Russia Discussion

Sir Matt said:
Fair enough.

Russia unsurprisingly vetoed the UNSC resolution invalidating the referendum in Crimea. China abstained and the other 13 nations voted in favor.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty long text but worth the read. To me it basically points out how vague the parameters are which allow self-determination:

Thus, the law of self-determination can be summarized as follows:

¨ Self-determination for colonized peopled allows for the ability to separate the colony from the colonial state so that the colony may gain independence and become a sovereign state;

¨ For a state as a whole, self-determination means the right to be free from external interference in pursuit of its political, economic and social goals;

¨ For communities that are not colonies and are within existing states, self-determination means "internal self-determination," the pursuit of minority rights within the existing state; and,

¨ Some argue that in non-colonial cases, self-determination may also allow for secession under "extreme cases" and "carefully defined circumstances" (to use the terms of the Canadian Supreme Court from the Secession of Quebec opinion).

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...on-self-determination-and-conflict-resolution
Click to expand...

In terms of the recognition of Kosovo, it is not fully recognised by all of the UN members states, all of EU countries, and all NATO countries. If Crimea decides for self-determination and secession, it seems it doesn't matter much how many countries will recognise it, as long as they are recognised by Russia. Keeping in mind that, for example, Kosovo is recognised by states such as Vanuatu, Palau, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu and Kiribati, it just looks that the number of states which recognise a secessionist country is truly irrelevant. As long as the 2 million Crimeans keep their economic and political ties with Russia, they don't effectively need to be recognised by any more states.
 
I’ve just come back from a rather bizarre “press conference” of international observers for the referendum. It was 45 minutes before there were any questions, as the six people present mainly went on political rants against US hegemony in the world. All said the referendum in Crimea was legitimate.

Bela Kovacs, an MEP from the far-right Hungarian party Jobbik, said that everything he had seen on Saturday conformed to international standards and he expected the vote to be free and fair.

He said there were no British observers at the referendum. The BNP’s Nick Griffin “really wanted to come, but we persuaded him not to”, he said. He added that Griffin planned to stand for president of the European Commission: “Just wait until you see what he has planned,” he said.

Serge Trifkovic, a Serbian-American writer, was the most entertaining, speaking in extraordinary metaphor and railing against the west.
“What is sauce for Kosovo’s goose is certainly sauce for Crimea’s gander,” he said, to the dismay of the Russian translator. When asked if he had been paid to attend, he said that if he were looking for money he would have approached the CIA. The observers, he said, were “as poor as church mice”.
Click to expand...

Seems like the "observers" who were allowed in will be impartial. They seem like a nice bunch as well. :lol:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/crimea-ukraine-russia-vote-banners-propaganda-militia
 
antihenry said:
Yes, how dare they to be so intolerant and ignorant, too bad, you can't 'shock and awe' them into an American brand of democracy, it worked so well in Iraq and other places you spread your goodwill at.



Being that US and EU are all about democracy and freedom, I'm sure they should approve of Crimean citizens's right to decide which country they want to be a part of. Unless, of course, they only use those terms when they suit their geopolitical interests, in which case, for all I care, they can shove the international legitimacy argument up their asses.



Not true.

http://time.com/14829/america-cant-fix-europes-russian-energy-problem/
http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...cle_bf382e01-5228-5688-8460-ca4d8818d6d0.html
Click to expand...

But you know if US builds the pipeline from Canada the oil price will lower to $90 price per barrel and the Russians would be on deep trouble? The issue here is the Germans with all the oil and gas they import from them.
 
Sir Matt said:
Seems like the "observers" who were allowed in will be impartial. They seem like a nice bunch as well. :lol:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/crimea-ukraine-russia-vote-banners-propaganda-militia
Click to expand...
At least the Guardian wasn't invited. ;)
Sergei Aksyonov, the de facto prime minister since armed men seized parliament and he was voted in behind closed doors on 27 February...
Click to expand...
Oh the irony. The Guardian, you're so impartial.
As Crimea goes to the polls, no one has any doubt of the result. Even without Russian-style use of the "administrative resource", a large number of Crimeans favour joining Russia.
Click to expand...
When even the Guardian admits it, you don't really need to wait for the results.
 
