Russia Discussion

Might makes right? Isn't it what US political motto is? When have you ever given a shit about what's right? Still looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, ten years after the invasion that created a turmoil that took close to a million lives and now the situation is looking worse than ever? The only thing that changed in Afghanistan since you got involved is the drug trade getting bigger and bigger. The list continues.



I don't justify anything, you genius. All I'm saying is, America doesn't have some moral superiority on their side when it comes to Russia, or any other country for that matter, because despite what you and millions of others may believe, US government doesn't get involved in various conflicts around the world because they want to right the wrong. There are plenty of places on the planet, where things are very bad when it comes to crimes against humanity, terrible violence, genocide, etc, and yet you'll never see USA showing even a hint of concern. Do you ever wonder why? Of course not. Then again, try not to think too hard, you might sprain something.

Examples: Bosnia, Kosovo, NFZs in Iraq, Libya, Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, South Korea following the invasion by the North, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

You are right though. The US should have done more about Rwanda, Sudan, Bengladesh, Cambodia, Tibet, attacks on Kurds in Iraq bookending the Gulf War, Holodomor, the Soviet mass ethnic relocations, decossackization, dekulakization, and the Great Purge.
 
Might makes right? Isn't it what US political motto is? When have you ever given a shit about what's right? Still looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, ten years after the invasion that created a turmoil that took close to a million lives and now the situation is looking worse than ever? The only thing that changed in Afghanistan since you got involved is the drug trade getting bigger and bigger. The list continues.



I don't justify anything, you genius. All I'm saying is, America doesn't have some moral superiority on their side when it comes to Russia, or any other country for that matter, because despite what you and millions of others may believe, US government doesn't get involved in various conflicts around the world because they want to right the wrong.
I'm not American, but I'll try to answer anyway.

America will always do what is best for America, specifically the interests of their elected leaders - you're right.

A lot of times this does not correlate to what we might call an objectively 'good' outcome - you're right. Cf Rwanda, where more could've been done but Clinton was frightened of american boys coming home in body bags. Other times, American leaders actively work against both their own country's interests and the world's due to domestic political considerations, and Israel is probably the best example of that.

But as a general rule, what's good for America is what's good for the world. America fought WWII for complicated reasons, many of which were self-interested, but no one - least of all a Russian - can deny that the world is a better place as a result. As we speak, the Seventh Fleet uses my country as a base to check Chinese power and influence and maintain American pre-eminence in this part of the world. Is it for my benefit, out of American altruism? Don't make me laugh. But we welcome them, bend over backwards for American naval power (as do the Philippines, Australia and even now, ironically, Vietnam) because their interests correlate with ours. America isn't a perfect country, and they aren't interested in keeping China penned in for anyone's benefit but their own, but between them and the Chinese penchant of randomly declaring islands in east Asia "historically Chinese" and building bases on them without anyone's consent, we know which we prefer.

America isn't an expansionistic country and the things they generally seek - free trade, peace, democratic ideals - are therefore broadly what many other countries seek as well. If you think that's naïve, I invite you to consider the alternatives of Chinese nihilism, European pusillanimity and yes, Russian thuggery, kleptocracy and romantic revanchism. They aren't allies with half the world for no reason. You haven't united the entire Baltic and eastern Europe against you for no reason. The supply of useful idiots (even in this very thread) who would have reflexively supported Russia so long as their opponents were the west hasn't dried up for no reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul
I think you touched on an important point - that being the US isn't in it for altruistic reasons, they are in it to create stable economic markets for international commerce. Nearly all of the time, this involves promoting democracy, improved human rights, better governance, etc. The more liberated a country is from despotic rule, the more stable it is likely to be, which is a good thing for the US - and the rest of the world. The US isn't perfect - and still does business with coercive regimes that happen to agreeable to US policy (Saudi, Bahrain, and a few others), and it should do more to use its leverage to help those countries reform their governance structures. All in all however, the US - particularly under Obama - has done a solid job of deescalating its unilateral role and moving more towards allied, consensus building through IOs (NATO, the EU etc).

