Falklands In Light Of Crimea Rhetoric
- Thread starter ben
- Start date
There is no doubt that secession of Crimea was engineered by Russia. And zombifying TV propaganda and presense of Russian army (even if it is on restraining mission only) both played their roles. But the fact is that significant number of people in Crimea really wanted to unite with Russia. I would not be surprised if there are more pro-russian people in Crimea than pro-EU people in Ukraine. Ukraine got into a turmoil and there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment (I am not saying that russians needed immediate protection).
Many russians consider Crimea to be a russian territory populated with russians that for some strange and unfair chain of events happened to be in a foreign country. Now the president of this country is illegaly overthrown, constitution replaced, the army is demoralized and disfunctional.
Crimea as a part of Ukraine has been a sore thumb for russians since the collapse of the Soviet Union (before that the fact that Crimea was a part of Ukranian SSR was just a formality). One of important parts of russian history is about getting access to the seas, and getting naval dominance or at least recognition.Nowdays it seems to be an outdated view, but getting Crimea from Ottoman Empire and establishing russian fleet on the Black sea is considered to be a part of the russian glory (if there still is such a thing
. Having the russian fleet stationed in a foreign country and permanent possibility to be thrown out was humiliating at least. So, the idea of getting Crimea back was popular for quite a long time.
For people who are asking "what is going to be next?" and counting russians here and there, try to understand it please. The idea of getting back Latvia or Azerbaijan is not popular among the russians. Putin can get better popular support and boost his ratings if he demands the USA to return Alaska back to Russia, than if he invades any former Soviet Republics. So, I think the Crimea is pretty much a one time and the only deal.
Originally the only question on the referendum was supposed to be about getting a greater autonomy within the Ukraine. Only when the West said that sanctions are inevitable, the question about direct unification with Russia was added. Basically, all this opens another can of worms (or may be it has already open since the West supported separation of Kosovo from Yugoslavia). There will be pro-russian unrecognized states that will ask to be included into Russia. And there is also a possibility of referendums in Chechnia, Tatarstan and other subjects of Russian Federation to get out of Russia. Even though conducting such a referendum would not be legal according to russian laws (ironic, huh?). And, yes, more sanctions from EU and USA. Engineering "color revolutions" and "arab springs" is their prerrogative. When somebody else does it, it suddently becomes highly illegal and "unprecedented".
Many russians consider Crimea to be a russian territory populated with russians that for some strange and unfair chain of events happened to be in a foreign country. Now the president of this country is illegaly overthrown, constitution replaced, the army is demoralized and disfunctional.
Crimea as a part of Ukraine has been a sore thumb for russians since the collapse of the Soviet Union (before that the fact that Crimea was a part of Ukranian SSR was just a formality). One of important parts of russian history is about getting access to the seas, and getting naval dominance or at least recognition.Nowdays it seems to be an outdated view, but getting Crimea from Ottoman Empire and establishing russian fleet on the Black sea is considered to be a part of the russian glory (if there still is such a thing
. Having the russian fleet stationed in a foreign country and permanent possibility to be thrown out was humiliating at least. So, the idea of getting Crimea back was popular for quite a long time.For people who are asking "what is going to be next?" and counting russians here and there, try to understand it please. The idea of getting back Latvia or Azerbaijan is not popular among the russians. Putin can get better popular support and boost his ratings if he demands the USA to return Alaska back to Russia, than if he invades any former Soviet Republics. So, I think the Crimea is pretty much a one time and the only deal.
Originally the only question on the referendum was supposed to be about getting a greater autonomy within the Ukraine. Only when the West said that sanctions are inevitable, the question about direct unification with Russia was added. Basically, all this opens another can of worms (or may be it has already open since the West supported separation of Kosovo from Yugoslavia). There will be pro-russian unrecognized states that will ask to be included into Russia. And there is also a possibility of referendums in Chechnia, Tatarstan and other subjects of Russian Federation to get out of Russia. Even though conducting such a referendum would not be legal according to russian laws (ironic, huh?). And, yes, more sanctions from EU and USA. Engineering "color revolutions" and "arab springs" is their prerrogative. When somebody else does it, it suddently becomes highly illegal and "unprecedented".
No, I do not fall in either camp. I have no camp and I have no loyalty or allegiance to any nation just because I was born in that nation. I call it the way I see it on a case by case basis.
No, I haven't thrown this out but the reality is that international law, like most laws, have no real teeth for the players who are above it, especially for the countries that participate in making or forming of the laws. I also think it would be naive to believe that this particular situation could be resolved by talking. This should be looked upon as being an attack against Russia. The brazenness of the West is unsettling and was calculated to occur during the Sochi Games. I'm sure Putin took all of this into account before making his move and surmised that swift action was the best response.
I'm not saying that what Russia is doing is right. It would be best if the Ukraine could be a free independent nation, free from the influences of Russia and the EU who are both predators. What I'm trying to point out is the hypocrisy and propaganda that is being generated by the West. It's illegal to do what Russia's doing when the West says it's illegal. It's okay when the West or western allied countries do it however.