Sir Matt said:
Seems like the "observers" who were allowed in will be impartial. They seem like a nice bunch as well. :lol:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/crimea-ukraine-russia-vote-banners-propaganda-militia
Click to expand...

This is basically out of old school Soviet era playbook. Hiring agitators to intimidate people, cutting off Ukrainian TV channels, limiting outside observation, curtailing the freedom of the press by banning terms like "occupation", overtly lying about Russian troops being involved, raiding the parliament at gunpoint to induce an emergency session; installing a Pro-Putin hack as PM, then promptly arranging for a referendum under a climate of rampant intimidation.
 
Raoul said:
This is basically out of old school Soviet era playbook. Hiring agitators to intimidate people, cutting off Ukrainian TV channels, limiting outside observation, curtailing the freedom of the press by banning terms like "occupation", overtly lying about Russian troops being involved, raiding the parliament at gunpoint to induce an emergency session; installing a Pro-Putin hack as PM, then promptly arranging for a referendum under a climate of rampant intimidation.
Click to expand...


same ol same ol...now those who are used to living under such oppressive governments will see nothing wrong with this tbf.
 
Raoul said:
This is basically out of old school Soviet era playbook. Hiring agitators to intimidate people, cutting off Ukrainian TV channels, limiting outside observation, curtailing the freedom of the press by banning terms like "occupation", overtly lying about Russian troops being involved, raiding the parliament at gunpoint to induce an emergency session; installing a Pro-Putin hack as PM, then promptly arranging for a referendum under a climate of rampant intimidation.
Click to expand...

07-minister.jpg

There are no Russian troops, no invasion, no occupation, no intimidation, no propaganda, only thirst for Russia!
 
Raoul said:
This is basically out of old school Soviet era playbook. Hiring agitators to intimidate people, cutting off Ukrainian TV channels, limiting outside observation, curtailing the freedom of the press by banning terms like "occupation", overtly lying about Russian troops being involved, raiding the parliament at gunpoint to induce an emergency session; installing a Pro-Putin hack as PM, then promptly arranging for a referendum under a climate of rampant intimidation.
Click to expand...

Omg, you're getting emotional. All you need now is to hire Kathryn Bigelow to make a movie about it and Hans Zimmer to write the soundtrack.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Omg, you're getting emotional. All you need now is to hire Kathryn Bigelow to make a movie about it and Hans Zimmer to write the soundtrack.
Click to expand...

Its spot on. Something directly out of the cold war, as if satellite news channels, the internet and social media don't exist to expose it all.
 
The problem here, that both sides try to make each other look bad, but they might as well look at their own expression in a mirror. Ukrainian media are just as bad in their one sided coverage of the situation, making themselves look like angels and demonizing Russia and Putin. Western media aren't much better, by and large still spouting the same Cold War stereotypes instead of at least attempting to be objective, which is what real journalism should be all about. It's propaganda on both sides and no one really cares about the truth, or consequences for the innocent people, who will get in the middle of this mess.
 
There's a significant difference between the free press who are covering the story for international outlets and Russian state run channels who are being used as a propaganda weapon to spread lies and foment paranoia against Crimean citizens. Not coincidentally Russian troops in the early days of their invasion made it a point to raid the communications hubs in Crimea and disconnect all Ukrainian channels that might offer an opposing opinion during this three week military operation. This is a state sponsored information operation and can't be compared to random international outlets like CNN, BBC, and the rest.
 
Raoul said:
There's a significant difference between the free press who are covering the story for international outlets and Russian state run channels who are being used as a propaganda weapon to spread lies and foment paranoia against Crimean citizens. Not coincidentally Russian troops in the early days of their invasion made it a point to raid the communications hubs in Crimea and disconnect all Ukrainian channels that might offer an opposing opinion during this three week military operation. This is a state sponsored information operation and can't be compared to random international outlets like CNN, BBC, and the rest.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing. Tell me the name of the channel, any channel, and I'll tell you the news.
 
Danny1982 said:
There is no such thing. Tell me the name of the channel, any channel, and I'll tell you the news.
Click to expand...

Free press here refers to media that isn't controlled by government. Its well known that various outlets are owned by different corporations, but that's different than specifically being used as a tool for a government as a pretext for an invasion.
 
Raoul said:
There's a significant difference between the free press who are covering the story for international outlets and Russian state run channels who are being used as a propaganda weapon to spread lies and foment paranoia against Crimean citizens. Not coincidentally Russian troops in the early days of their invasion made it a point to raid the communications hubs in Crimea and disconnect all Ukrainian channels that might offer an opposing opinion during this three week military operation. This is a state sponsored information operation and can't be compared to random international outlets like CNN, BBC, and the rest.
Click to expand...

Such a shame the bastion of freedom and democracy cannot bomb their TV stations like they did in Belgrade and Baghdad..
 


:lol: He'll just be 'protecting' the Russians again then?

 
Last edited:
Well, at least Russians don't invent 'weapons of mass destruction' as an excuse for military invasion.
 
We urgently need John McCain and Victoria Nuland to save the world from Hitler.
 
Putin is going to have to expand his invasion into other parts of Ukraine because Crimea seems to get its gas from Ukraine, who in turn get it from Russia. However with the invasion and annexation of Crimea, Putin won't have any way to get supplies and natural gas in without the cooperation of the Ukrainian government.

1614559_609575765777849_144247818_o.jpg
 
No more Shaktar Donetsk - Dynamo Kyiv matches then. Why do we have war, just gets in the way of football.
 
Last edited:
rcoobc said:
No more Shkatar Donetsk - Dynamo Kyiv matches then. Why do we have war, just gets in the way of football.
Click to expand...
Putin may continue his invasion. Then we will see both that game and Shakhtar Donetsk - Zenit St. Petersburg
 
Sir Matt said:
Do you mind pointing out whom in the current administration was involved in that?
Click to expand...

Changing administration does not absolve a country of responsibility. You voted the clown in. What Russia is doing is 100% wrong. However, protests from the West (And specifically the US) are hypocritical in the extreme.
 
NM said:
Changing administration does not absolve a country of responsibility. You voted the clown in. What Russia is doing is 100% wrong. However, protests from the West (And specifically the US) are hypocritical in the extreme.
Click to expand...


Countries aren't people. The US as a nation has made its share of foreign policy mistakes in the past with the old crowd of politicians, but its a bit silly to pin Bush's mistakes on Obama or Nixon's mistakes on Clinton. Political parties come and go, ideas evolve over time.
 
Raoul said:
Countries aren't people. The US as a nation has made its share of foreign policy mistakes in the past with the old crowd of politicians, but its a bit silly to pin Bush's mistakes on Obama or Nixon's mistakes on Clinton. Political parties come and go, ideas evolve over time.
Click to expand...

No, I pin the mistakes of the administration on the country. That's the way it is.

For example, there is a lot of worry (in the USA) as well over Japan rearming because of its aggressive past. Is that silly? If so, why is China, South Korea and the US worried about it?
 
NM said:
No, I pin the mistakes of the administration on the country. That's the way it is.

For example, there is a lot of worry (in the USA) as well over Japan rearming because of its aggressive past. Is that silly? If so, why is China, South Korea and the US worried about it?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any worry about Japan rearming anywhere in the USA, but i'll take your word for it.

As for the other part - The country isn't a single organism that can be blamed for the actions of individual adminsitrations. Holding Obama responsible for Bush's policies when Obama is clearly against them is myopic. Blaming Gorbachev for something Brezhnev or Stalin did would be comparably shortsighted. You can however blame the current leader of a country for his or her policies, as well as the country as long as the leader in question is still in office.
 
I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000.

NM said:
No, I pin the mistakes of the administration on the country. That's the way it is.

For example, there is a lot of worry (in the USA) as well over Japan rearming because of its aggressive past. Is that silly? If so, why is China, South Korea and the US worried about it?
Click to expand...