As far as this Russia-Ukraine crisis goes - its really all to do with internal Russian politics. Russia under Putin has become a mildly jingoistic state, guided by identity, nationalism, and imbued by a fear that the only way to regain a once proud Russian identity is to reclaim its former Soviet sphere of influence. Putin crossed the point of no return about a decade ago, in so far as he can't ever leave office out of fear he would be arrested for his past indiscretions (see Qaddafi and Mubarak). When you look at the past 14 years, its actually quite sad. He could've been a decent President who set Russia on a path towards greatness - lifting it out of the chaos of the 90s, implementing proper Democratic governance, giving people their rights, and setting things up nicely for his democratically elected successor. Instead, being the ex KGB Colonel that he was, he opted for eternal power and control, coercion, authoritarianism, imprisoning and murdering dissenters, creating an elite power structure of Oligarchs and yes men - so its hardly a shock now that in order to remain relevant to his public and domestic patronage network, he is having to invade nearby countries. He was never the right man for the job and his cold war style stealth invasions of Crimea and Donbass have rightfully made him a pariah among statesmen.
 
I'm not American, but I'll try to answer anyway.

America will always do what is best for America, specifically the interests of their elected leaders - you're right.

A lot of times this does not correlate to what we might call an objectively 'good' outcome - you're right. Cf Rwanda, where more could've been done but Clinton was frightened of american boys coming home in body bags. Other times, American leaders actively work against both their own country's interests and the world's due to domestic political considerations, and Israel is probably the best example of that.

But as a general rule, what's good for America is what's good for the world. America fought WWII for complicated reasons, many of which were self-interested, but no one - least of all a Russian - can deny that the world is a better place as a result. As we speak, the Seventh Fleet uses my country as a base to check Chinese power and influence and maintain American pre-eminence in this part of the world. Is it for my benefit, out of American altruism? Don't make me laugh. But we welcome them, bend over backwards for American naval power (as do the Philippines, Australia and even now, ironically, Vietnam) because their interests correlate with ours. America isn't a perfect country, and they aren't interested in keeping China penned in for anyone's benefit but their own, but between them and the Chinese penchant of randomly declaring islands in east Asia "historically Chinese" and building bases on them without anyone's consent, we know which we prefer.

America isn't an expansionistic country and the things they generally seek - free trade, peace, democratic ideals - are therefore broadly what many other countries seek as well. If you think that's naïve, I invite you to consider the alternatives of Chinese nihilism, European pusillanimity and yes, Russian thuggery, kleptocracy and romantic revanchism. They aren't allies with half the world for no reason. You haven't united the entire Baltic and eastern Europe against you for no reason. The supply of useful idiots (even in this very thread) who would have reflexively supported Russia so long as their opponents were the west hasn't dried up for no reason.
:wenger:

Free trade? They have imposed more economic sanctions on other countries than any other country in the world. They use economy as a weapon to starve the people in the countries with regimes they want to change.

Peace? Really??

Democratic ideals? The biggest theocracy/dictatorship/source of terrorism in the world is one of their biggest allies..

The US only use those words when they want to fight a regime they don't like. But they never mean it. When democracy leads to something they don't like, then they're ready to use everything (even terrorist organisations) as a way to force a change. (We all saw how the US used ISIS as a way to pressure Maliki to step down, even though he was democratically elected, and Ukraine itself is another good example).

Every country in the world is expansionistic, every one, but every country takes a different approach.

The US uses economy as one way to submit nations and force them to be their allies/puppies. Either give them money to "buy" them (like Egypt) or impose sanctions to hurt them if they don't do what they're asked to do.. Another way is the one you described, which is to step in and protect you from your enemies (even if they needed to create those enemies for you) so you'll accept whatever they ask you for (or in your own words, bend over), just so they keep protecting you.

It has nothing to do with "democracy" or any "ideals", it's all about being on their side or against them. However, the US manages to muster "more friends" only because it's the most powerful nation at the moment, and the strongest economically (so they can afford to bribe/sanction the countries they like/don't like).

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being a friend with the US so they can protect you or because your interests correlate with theirs, but then again don't blame other people when they choose to be friends with Russia because at a certain moment they're the ones protecting them from the US or its allies, or because their interests correlate with the Russian interests. Neither of you is morally superior to the other either.

The last statement in your post is absurd. Didn't know you're basing who's right/wrong in a conflict on the number of people who keep posting in a thread on a football forum.
 
The last statement in your post is absurd. Didn't know you're basing who's right/wrong in a conflict on the number of people who keep posting in a thread on a football forum.
It's not a bad proxy for the rightness and wrongness of a position. For instance, in this case, on your "side", only the diehard anti-westerners continue to keep posting irrespective of the realities on the ground. Compared to the beginning of the thread, with most of the relatively reasonable posters on your side gradually drying up over time. Don't you think that's in any way suggestive at all of the cogency of your position in question? Not at all?
 