Let's reemphasize the fact that the West is acting as the aggressor here. We have to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. The West has been on a rampage during recent years with Iraq, Libya, Syria, in talks with Georgia to join NATO, Iran and now the Ukraine with the ultimate goal being Russia herself. The West is in expansionist mode. The US military is completely out of control. It spends $1 trillion annually, more money than all other nations on earth combined. It has something like 1000 military installations around the world in over 160 countries.
I'm sure Putin, ex KGB, sees this and understands that "talking" is not going to solve anything when you're dealing with a criminal organization that has you in its cross hairs. At some point you need to act, no more words.
scotttswan
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Likes
- 3,542
TURKEY: under Ottoman Empire treaty with Catherine the Great if Crimea declares independence it returns to Turkey
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/17/turkey-under-ottoman-empire-treaty-with-catherine-the-great-if-crimea-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/
A new contender to the Crimea claim appears! :lol:
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/17/turkey-under-ottoman-empire-treaty-with-catherine-the-great-if-crimea-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/
A new contender to the Crimea claim appears! :lol:
ben
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,875
- Likes
- 2,274
Caliexpat, anyone who still uses 'the Ukraine' gets an automatic like from me. (Though it's still to some extent a subtle way of referring to Ukraine as a region as opposed to a sovereign country.)
Henry, while Azerbaijan and Alaska may both be safely excluded as candidates for Russian annexation, other parts of Ukraine are not nearly as unlikely. I don't have numbers, but Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk - to say nothing of Donetsk - have a solid Russian base. In pre-Soviet times, Dnepropetrovsk used to be named Yekaterinoslav, after Catherine the great. These cities are not 'foreign' to Russia in its - and in many Ukrainians' - eyes, historically and demographically.
As others have made clear, Russia views and has always viewed the Ukraine not merely as a country in its sphere of influence, but as practically part of Russia itself. This is not even (only) about restoring Soviet glory. When Putin told Bush in 2008 that Ukraine 'was not really a country', he was accurately expressing Russian sentiment, not displaying some expansionist streak. Accepting Ukrainian sovereignty is one thing; its change of direction in the past month, hardly 'purely organic' and free of Western pressure as far as Putin is concerned, was/is not something he will sit back and swallow.
(Though it's still to some extent a subtle way of referring to Ukraine as a region as opposed to a sovereign country.) Henry, while Azerbaijan and Alaska may both be safely excluded as candidates for Russian annexation, other parts of Ukraine are not nearly as unlikely. I don't have numbers, but Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk - to say nothing of Donetsk - have a solid Russian base. In pre-Soviet times, Dnepropetrovsk used to be named Yekaterinoslav, after Catherine the great. These cities are not 'foreign' to Russia in its - and in many Ukrainians' - eyes, historically and demographically.
As others have made clear, Russia views and has always viewed the Ukraine not merely as a country in its sphere of influence, but as practically part of Russia itself. This is not even (only) about restoring Soviet glory. When Putin told Bush in 2008 that Ukraine 'was not really a country', he was accurately expressing Russian sentiment, not displaying some expansionist streak. Accepting Ukrainian sovereignty is one thing; its change of direction in the past month, hardly 'purely organic' and free of Western pressure as far as Putin is concerned, was/is not something he will sit back and swallow.
After whats happened in the Crimea, i`m suspecting CFK is hatching a plan to secretly ship a few thousand Argentines to the falklands. Setup a gazebo, call a referendum (Spanish only mind), balot papers that have two options, the Malvinas are either 1/ Argentine or 2/ independant. Get a 97% vote in favour of being Argentine , the other 3% were confused locals walking past and went over to see what the kerfuffle was. Job done, Falklands declared Argentine, then shoot anyone who thinks otherwise.
ajoknoblauch
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 6,358
- Likes
- 3,908
Only if she can find ships that won't sink in at anchor in Bahía Blanca.
One can argue that Kiev was once a capital of Russia, so what?
The point was to deliver a statement that things need to be done in a proper way. And if you appeal to the laws, you can not apply them selectively or there will be consequences.
With the things where they are right now, hundred years from now Putin will be remembered in Russia as the guy who stood up to the West, got the Crimea back and restored the "historical justice". The next title would be "The Great Unifier" and he knows he will not be able to pull it out. So there is no point of even starting that.
Yeah, he will play "russians need protection" card until Ukraine gets an acceptable moderately anti-russian leader (who is not from the current opposition) and kick out nationalists from the parliament or at least from the key positions. I don't think Crimea-style intervention is possible in Eastern Ukraine. Russian troops just hanging around there and looking mean will not make the trick.
French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
James Baker, Feb. 9 1990, talking to Gorbatchev:
On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?”
Interesting one from 2009 (Bush Sr. made a promise that has not been fulfilled... and a big one):
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
And now, the NATO map as of today:
On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?”
Interesting one from 2009 (Bush Sr. made a promise that has not been fulfilled... and a big one):
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
And now, the NATO map as of today:
