand...

"Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea will ask Tatars to vacate part of the land where they now live in exchange for new territory elsewhere in the region". This is a quote from the link you posted earlier in the thread. Where does it say anything about threatening to relocate?

Also, it's not just historical homeland of Tatars, who before the deportation counted for about 20% of the local population, there are other nationalities, including Russian majority, that have lived there for centuries, so while you have to do everything to make up for the sins of Communist regime, you need to be aware of how complex this issue is, especially since it was ignored for such a long time.

I'm afraid, you confuse deportation with relocation. The deportation was a crime against humanity, where the whole nation of people was accused of a crime against the state and was stripped of their rights and forced into exile far away from their homeland and that's what happened to Tatars in 1944. I won't mention the details, but suffice to say, it's a terrible crime and no one in their right mind would try to justify it. What the Crimean government plans to do now is to ask the squatters (not all of them Tatars, by the way) to vacate the land they took illegally, in exchange for allocated and legalized plots of land elsewhere in the same region. I realize that some Tatars, especially those of older generation may treat everything coming from Russian authorities as a threat, but given time and the right policies in action, things may start changing for the better.

You can't undo the past. But either you choose to live in it or you decide to move forward.
 
Just a thought but fast forward to the time putin is no longer in power.

the new russian leader says something to the effect that putin overstepped the mark but its impossible to go back in time and chrimea still wants to be part of russia

will we all just say fair enough and call of sanctions?
 
sun_tzu said:
Just a thought but fast forward to the time putin is no longer in power.

the new russian leader says something to the effect that putin overstepped the mark but its impossible to go back in time and chrimea still wants to be part of russia

will we all just say fair enough and call of sanctions?
Click to expand...

Of course, it'll be fair. The new administration isn't responsible for anything that had happened before they came to power. Just ask Sir Matt.
 
antihenry said:
"Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea will ask Tatars to vacate part of the land where they now live in exchange for new territory elsewhere in the region". This is a quote from the link you posted earlier in the thread. Where does it say anything about threatening to relocate?

Also, it's not just historical homeland of Tatars, who before the deportation counted for about 20% of the local population, there are other nationalities, including Russian majority, that have lived there for centuries, so while you have to do everything to make up for the sins of Communist regime, you need to be aware of how complex this issue is, especially since it was ignored for such a long time.

I'm afraid, you confuse deportation with relocation. The deportation was a crime against humanity, where the whole nation of people was accused of a crime against the state and was stripped of their rights and forced into exile far away from their homeland and that's what happened to Tatars in 1944. I won't mention the details, but suffice to say, it's a terrible crime and no one in their right mind would try to justify it. What the Crimean government plans to do now is to ask the squatters (not all of them Tatars, by the way) to vacate the land they took illegally, in exchange for allocated and legalized plots of land elsewhere in the same region. I realize that some Tatars, especially those of older generation may treat everything coming from Russian authorities as a threat, but given time and the right policies in action, things may start changing for the better.

You can't undo the past. But either you choose to live in it or you decide to move forward.
Click to expand...

:confused: You're taking the word threaten very literally. I don't mean threaten as in express a desire to cause physical harm or suffering. I am using threaten in the context that I am saying I will do something. 'He threatened to leave' only means that he has expressed an action that may happen in the future. As the Russians and Crimean parliament have threatened to do here. Considering Putin's historical modus operandi, there will be little asking when and if they decide to do this.

The Tartars were the largest ethnic group there about 100 years ago. Huge immigration from Ukrainians and Russians in the past century, as well as ethnic cleansing has changed those demographics forever. But it is the historical homeland of the Tartars. Doesn't mean they have a 'right' to it but those ones that are there now will most likely be devastated that they are back in Russian hands. I certainly would be.

I'm not confusing anything. Nobody other than the silly people spouting the Putin= Hitler hyperbole everywhere would compare the two events. And yet you simply must understand what a Tartar must be feeling right now? That the government of the same country which killed a rather large number of your ethnic group just 60 years ago is now talking about 'relocating' you.....just days after the peninsula is back in their control?

And they took the land illegally because their land was taken illegally. And they were not compensated for it.

With all due respect, this is exactly the hypocrisy I was talking about earlier in the thread. People feel that because they're opponents of American foreign policy, they must therefore support Russian foreign policy. Actually no, American foreign policy is disgusting and Russian foreign policy is disgusting. The two are not mutually exclusive. The only real differences is that the US now has the sole power to project their amazing foreign policy far away whereas the Russians unfortunately can only project their lovely foreign policy in their back yard at present.
 