It's not a bad proxy for the rightness and wrongness of a position. For instance, in this case, on your "side", only the diehard anti-westerners continue to keep posting irrespective of the realities on the ground. Compared to the beginning of the thread, with most of the relatively reasonable posters on your side gradually drying up over time. Don't you think that's in any way suggestive at all of the cogency of your position in question? Not at all?

Another good point. The Putin apologist brigade have dried up significantly since this thread started, as most of them realized Putin's actions are behind all of this.
 
It's not a bad proxy for the rightness and wrongness of a position. For instance, in this case, on your "side", only the diehard anti-westerners continue to keep posting irrespective of the realities on the ground. Compared to the beginning of the thread, with most of the relatively reasonable posters on your side gradually drying up over time. Don't you think that's in any way suggestive at all of the cogency of your position in question? Not at all?

Perhaps, people just lose interest after a while, when it's something that doesn't concern them personally. It's like any other news, like, for instance, that major earthquake in Haiti few years ago. At first, the whole world is watching and talking about it, everyone wants to help and the news channels are discussing it non stop. Then a week later they mention it here and there, and then a few more weeks pass by and, apart from people directly involved, no one is bothered anymore and another portion of news replaces it in everyone's mind.

What do you know about the realities on the ground? Do you live in Ukraine or anywhere near it? The media coverage in the US and major European countries is very much one sided and, to put it mildly, doesn't fully reflect what's happening there. Somehow, they're oblivious to anything that doesn't fit into "Putin is bad, new Ukraine rulers are good" formula. I'll go even further, imho, if you don't know Russian and Ukrainian history well (which goes back centuries before America was founded), can't speak or read either language (which limits your sources of information), have very little understanding of those people's mentality, culture and way of life, then your views are very limited and you wouldn't be able to figure out what's what. I lived in the US for years and I bet most Americans are totally ignorant as to what Ukraine is, where it's located and what series of events led the country and its citizens to their current predicament.

Raul and Matt are obviously exceptions to that. According to them, America is God's gift to the world and can do no wrong. Anyone that stands in the way of US spreading their goodwill around the world in the form of shock and awe bombings, sponsoring terrorists, sorry, I meant freedom fighters, color revolutions, etc is evil and should be condemned as such.

And I'm not anti-westerner, whatever that means. I just refuse to see the world through the tinted glasses. Putin is wrong about many things, but he's right to defend his country's interests, even if it means standing up to the world's biggest bully and suffer in the process.
 
Another good point. The Putin apologist brigade have dried up significantly since this thread started, as most of them realized Putin's actions are behind all of this.



Putin has his faults, but what he is doing is nothing in comparison to what the Yanks have been doing for the last 40 years. So America being outraged at Putins behaviour is ridiculous.
 
Perhaps, people just lose interest after a while, when it's something that doesn't concern them personally. It's like any other news, like, for instance, that major earthquake in Haiti few years ago. At first, the whole world is watching and talking about it, everyone wants to help and the news channels are discussing it non stop. Then a week later they mention it here and there, and then a few more weeks pass by and, apart from people directly involved, no one is bothered anymore and another portion of news replaces it in everyone's mind.

What do you know about the realities on the ground? Do you live in Ukraine or anywhere near it? The media coverage in the US and major European countries is very much one sided and, to put it mildly, doesn't fully reflect what's happening there. Somehow, they're oblivious to anything that doesn't fit into "Putin is bad, new Ukraine rulers are good" formula. I'll go even further, imho, if you don't know Russian and Ukrainian history well (which goes back centuries before America was founded), can't speak or read either language (which limits your sources of information), have very little understanding of those people's mentality, culture and way of life, then your views are very limited and you wouldn't be able to figure out what's what. I lived in the US for years and I bet most Americans are totally ignorant as to what Ukraine is, where it's located and what series of events led the country and its citizens to their current predicament.

Raul and Matt are obviously exceptions to that. According to them, America is God's gift to the world and can do no wrong. Anyone that stands in the way of US spreading their goodwill around the world in the form of shock and awe bombings, sponsoring terrorists, sorry, I meant freedom fighters, color revolutions, etc is evil and should be condemned as such.