I hope Angela Merkel never complains about anything then.

Also, what Americans are worried about Japan rearming? The only concern I've seen is that Japan seeks nuclear weapons because it would seriously affect the stability of East Asia.
 
Sir Matt said:
Do you mind pointing out whom in the current administration was involved in that?
Click to expand...

So, as long as you change administration every few years, you as a country, aren't responsible for your actions? What about Nuland and her interference in the Ukraine situation? USA either uses military force like in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yugoslavia, or sponsor and support an "opposition" to destabilize and overthrow the regimes they don't like.
 
antihenry said:
So, as long as you change administration every few years, you as a country, aren't responsible for your actions? What about Nuland and her interference in the Ukraine situation? USA either uses military force like in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yugoslavia, or sponsor and support an "opposition" to destabilize and overthrow the regimes they don't like.
Click to expand...

When discussing a foreign policy of a country, it helps to look at who actually implemented the policy. Is Obama responsible for Harry Truman's actions ? Is the current Serbian leadership responsible for Milosevic's actions ? The simple fact is States aren't People. They are set of ideas that evolve over time relative to who is running them.
 
Raoul said:
When discussing a foreign policy of a country, it helps to look at who actually implemented the policy. Is Obama responsible for Harry Truman's actions ? Is the current Serbian leadership responsible for Milosevic's actions ? The simple fact is States aren't People. They are set of ideas that evolve over time relative to who is running them.
Click to expand...

What happened in Syria and Ukraine is Obama administration's responsibility. I guess, we have to be grateful that, unlike the Dubya team, so far they've been sticking to just sponsoring and organizing, instead of direct military aggression.
 
antihenry said:
What happened in Syria and Ukraine is Obama administration's responsibility. I guess, we have to be grateful that, unlike the Dubya team, so far they've been sticking to just sponsoring and organizing, instead of direct military aggression.
Click to expand...

True. Obama is definitely anti-interventionist. He could've been far more involved in the Libya campaign, opted to unilaterally go into Syria, and been far more forceful in a variety of different areas including Russia. The Crimea invasion would've definitely escalated far quicker if John McCain was President.
 
Raoul said:
True. Obama is definitely anti-interventionist. He could've been far more involved in the Libya campaign, opted to unilaterally go into Syria, and been far more forceful in a variety of different areas including Russia. The Crimea invasion would've definitely escalated far quicker if John McCain was President.
Click to expand...
If McCain was president the US would be dealing with far more problems right now.

Still, if Bush didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama would have invaded Syria. He chickened out because he didn't have the support of, practically, anybody. Bush had the support of the American people, and Britain. In Syria's case even Britain couldn't act because of overwhelming opposition from the British people, thanks to the Iraq disaster, and the Americans didn't quite understand what the US is going to war for either.

Obama was afraid that he had his hands tied down if Syria and its allies retaliated on those "pin point attacks", because he knew he would face a world of opposition if he decides to continue the attack after the retaliation. The US was not in place to start another war. McCain might have been crazy enough to start a war regardless, but he was never going to be in place to take that decision, after, once again, the disaster that was Iraq (and even Afghanistan) being still fresh in the memory of the Americans.
 
Danny1982 said:
If McCain was president the US would be dealing with far more problems right now.

Still, if Bush didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama would have invaded Syria. He chickened out because he didn't have the support of, practically, anybody. Bush had the support of the American people, and Britain. In Syria's case even Britain couldn't act because of overwhelming opposition from the British people, thanks to the Iraq disaster, and the Americans didn't quite understand what the US is going to war for either.

Obama was afraid that he had his hands tied down if Syria and its allies retaliated on those "pin point attacks", because he knew he would face a world of opposition if he decides to continue the attack after the retaliation. The US was not in place to start another war. McCain might have been crazy enough to start a war regardless, but he was never going to be in place to take that decision, after, once again, the disaster that was Iraq (and even Afghanistan) being still fresh in the memory of the Americans.
Click to expand...

He didn't go into Syria because he's not an interventionist, and the general public don't have an appetite for more war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.