Danny1982 said:
Yes, there were guns pointed out at the heads of millions+ people who overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
Click to expand...
Basically, yeah. Under the circumstances this was the only possible outcome of the referendum. What aught to happen is Crimea makes an agreement with Ukraine to split into its own entity and then does whatever it wants. You can't annex part of a country just because they like you more than they like the other half. It'll only lead to more violence and social unrest, especially when Russia starts cracking down on political nonconformists in Crimea.
 
Silva said:
Basically, yeah. Under the circumstances this was the only possible outcome of the referendum. What aught to happen is Crimea makes an agreement with Ukraine to split into its own entity and then does whatever it wants. You can't just annex part of a country just because they like you more than they like the other half. It'll only lead to more violence and social unrest, especially when Russia starts cracking down on political nonconformists in Crimea.
Click to expand...
So basically the son can't choose and have to get permission from his mother to go live with his father..

By the way, only an extremely delusional person would believe that the Crimeans don't actually want to join Russia, and they were forced to vote that way.
 
Last edited:
Danny1982 said:
So basically the son can't choose and have to get permission from his mother to go live with his father..

By the way, only an extremely delusional person would believe that the Crimeans don't actually want to join Russia, and they were forced to vote that way.
Click to expand...
You've, like, completely missed the point. Crimea can join Russia if it wants. But that's hardly what's happening here is it? There is massive social unrest in the Ukraine, everything's out of control and people in these situations generally just want peace and want things to end quickly. Russia attempting to Annex Crimea, while seemingly for Crimea's benefit, is not a natural end to such a conflict - the natural (and better) end to such a conflict would be the Ukraine and Crimea making a fair agreement to split, following that agreement Crimea can do what it wants. Whether that's be it's country or become part of Russia. I don't see what the problem with that is. A simple referendum, especially at a time of conflict, is not the binding resolution you seem to think it is.
 
Silva said:
You've, like, completely missed the point. Crimea can join Russia if it wants. But that's hardly what's happening here is it? There is massive social unrest in the Ukraine, everything's out of control and people these situations generally just want peace and want things to end quickly. Russia attempting to Annex Crimea, while seemingly for Crimea's benefit, is not a natural end to such a conflict - the natural (and better) end to such a conflict would be the Ukraine and Crimea making a fair agreement to split, following that agreement Crimea can do what it wants. Whether that's be it's country or become part of Russia. I don't see what the problem with that is. A simple referendum, especially at a time of conflict, is not the binding resolution you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe Ukraine would allow such a thing to happen? No country looks favorably on separatism, unless it's someone else and it serves their interests.
 
antihenry said:
Do you really believe Ukraine would allow such a thing to happen? No country looks favorably on separatism, unless it's someone else and it serves their interests.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the Ukraine would allow such a thing to happen. It's just what I think the ideal scenario is and one that hasn't been totally ruled out. If the Ukraine tried to handcuff itself to Crimea it would be mental because they clearly have irreconcilable differences and attempting to keep hold of it would only lead to more unrest.

I've never really understood this fetish for land anyway. I mean, land's nice n' all, but peace is so much better.
 
Silva said:
You've, like, completely missed the point. Crimea can join Russia if it wants. But that's hardly what's happening here is it? There is massive social unrest in the Ukraine, everything's out of control and people these situations generally just want peace and want things to end quickly. Russia attempting to Annex Crimea, while seemingly for Crimea's benefit, is not a natural end to such a conflict - the natural (and better) end to such a conflict would be the Ukraine and Crimea making a fair agreement to split, following that agreement Crimea can do what it wants. Whether that's be it's country or become part of Russia. I don't see what the problem with that is. A simple referendum, especially at a time of conflict, is not the binding resolution you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...
Crimea doesn't recognize the current self-imposed government in Kiev as legal. When you breach the constitution, and violate the laws of democracy, then you can't bind other people with the same laws.

Those protestors (and those snipers) decided that they will force a change in the government without following the "natural end" of the democratic process, but you still supported them because they like the West. Now when it's the Crimeans turn to decide their future you suddenly don't like it (because they don't like the West)? Tough luck.
 
Danny1982 said:
Crimea doesn't recognize the current self-imposed government in Kiev as legal. When you breach the constitution, and violate the laws of democracy, then you can't bind other people with the same laws.

Those protestors (and those snipers) decided that they will force a change in the government without following the "natural end" of the democratic process, but you still supported them because they like the West. Now when it's the Crimeans turn to decide their future you suddenly don't like it (because they don't like the West)? Tough luck.
Click to expand...
I'm hardly the biggest advocate of Western policy so I don't see how that comes into it. I just don't support countries annexing other countries just because an opportunity to do so presents itself.