And I'm not anti-westerner, whatever that means. I just refuse to see the world through the tinted glasses. Putin is wrong about many things, but he's right to defend his country's interests, even if it means standing up to the world's biggest bully and suffer in the process.

But from a purely statistical viewpoint, both positions would surely have suffered attrition, no?

I think a simpler explanation is that much like with whenever something goes wrong in the world and politicians are involved, people tend to come in and go, well, a pox on both their houses, particularly countries with bad PR like the US/russia. And that's exactly what we saw in the first few pages of the thread: a roughly 50-50 split.

And then Russia fecking invaded the Crimea.

And then Russia fecking annexed it, like the last 100 years haven't happened and they're still fighting the Ottoman empire or something.

And then Russian backed fighters shot down a civilian craft, killing hundreds.

And then Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.

And then everyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, or who didn't come in here with an agenda to push, decided, hang on a minute here...
 
You go on and on about the weight of history, and how your experiences as an ethnic Russian in America give you a more privileged viewpoint than the rest of us, and we should just see no evil since we wouldn't understand anyway.

May I respectfully submit to you that your Russian heritage is not helping you see things more clearly at all, but is rather blinding you to what are quite bluntly self-evident truths?
 
But from a purely statistical viewpoint, both positions would surely have suffered attrition, no?

I think a simpler explanation is that much like with whenever something goes wrong in the world and politicians are involved, people tend to come in and go, well, a pox on both their houses, particularly countries with bad PR like the US/russia. And that's exactly what we saw in the first few pages of the thread: a roughly 50-50 split.

And then Russia fecking invaded the Crimea.

And then Russia fecking annexed it, like the last 100 years haven't happened and they're still fighting the Ottoman empire or something.

And then Russian backed fighters shot down a civilian craft, killing hundreds.

And then Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.

And then everyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, or who didn't come in here with an agenda to push, decided, hang on a minute here...

You make it look like the forum has a similar number of Russian and US posters. I don't know any from Russia, apart from myself, and there's probably hundreds from the US. You don't have to stray far, just look at this thread and see who the most active posters on it are. There's no 50-50 split, not even close.

I don't want to bother with Crimea, I've already said all I wanted to say on the subject on this very thread.

No one knows who and how shot down the plane, the investigation isn't even close to being over, nothing has been proven one way or the other, although it didn't stop the politicians and mass media from the US and EU to put the blame on Russia hours(!) after it went down. I wonder why.

Officially, there are no regular Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine, but I'm sure there's a serious military and financial support, the separatists wouldn't have lasted a week without it, plus there are volunteers and mercenaries from various parts of Russia and beyond. In any case, most of the separatists are locals, Ukrainian citizens, but it's easier for the new Ukrainian rulers and their American masters to claim that they are fighting Russians rather than their own people, who just happen to disagree with them on certain things and want to have a voice on their country's future.
 
The wheels are slowly coming off the Putin express. The Ruble is on pace be as valuable as toilet paper, oil prices are plummeting which has completely thrown off their budget assumptions. The walls are slowly closing in around him, which is why he is slowly getting the message that he has to deescalate.
 
Oil tumbled another $4 today and is nearing $80/pb. Sucks to have your economy and budget pegged to the price of oil. :)
 
Current natural gas prices have been the lowest since late 2010 and early 2011.

Also, if the US starts exporting oil, it will drop even lower.
 
Oil tumbled another $4 today and is nearing $80/pb. Sucks to have your economy and budget pegged to the price of oil. :)
Current natural gas prices have been the lowest since late 2010 and early 2011.

Also, if the US starts exporting oil, it will drop even lower.

So they were expecting $100 a barrel and its sitting at $80 a barrel yet fuel in the UK is still only sitting around 2% or 3% cheaper than it has been for the last 2 years. They're really not keen on passing on the savings are they.
 
So they were expecting $100 a barrel and its sitting at $80 a barrel yet fuel in the UK is still only sitting around 2% or 3% cheaper than it has been for the last 2 years. They're really not keen on passing on the savings are they.

The price of refining obviously went up. ;) But prices in the US are the lowest they've been since around 2010, I think. Also, tax and duty make up about 80% of the price of petrol in the UK. So there's not much for the price of oil to affect.
 
Last edited:
So they were expecting $100 a barrel and its sitting at $80 a barrel yet fuel in the UK is still only sitting around 2% or 3% cheaper than it has been for the last 2 years. They're really not keen on passing on the savings are they.

Not sure how price at the pump works. I'd imagine each country is going to have a different rate based where they buy their oil from, taxes, and transport fees.
 
Seems like everything in Crimea is peachy.

Early last spring, pro-Russian crowds in Ukrainian Crimea gathered and demanded that the authorities hold a popular referendum on whether the peninsula should join the Russian Federation. The irony is that, back in Russia, neither such gatherings nor a referendum would be allowed. When the vote actually did take place on March 16, the headline that best captured the moment was from the Onion: “Crimean Voters Excited To Exercise Democracy For Last Time.”

The farcical referendum was held at gunpoint. Armed men clad in familiar but unmarked uniforms presided. There was no bloodshed, but free it was not. As the results were announced, many of Crimea’s 2.5 million citizens were in tears: some of joy, as they draped themselves in Russian flags and joined in a rendition of the once-Soviet-now-Russian anthem, others of humiliation at being handed over like serfs to a new master -- Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Before the vote, Crimean social media had been a battleground between those defending and decrying Russia. But once annexation was a fait accompli, the adversaries retreated to their respective barracks in a huge wave of Facebook “unfriendings” (the verb in Russian is odfriendlit). Then, those Crimeans who were most opposed to the occupation -- Ukrainians, Tatars, and even some Russians -- left. They went to Kiev or abroad. Others, especially the intelligentsia, chose “internal emigration.” That is, they abandoned their formerly comfortable state-sponsored positions to take odd jobs just to survive.

These Crimeans are joining a Russian nation that, by all accounts, was happy about the annexation; according to one public opinion poll, only eight percent of those questioned in Russia were against the annexation of Crimea. But, as is usual in Russia, the polls don’t reveal the whole truth. In Snob, a respected Russian online magazine, war reporter Arkadiy Babchenko published a satirical piece that is very openly critical of the state of human rights in Russia entitled “Welcome, Crimea.” Babchenko listed for the new citizens all the things that are forbidden in their new homeland, including the “unsanctioned gatherings of five or more persons,” “resistance to unlawful arrest,” “self-determination of nations,” “the TV channel Dozhd,” “promotion of homosexuality,” or “concerts of Madonna.” The counter on the Snob website suggests that the article had over half a million visitors and it seems to have gone viral on Facebook, too.

In other words, Crimeans have been snatched from an open, although unruly and rotten, system into a closed state that has imperial ambitions and oppresses its own citizens -- no wonder they are more disillusioned with their new country by the day.

RUSSIAN SNAFUS

A series of paradoxes, problems, and outright persecution, has turned life in a formerly popular vacation spot by the sea into a Kafkaesque nightmare. Since Crimea is geographically attached to Ukraine and separated from Russia by a sea, the region is still largely dependent on Ukraine for almost all basic supplies, including water, produce, meat, and electricity. (The lone exception is petrol, which is brought directly from Russia by tankers to the port of Feodosiya.) Already, disputes over unpaid pump bills have led Ukraine to tamp down on the flow of water from the Dnieper River to Crimea. With no irrigation, Crimea’s rice-growing season has been lost. Kiev has also restricted its electricity supply to Crimea, partly because it is having energy problems of its own after Russia cut back gas supplies to Ukraine. Further, as of this month, Ukraine demands “export documents,” for any goods traveling between Ukraine and Crimea. That, of course, has made trade much more tedious.

Difficulties mean increase in prices, necessary to offset bribes and lost time. Back in June, when the currency in Crimea was changed from Ukrainian hryvnia to Russian ruble, the price of food jumped by about 50 percent. Today, cheese and fish are twice as expensive as they used to be. Beer and vodka are three times as expensive, a potentially explosive fact in any part of the former Soviet Union. For some people, the price hike was compensated by an increase in retirement pensions; physicians, teachers, and military personnel are getting higher salaries, too. But the purchasing power of most Crimeans has fallen substantially.

It is doubtful that Russia will be able to solve Crimea’s consumer problems. Importing anything to the peninsula from Russia is a geographical challenge. The lone ferry joining Crimea to its new motherland, which runs from an obscure corner of the Russian Caucasus to Kerch, has limited capacity. It accepts passenger cars and buses, but not big trucks. Big trucks can try to come through the port of Feodosiya, but the waiting line sometimes takes two weeks to clear -- unacceptable for any fresh food items. Shipping things out is equally complicated, and it is the notorious “samooborona” (literally “self-defense,” a state-sponsored army of thugs) that decides who gets on the ferry. Recently, when a truck with canned fish was not let on a ship, the factory director from Sevastopol argued that his products were eagerly awaited in Moscow, where such goods coming from the West have been restricted. Samooborona told him that the cans could wait.