The current Kiev government isn't a democratically elected one, you're right. But, I mean, Russia is hardly the beacon of democracy so that's not really a point in anyone's favor. And I'm not saying democracy is the be all end all here because corruption is clearly rife in the region and that's unlikely to change in the immediate future. I'm just saying what is currently happening will only make the situation worse and that a peaceful agreement between the Ukraine and Crimea would be the ideal scenario.
 
africanspur said:
:confused: You're taking the word threaten very literally. I don't mean threaten as in express a desire to cause physical harm or suffering. I am using threaten in the context that I am saying I will do something. 'He threatened to leave' only means that he has expressed an action that may happen in the future. As the Russians and Crimean parliament have threatened to do here. Considering Putin's historical modus operandi, there will be little asking when and if they decide to do this.
Click to expand...

English isn't my first language, but as far as I know, threatening and asking aren't similar in meaning. But never mind, let's move on from that.

africanspur said:
The Tartars were the largest ethnic group there about 100 years ago. Huge immigration from Ukrainians and Russians in the past century, as well as ethnic cleansing has changed those demographics forever. But it is the historical homeland of the Tartars. Doesn't mean they have a 'right' to it but those ones that are there now will most likely be devastated that they are back in Russian hands. I certainly would be.
Click to expand...

The demographics change all the time. Even without the deportation, Tatars would most likely have been a minority in Crimea now, but that's beside the point. It is their Motherland, they belong there and should be treated with respect.

africanspur said:
I'm not confusing anything. Nobody other than the silly people spouting the Putin= Hitler hyperbole everywhere would compare the two events. And yet you simply must understand what a Tartar must be feeling right now? That the government of the same country which killed a rather large number of your ethnic group just 60 years ago is now talking about 'relocating' you.....just days after the peninsula is back in their control?
Click to expand...

You don't have to tell me, what it feels like to be in place of those people. I'm not Russian, I belong to one of the small nations that was deported during Stalin regime and had to go through the same ordeal as Tatars did. My grandparents were among those forced to leave their homes to live thousands of miles away in Central Asia and Kazakhstan and thousands of our people died on the way there or in the years afterwards from inhumane conditions and starvation. That's why I understand well enough how those poor people feel about Russia and don't blame them at all. But you have to find a way to move forward, no matter how hard it may be.

africanspur said:
And they took the land illegally because their land was taken illegally. And they were not compensated for it.
Click to expand...

True. They should be compensated for it, I agree totally.

africanspur said:
With all due respect, this is exactly the hypocrisy I was talking about earlier in the thread. People feel that because they're opponents of American foreign policy, they must therefore support Russian foreign policy. Actually no, American foreign policy is disgusting and Russian foreign policy is disgusting. The two are not mutually exclusive. The only real differences is that the US now has the sole power to project their amazing foreign policy far away whereas the Russians unfortunately can only project their lovely foreign policy in their back yard at present.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that.
 
"A sham and illegal referendum has taken place at the barrel of a Kalashnikov". David Cameron, what a muppet.
 
Mihajlovic said:
"A sham and illegal referendum has taken place at the barrel of a Kalashnikov". David Cameron, what a muppet.
Click to expand...

Moscow criticised the Foreign Office for its choice of rhetoric on the Ukraine crisis. "We are being reassured that the British government wants to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation. If that is the wish of our British partners, then this relationship has got to be normal and diplomatic including at the level of rhetoric. Good relations ought to be valued. The British side should mind its language. Unfortunately, that's not the case with the British Embassy in Moscow," said the Russian foreign ministry. "It seems that the harsh rhetoric, quite beyond the pale, is meant to cover up the gross inaptitude of the Brussels bureaucracy and its zero-sum motive to engineer a cold war-type geopolitical grab on Russia's borders."
Click to expand...
 
Am I wrong in thinking that Putin is an incredibly dangerous man who would like nothing more than to take back all the Russian satellites and it seems almost inevitable that a feck off Great War is boiling?
 
Pexbo said:
Am I wrong in thinking that Putin is an incredibly dangerous man who would like nothing more than to take back all the Russian satellites and it seems almost inevitable that a feck off Great War is boiling?
Click to expand...

He's definitely a nationalist who would like to create a Russian-sphere of states that rivals the clout of the former Soviet bloc. What he's too thick to realize is that he could speed up Russia's modernization by being collaborative rather than coercive. His form of mildly authoritarian "managed democracy" doesn't allow for much dissent, limits the freedom of the press, and severely restricts human rights by imprisoning random dissenting voices. His popularity was actually not very high in recent years; infact he was publicly booed at an MMA event with Fedor. Obviously invading a country to pick up a piece of land that was previously Russian and holding the Olympics have helped his numbers; but its all shallow exuberance, as the Russian economy is dangerously close to recesssion and possible economic sanctions will cause the power structures around him (Oligarchs, elites) to think twice.