Ukraine and Russia have done their best to make life miserable for the Crimeans in other ways as well. Car owners, for example, are required to change their license plates from Ukrainian to Russian. The cars will remain on the Ukrainian car registry, though, and should they venture into Ukraine, they may be seized as stolen. Ukraine has also refused to hand over the cadaster, or its real estate registry. So, Russian homebuyers who want to take advantage of the departure of anti-annexationists to get a nice home on a lovely Crimean beach for cheap must trust that, somewhere down the line, they will sort out the paperwork for their new property. Meanwhile, most transactions are done in cash anyway, because the 80 banks that used to operate in Ukrainian Crimea have left. The ten or so new ones are small; all of the big outfits are staying away from the peninsula, lest they fall under Western sanctions.

Russia hasn’t made things any easier. When it annexed Crimea, all residents automatically became Russian citizens (unless they chose to opt out, as 3,500managed to do despite the difficulties at overcrowded offices). Yet Russian authorities were unprepared to issue these new compatriots their passports. As a result, Crimeans were given passports with an ID code from other parts of the Russian Federation, even though their residence was listed as Crimea. These hybrid passports look fishy and their bearers have already been denied bank credit and visas.

Journalists reporting on these issues put themselves in danger. The Center for Investigative Journalism lost its equipment when its offices, which it was renting from Black Sea Television (known as Chernomorka), were raided. A few plucky reporters remain on the peninsula trying to work. But when they are not in physical danger -- several have been beaten and harassed -- their sites suffer from digital attacks. It isn’t surprising, then, that many journalists left the peninsula when they could.

But paradoxes, problems, and even persecution will not be triggers for Crimean Springs. They create individual problems that will be solved individually. Like the gray and tedious life in the former USSR, everyday bureaucratic struggles will become so overwhelming that any energy needed to revolt will be spent jumping through the hoops that the new Russian authorities put there partly out of incompetence, partly on purpose.
 
TATARS, AGAIN

Life is bad for all Crimeans, but none are worse off than the Tatar minority, which represents roughly 13 percent of the peninsula’s population.

It is unlikely that many Tatars participated in the March referendum or in the elections in September; since these votes were not independently monitored, neither their results nor the turnout can be verified. Suffice it to say, though, that in many Tatar villages, the polling stations did not even bother to open.

Russian authorities were not amused. Intimidation, harassment, and outrightrepression have followed. One of the first blows was a hard one: Russia has banished from Crimea for five years the undisputed leader of the Crimean Tatars, Mustapha Dzhemilev, who spent years in Soviet prisons and camps for his activism. He does not mince his words about the annexation: “This was an act of political banditry happening in open daylight and in the very center of Europe.” Refat Chubarov, the head of the Mejilis (the governing body of Crimean Tatars) has been subject to the same ban and now chairs Mejilis meetings from Kiev via the Internet. Banishment has a particular resonance for Crimean Tatars. On May 18, 1944, on orders from Joseph Stalin, their entire population of 180,000 was deported from the peninsula to Central Asia. They or their children were allowed back only in the 1990s, courtesy of perestroika.

Moscow has also outlawed books by and about Dzhemilev. Some printings of the Koran are on the blacklist, too; permission for many public gatherings is denied. The Tatars planned to hold a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of their deportation in the center of Simferopol, for example, but that was declared “too dangerous.” And the weather was deemed “too hot” to mark the Victims of Stalinism Day on August 23, even though pro-Russian groups had unfolded an 18-meter-long flag on Lenin Square in Simferopol the day before.

There is zero tolerance for open dissent. The body of a Tatar who opposed annexation was found bearing signs of torture; four others disappeared in May and two more in late-September. Regular raids of Tatar businesses, schools, mosques, and community centers, often carried out by intimidating and heavily armed Russian policemen contribute to the panic among the Tatar population. In mid-September, the Mejilis building in Simferopol was defaced with vulgar graffiti and “unknown individuals” took down the Ukrainian flag flying there (the only place in Crimea where it still did). A few days later, the same building was surrounded by armed men, who barred employees and journalists working there from entering. The next day, 15 members of Russia's Federal Bailiffs Service arrived with an order to seize all property and bank accounts.

For Shefket Kaybullayev, the editor of Avdet, a Tatar weekly, this was his third encounter with Russian security forces -- he had been called in for interrogation twice before. And now he has another problem: Since Crimea Foundation, a charity that used to fund his publication, was also victimized during the Mejilis raid, Kaybullayev has no idea how he can continue publishing the magazine and pay for the printing. Even if he does find the money, he must re-register the magazine according to new Russian regulations, and for that, he will have to become a Russian citizen. The Tatar television channel, ATR, has faced similar difficulties. Recently, it was accused of “deliberately fuelling distrust among the Crimean Tatars toward the government and its actions” simply because it was reporting on human rights violations.

Such intimidation is not the spontaneous work of the samooborona. Moscow seems genuinely afraid that dissent could turn into something more dangerous. Tatars have a long tradition of fighting for their rights. Until now, it was always nonviolent struggle, but these days many a nonviolent struggle -- in Kosovo or Syria, to name the most recent ones -- has turned violent. And Russia has had its share of problems with Muslim grievances, so it tries to nip any opposition in the bud.

“HOW TO DIVIDE A COMMUNAL APARTMENT”

Russia has held Crimea for six months. A good part of the rest of the world decries the occupation, and the United States and the European Union are unlikely to lift sanctions on Russia even if hostilities do come to an end in Eastern Ukraine.

The controversy over Crimea’s status is not merely a dispute between two post-Soviet states; the credibility of two major Western democracies is at stake. In 1994, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, the country’s territorial integrity was guaranteed in a memorandum signed by Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Should the letter or the spirit of that document be betrayed, other states armed with nuclear weapons may think twice before giving them up in exchange for any international guarantees.

When the UN held a vote on a resolution to declare the March 16 referendum in Crimea as invalid, 100 states supported the motion, 11 (a brochette of dictatorships from Armenia to Zimbabwe) voted against, and 58 cautiously abstained.

These days, few reasonable people are speaking up in Russia. But the intelligentsia has traditionally been the voice of conscience in Russia, and perhaps it will be once more.

During a recent talk show on Radio Ekho Moskvi, a well-known Russian writer Mikhail Veller explained the annexation of Crimea by comparing it to the division of a communal apartment, in which one neighbor has ended up with one more room than he should have gotten: “There are two ways to get back your room. First: to explain to the neighbor that he is wrong, to buy the room from him in installments, to exchange it for something valuable, to start a lawsuit, or to marry your daughter to his son and reunite the apartment, etc. There is a second way: to break the neighbor’s legs, rape his wife, sell off his grandmother for organs and throw his children out the window, until he vacates the room. Then it is yours, as it should be. But not all the methods are good. I would like to see our liberal-patriots and our national-patriots listen to each other. I think that Novorossiya [Donetsk-Luhansk region] and Crimea historically and culturally belong to Russia. But I always believed that to fight a war for them is unacceptable. In the end, war is not the only means to solve problems. It is as simple as that.”
 
He, himself, had a conversation with that someone/some group that was unauthorized? How do people in power/at the top/with money and influence get away with saying such shit?
 
Merkel tells other EU countries they'll have to chip in to pay off Ukraine's gas debt together. Doubt the news will be received well.
http://www.thelocal.de/20141021/merkel-urges-allies-to-pay-ukraine-debts

"Sometimes I get the impression that Ukraine expects the solution to its problems to come from every country expect itself," Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said at the press conference with Merkel.

lol.gif
Americans left another big stinky turd at EU's doorstep. Good luck.
 
The myth of Russian humiliation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3a6f2a-5617-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html

Looking back over the past quarter-century, it isn’t easy to name a Western policy that can truly be described as a success. The impact of Western development aid is debatable. Western interventions in the Middle East have been disastrous.

But one Western policy stands out as a phenomenal success, particularly when measured against the low expectations with which it began: the integration of Central Europe and the Baltic States into the European Union and NATO. Thanks to this double project, more than 90 million people have enjoyed relative safety and relative prosperity for more than two decades in a region whose historic instability helped launch two world wars.

These two “expansions,” which were parallel but not identical (some countries are members of one organization but not the other), were transformative because they were not direct leaps, as the word “expansion” implies, but slow negotiations. Before joining NATO, each country had to establish civilian control of its army. Before joining the European Union, each adopted laws on trade, judiciary, human rights. As a result, they became democracies. This was “democracy promotion” working as it never has before or since.