What Putin needs to do is be less authoritarian and more progressive in his vision of Russia's global role. Lose the bravado and nationalist nonsense and work with the West to improve Russia's economy.
 
Pexbo said:
Am I wrong in thinking that Putin is an incredibly dangerous man who would like nothing more than to take back all the Russian satellites and it seems almost inevitable that a feck off Great War is boiling?
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong that a Great War is boiling.

Russia's military is taking some fairly extreme measures to ensure their military, especially naval, strength in that area is not diminished. They saw the change in the power structure in Ukraine as a threat to their military agreements with Ukraine and bases within Ukraine.

They've lost most of Ukraine, not gained a little part of Ukraine.
 
gooDevil said:
I think you're wrong that a Great War is boiling.

Russia's military is taking some fairly extreme measures to ensure their military, especially naval, strength in that area is not diminished. They saw the change in the power structure in Ukraine as a threat to their military agreements with Ukraine and bases within Ukraine.

They've lost most of Ukraine, not gained a little part of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

It's not a war with Ukraine that I'm worried about. It's anyone who try's to stop Putins eventual goal of reacquiring all the old Russian satellites.

What worries me about him is that he seems to have a very radical and potentially volatile regime for such a powerful country. Trading nuclear information with Iran, what does that suggest to you?
 
Pexbo said:
It's not a war with Ukraine that I'm worried about. It's anyone who try's to stop Putins eventual goal of reacquiring all the old Russian satellites.

What worries me about him is that he seems to have a very radical and potentially volatile regime for such a powerful country. Trading nuclear information with Iran, what does that suggest to you?
Click to expand...

Any bases that Russia has in ex-solviet republics are going to be staying where they are.

Ukraine was/is a crucial trading partner with Russia, they had their political fingers in a lot of pies there. Europe would like closer economic ties to the Ukraine but Russia sees this as a threat to their future economic development. For me controlling the politics of foreign countries is the new imperialism, something the US spends a lot of resources arranging around the world. We love our puppet regimes, and Russia had one such puppet ruling the Ukraine on their behalf.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I don't think Russia is being as aggressive as they seem to some.

If a country, like say Saudi Arabia, filled with US bases decided to end their economic and military alliance with the US to sign agreements with Russia, I would expect the US to take similar measures around their bases in that country to assure their continued military control in that area. The US might decide to leave in the long term, but in the short term they would try to hold their positions.
 
I may be wrong but I don;t see another multi-nation war for quite some time. Something would have to change drastically in terms of world politics or world resources for that to happen.
 
Doubt this will escalate more than economic tit-for tat sanctions. Its basically the classical case of powerful states jostling in the "balance of power". The West won't allow Putin to believe he can walk into any former Soviet state without a stiff penalty on the back end.
 
Raoul said:
Doubt this will escalate more than economic tit-for tat sanctions. Its basically the classical case of powerful states jostling in the "balance of power". The West won't allow Putin to believe he can walk into any former Soviet state without a stiff penalty on the back end.
Click to expand...
Sure hope you are right. Russia might be prepared to go to war to stop Ukraine becoming part of the EU or Nato.http://books.google.com/books?id=Wi...a=X&ei=Q8IuU5rfGIfUtQbM3YH4CA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ
 
I don't think the west will try to escalate this but the problem with this thinking is no one really knows how the Ukrainians will react long term. Put it this way, Putin knew he could annex Crimea and he knows he can annex large parts of the south and east of Ukraine and that couldn't be stopped militarily. What he is less sure about is how far he can push the Ukrainians or what the push back will be. It is quite possible that a miscalculation could end in a shooting war which blows up all the assumptions.


After all if the major problem he has is a loss of control of Ukraine because of Ukrainian nationalists then annexing Crimea and humiliating Ukrainian soldiers/ sailor there will hardly reduce the anti Russian feeling. In fact it proves their worst thoughts about the Russians correct.


At least people have stopped saying there are no Russian forces in Crimea and that some treaty or other gives them the right to take Crimea into the Russian state.
 
Russian troops poised to 'run' into Moldova, Nato commander warns

A pro-Russian enclave of Moldova could be Moscow's next target after Crimea, Nato warns

By Colin Freeman
23 Mar 2014

Fears that Russia could seize a second chunk of territory in eastern Europe grew on Sunday after Nato's top commander warned that Moscow's troops were poised to move into a pro-Russian enclave of Moldova.

US Air Force General Philip Breedlove said that Russian troops massing on the eastern border of Ukraine were well-positioned to head to Transdniester, a Russian-speaking enclave that has declared independence from the rest of Moldova.

Transdniester's people have long sought closer ties with Moscow, and to this day, the streets of the capital, Tiraspol, are decked out with statues of Lenin and other symbols of the Soviet Union.

Gen Breedlove said it would give President Vladimir Putin the perfect pretext to send troops in there as a "protection" force for ethnic Russians, just as he has done with his military annexation of Crimea.

"There is absolutely sufficient (Russian) force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Transdniester if the decision was made to do that and that is very worrisome," said Gen Breedlove, who is Nato's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

Gen Breedlove issued his warning at event in Brussels held by the Marshall Fund, a German think-tank. On Tuesday, the government of Moldova warned Russia against any moves to annex Transdniester, following comments from the speaker of Transdniester's parliament urging Moscow to incorporate the enclave.

Gen Breedlove said he was concerned that the Kremlin viewed Transdniester as the "next place where Russian-speaking people may need to be incorporated."

"The (Russian) force that is at the Ukrainian border now to the east is very, very sizeable and very, very ready," he said.

He did not specify how the Russian forces would get there. Transdniestria is landlocked and to go there by land would require Russian troops to travel through much of western Ukraine. However, Russian forces based in the Eastern side of the Black Sea and Crimea could conceivably stage an airlift.

Since it fought a brief separatist war to breakaway from Moldova in 1991, Transdniester has been home to "peacekeeping" garrison of around 1,000 Russian troops. Until now, the Kremlin is thought to have treated the enclave as being too small and unimportant to be worth incorporating into the Russian Federation. It currently recognises Transdniester as being part of Moldova. But the recent events in Crimea may have changed that calculus.

Transdniester issues its own passports, stamps and currency, despite the fact that hardly any other country in the world recognises it as a sovereign state. The European Union and Ukraine have long regarded it as a haven for smuggling and other illegal activities.

Moldova, whose five million people mostly speak the Latin dialects of neighbouring Romania, is Europe's poorest country, and has ambitions to eventually become part of the European Union.

It is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union, the same one that Ukraine's ousted President, Viktor Yanukovych, abandoned last November amid massive Kremlin pressure.

Signing the free trade agreement would take Moldova firmly into the European fold, but Transdniester's unresolved status would make full membership of the EU or Nato more complicated. As such, some believe the Kremlin has a direct vested interest in fomenting further pro-Russian sentiment in Transdniester.

In an interview the Telegraph, Lurie Leanca, the prime minister of Moldova, said: “We have reasons to be worried but so far this situation is under control and I hope it will stay like this for the coming weeks and months.

“Of course we watch carefully what happens there in Transnistria, we look carefully at what the Transnistria leadership does, and what the Russian military do.

"The Transnistrian region, this is not a secret to anyone, is able to survive because of the direct support from Moscow. We also take into the account the official Russian position that Transnistria is a part of Moldova.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-run-into-Moldova-Nato-commander-warns.html
Click to expand...
 
What does this mean for Russia? If the reaction in eastern Europe is anything to go by then this hardly expands Russia's sphere of influence beyond the Crimea, where theirs was the dominant hegemony anyway. Surely this will make it more likely that those countries considers within their 'reach' will look to turn to Europe much faster than some have been already.
 
Plugsy said:
What does this mean for Russia? If the reaction in eastern Europe is anything to go by then this hardly expands Russia's sphere of influence beyond the Crimea, where theirs was the dominant hegemony anyway. Surely this will make it more likely that those countries considers within their 'reach' will look to turn to Europe much faster than some have been already.
Click to expand...

It's certainly pushed Moldova and Georgia to try to speed things along and improve their relations with the EU. It certainly won't make Putin's Soviet Reunion very popular.
 
Plugsy said:
What does this mean for Russia? If the reaction in eastern Europe is anything to go by then this hardly expands Russia's sphere of influence beyond the Crimea, where theirs was the dominant hegemony anyway. Surely this will make it more likely that those countries considers within their 'reach' will look to turn to Europe much faster than some have been already.
Click to expand...

It was a daft move by Putin and a few influential and somewhat reactionary advisors in his inner circle. Gaining a small piece of land to get a temporary bump in the polls whilst estranging and economically isolating Russia with its biggest trading partners, and in the process getting sanctions slapped on them. I've said this from the beginning, the cost/benefit doesn't add up for Russia. The only way out for him now is to deescalate, but when you're dealing with nationalist bravado, that isn't likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.