But times change, and the miraculous transformation of a historically unstable region became a humdrum reality. Instead of celebrating this achievement on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is now fashionable to opine that this expansion, and of NATO in particular, was mistaken. This project is incorrectly “remembered” as the result of American “triumphalism” that somehow humiliated Russia by bringing Western institutions into its rickety neighborhood. This thesis is usually based on revisionist history promoted by the current Russian regime — and it is wrong.

For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland’s first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.

When the slow, cautious expansion eventually took place, constant efforts were made to reassure Russia. No NATO bases were placed in the new member states, and until 2013 no exercises were conducted there. A Russia-NATO agreement in 1997 promised no movement of nuclear installations. A NATO-Russia Council was set up in 2002. In response to Russian objections, Ukraine and Georgia were, in fact, denied NATO membership plans in 2008.

Meanwhile, not only was Russia not “humiliated” during this era, it was given de facto “great power” status, along with the Soviet seat on the U.N. Security Council and Soviet embassies. Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine’s borders. Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the Group of Eight — although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.

During this period, Russia, unlike Central Europe, never sought to transform itself along European lines. Instead, former KGB officers with a clearly expressed allegiance to the Soviet system took over the state in league with organized crime, seeking to prevent the formation of democratic institutions at home and to undermine them abroad. For the past decade, this kleptocratic clique has also sought to re-create an empire, using everything from cyberattacks on Estonia to military invasions of Georgia and now Ukraine, in open violation of that 1994 agreement — exactly as the Central Europeans feared.

Once we remember what actually happened over the past two decades, as opposed to accepting the Russian regime’s version, our own mistakes look different. In 1991, Russia was no longer a great power in either population or economic terms. So why didn’t we recognize reality, reform the United Nations and give a Security Council seat to India, Japan or others? Russia did not transform itself along European lines. Why did we keep pretending that it had? Eventually, our use of the word “democracy” to describe the Russian political system discredited the word in Russia itself.

The crisis in Ukraine, and the prospect of a further crisis in NATO itself, is not the result of our triumphalism but of our failure to react to Russia’s aggressive rhetoric and its military spending. Why didn’t we move NATO bases eastward a decade ago? Our failure to do so has now led to a terrifying plunge of confidence in Central Europe. Countries once eager to contribute to the alliance are now afraid. A string of Russian provocations unnerve the Baltic region: the buzzing of Swedish airspace, the kidnapping of an Estonian security officer.

Our mistake was not to humiliate Russia but to underrate Russia’s revanchist, revisionist, disruptive potential. If the only real Western achievement of the past quarter-century is now under threat, that’s because we have failed to ensure that NATO continues to do in Europe what it was always meant to do: deter. Deterrence is not an aggressive policy; it is a defensive policy. But in order to work, deterrence has to be real. It requires investment, consolidation and support from all of the West, and especially the United States. I’m happy to blame American triumphalism for many things, but in Europe I wish there had been more of it.
 
I remember laughing at the USSR and China calling each other revisionist.

According to the Chinese Government, most of the late 19th and and the first half of the 20th century didn't happen regarding China.
 
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/755927

Commenting on his remarks in an interview with Izvestia daily, Konstantin Kostin, the head of the Civil Society Development Fund, said Volodin’s argument was clearly reflecting the state of mind of the country and its citizens: “So long as there is Putin, there will be Russia. Without Putin there is no Russia.”

That reminds me of a song...


Also, it appears Russia are holding onto their delusions of grandeur regarding their status as a world power. They want to divide the world up in spheres so they can have the Soviet Reunion.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-23/redrawing-the-world-at-putin-s-annual-gabfest
 
Last edited:
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/755927



That reminds me of a song...


Also, it appears Russia are holding onto their delusions of grandeur regarding their status as a world power. They want to divide the world up in spheres so they can have the Soviet Reunion.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-23/redrawing-the-world-at-putin-s-annual-gabfest


Are you suggesting Russia isn't a world power? Whatever your position is on what is going on in Ukraine, denying that Russia is a world power IS delusional.
 
Are you suggesting Russia isn't a world power? Whatever your position is on what is going on in Ukraine, denying that Russia is a world power IS delusional.

Russia is a great power that thinks it should be treated like a superpower still, despite not being one. They want a return of their foreign influence that deteriorated since many Eastern European nations broke away and realized they have better options.
 
Last edited: