Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Lemanrussland]

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

There won't be a Crimean Insurgency, at least not an effective one. I've already addressed why: viewtopic.php?p=19060870#p19060870

First, in order to have an effective insurgency of scale, you need the people to be more pissed off at Russians than enjoying their livelyhoods. That's clearly not the case in the Crimea. But alright, let's say that we make them all listen to Beiber and their lives suck.

Second, you need competent insurgency leadership. Quite a few leaders who participated in insurgency ops elsewhere would be known, and be wiped out. But ok, let's assume that Neo does a mind wipe, and Russians forget who fought where. Note, I'm already using Beiber and Matrix, but that's not yet enough.

Third, you need training bases. Where, in the Crimea, shall you find them? Russians have been mapping the region since the times of Catherine the Great. If there are potential training bases, we'd know about it. But let's say that batman and robin stole those maps and those plans.

Fourth, you need a way to get supplies into Crimea. The land route's going to be cut off, and sea routes can easily be radared. But let's say that you send aquaman with the supplies in. Welp, now you have something insurgency-like. How long shall that last? Considering that Tatars live just fine in Kazan... not very long.

Now they might pull off some attacks, but it'll probably be very short lived, or not very effective.

Iyd be intresting to see someone who is Pro Russia to speak on this.

Sure thing

Obviously, it would be nothing like Chechnya. The terrain is not as rough, the ethnic landscape is not as diverse, and it would be harder to smuggle militants and material into Crimea.

In any case, over-reacting to terrorist incidents will be a PR minefield. I'm sure international media is going to be digging around for any signs of abuse. Over-reacting to the journalists snooping will also create more bad PR.

[Occupied Deutschland]

This isnt good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/crimean- ... z2wtEkRyrq
Looks like some Tatars arent too happy with the Russian occupiers/government.

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

Although if they pick the right person to put in control they apparently could via the more local police and/or vigilantes and/or 'Cossacks' doing what needed to be done.

After all, when was the last time anybody in the West really significantly cared about Ramzan Kadyrov's rule in Chechnya?

[Baltenstein]

I'm sure they knew that was going to happen when they decided to occupy Crimea.

They will not be able to engage in the same brutal tactics that have been used in the Chechen Wars. Any allegations of human rights abuses in counter-insurgency/terrorism operations will be pretty bad PR.

Although if they pick the right person to put in control they apparently could via the more local police and/or vigilantes and/or 'Cossacks' doing what needed to be done.

After all, when was the last time anybody in the West really significantly cared about Ramzan Kadyrov's rule in Chechnya?

Speaking of Ramsan Kadyrov:

Never one to pass up an opportunity to comply demonstratively with orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chechen Republic head Ramzan Kadyrov affirmed on February 28 his readiness to dispatch a consignment of humanitarian aid to Crimea. The cost of that relief will be borne by the Akhmat-haji Kadyrov charitable fund named for Kadyrov's late father.

Kadyrov had earlier condemned the revolution that toppled President Viktor Yanukovych as "a coup d'etat" and "a deliberate attempt to exert pressure on Russia through Ukraine." At the same time, Kadyrov placed the blame for the current situation on Yanukovych who, in Kadyrov's opinion, "failed to assume in time total responsibility for the fate of the people."

Kadyrov further accused the political forces behind the crisis of "trying to play the Tatar card" in Crimea and "draw into these dangerous games the Tatar people, who are friendly toward us." He appealed to the Crimean Tatars, most of whom support the new regime in Kyiv, "to demonstrate good sense and not let themselves be used in a confrontation with other peoples, not let themselves be drawn into anti-Russian scenarios."

Kadyrov expressed concern that "nationalists of all descriptions" are systematically stripping ethnic Chechen citizens of Ukraine of their homes and businesses. He warned that "this is impermissible.... We shall not allow Chechens to be offended, wherever they happen to live."

Kadyrov offered assistance to the Russian, Cossack, and Chechen population of Crimea. "We are called upon to defend our peoples. And if necessary, we are ready to become observers, peacekeepers, soldiers, and defend the people," Kadyrov said.

There is a precedent for the deployment of Chechen forces outside the Russian Federation: in August 2008, the infamous Vostok Interior Ministry battalion commanded by Sulim Yamadayev (who in the early 2000s was Akhmat-haji Kadyrov's right-hand man) was in the forefront of the Russian incursion into Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

If Kadyrov is really sending his "peacekeepers" over there, the Crimeans are truly and utterly fucked.

[Shofercia]

No. There's a certain criteria, and the reason that I don't want to state the criteria on NSG, is because several posters, including yourself, love taking what I state in very narrow terms, and give it the broadest meaning possible. For instance when I state that I can support peaceful annexation under some terms, some automatically presume that I support all annexation, no matter what. However, speaking of Crimea, and the dissolution of the USSR in general, I'll ask you a question, if you won't mind answering it: why do SSRs get to decide, but not ASSRs?

Conversely, if the US was to hypothetically fall apart, why shouldn't the people living in Washington DC decide whether they want to be with Virginia, Maryland, or become independent?

So no, Russia isn't justified in annexing territory based on bringing benefits to the annexed region, but you still use this as a reason for them to do so?
You should probably cut that out so no one mistakes it for something it isn't. Or explain the criteria.

I don't have to do either one. I can, however, point out the differences in interpretation. For instance, I have no issues stating that 93/100 legislators in the Crimean Parliament, elected in 2010, represented parties who wanted to join with Russia. That's just stating a fact. If that annoys you, I don't particularly care, and I think I made that abundantly clear.

I'm rather weary of you dancing around a clear answer or confrontation of actual points raised, but fine, I'll answer your question:
SSRs got to decide because that's how it was determined the breakup would work.
Not my fault the USSR collapsed, and 'the West' isn't responsible for the fuckery that may have evolved from it. Simultaneously foreign invasion by Russia or any of the former Soviet Republics on their neighbors to correct any fuckery that may have happened isn't justified. If Russia fuckered their organizational districts, that's a problem. That's not a problem whose solution is Russian invasion of the SSR-derived territories based on ethnic reunification.

If Crimea was desired by Russia, there are perfectly legitimate manners in which a claim can be made and a referendum pushed for (I mean come on, it's not like Russia hasn't held the all-consuming gas card over Ukraine for what a decade at least now? Maybe more? If Russia wanted to pressure Ukraine over Crimea's status as a Ukrainian autonomous Republic, that's a damn big string to pull that Russia has been willing to pull before). Russia doesn't get to "correct" the "mistake" of Crimea's being legally transferred to Ukraine via anschluss of the region in blatant contravention of international law and treaties they've signed with Ukraine itself recognizing Crimea as belonging to Ukraine.
Or, I suppose, to be more accurate they don't get to without being called out on being massive imperialist dicks with no justification for doing so beyond the 'ethnic reunification' of the Greater German Reich Russian Federation and the pursuit of their own ambitions whilst flouting every international norm agreed upon.

Now, you can scream 'But yur Kosovo!' as loudly as you want, and perhaps even be correct in NATO having acted similarly. But tu quoque is a fallacy, not a justification.

Every international norm agreed upon? By whom? The phrase "every international norm agreed upon" sounds silly in and of itself, as countries rarely agree on international norms, aside from the basics. For instance, under international norms, does "no fly zone" mean "bomb the shit out of the government"? The difference between Crimea and Kosovo, is that 100,000 weren't ethnically cleansed from the Crimea, and that makes a huge difference. Even territorial integrity is a norm that can be breached in a case of actual Genocide, i.e. Rwanda. Also, I might've been ok with Anchluss, provided that the Austrians actually wanted it, and that no severe repression of minorities took place. Wasn't Texas annexed to the US in a similar manner? My issue with Hitler is him going into places where he wasn't wanted, not his occupation of the DMZ in Germany. My issue with Hitler is his murder of tens of millions of innocent civilians!

[Baltenstein]

Every international norm agreed upon?

A good start would be that one Memorandum in which Ukraine, in what has now been proven to be a clear case of missplaced trust, gave up its nuclear stockpile in exchange of binding Russian guarantees to respect its territorial integrity.

[Shofercia]

...
The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

Actually the reason most people make the Hitler-->Putin comparison is because of the arguments used to justify their actions (and, to a lesser extent the manner in which the referendum was carried out. IE: Post-anschluss under the gun).

You know, since the justification for the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is based around reunification of Crimea with their ethnic Russian brothers who desire to be ruled under the Russian state as the Germans in the Sudetenland desired to be ruled under the German state.
Though I guess the comparison isn't entirely valid. Hitler negotiated with the international community in order to twist Czeckoslovakia into ceding the Sudetenland uncontested, whereas Putin just used the threat of overwhelming force and the sudden appearance of 'Crimean self-defense forces with equipment and Russian trucks with license plates linking them to the military district outside of Moscow (21-Chuvashia) and BTRs they bought from the corner store or the Internet.'

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. To OD, et al, international community is just the West. Other places like the USSR, aren't even considered as part of the International Community. We all remember that it was mostly England and France, along with Italy, agreed with Hitler. And yet, what does OD inadvertently let slip?

Hitler negotiated with the international community

The fuck he did. He handpicked a few countries, that didn't represent most of the international community. What an inadvertent slip by OD, one that shows his true colors!

You said "plunge Russian Economy into Great Depression" or something like that. It was such a scary, scary, scary comparison...

No, I didn't. And if I did, a depression is defined as a recession of 10% or more. So that would have been correct.

If it's above 10% according to WB, you'll be right.

No, I didn't. It's a lame comparison made to fearmonger. Boooring.

Lol. Right. ASB has shown why it's valid.

Oh really? When's Russia annexing Estonia? I need to mark my calendar.

The reasons that most people make that comparison is to fearmonger. Been there, heard that. Boooring. Seriously, the whole "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" thing is getting old. Get new material please.

That was not the reason the comparison was made. Besides, being emboldened by making unopposed moves is in no way, a unique trait.

That was the comparison that ASB initially made.

Actually the reason most people make the Hitler-->Putin comparison is because of the arguments used to justify their actions (and, to a lesser extent the manner in which the referendum was carried out. IE: Post-anschluss under the gun).

You know, since the justification for the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is based around reunification of Crimea with their ethnic Russian brothers who desire to be ruled under the Russian state as the Germans in the Sudetenland desired to be ruled under the German state.
Though I guess the comparison isn't entirely valid. Hitler negotiated with the international community in order to twist Czeckoslovakia into ceding the Sudetenland uncontested, whereas Putin just used the threat of overwhelming force and the sudden appearance of 'Crimean self-defense forces with equipment and Russian trucks with license plates linking them to the military district outside of Moscow (21-Chuvashia) and BTRs they bought from the corner store or the Internet.'

That was explained to him.

That does not compute, since that is a comparison of Hitler (who invaded the glorious USSR, and is therefore satan) to Putin (who has presided over Russia rising from ashes to a considerable power, and is therefore god).

I may have slightly (but only slightly) exaggerated.

Slightly? I'm religious, so I wouldn't compare any person to God. You don't know much about me, Sib, so don't go around pretending otherwise, else you'll make yourself look like a fool.

There won't be a Crimean Insurgency, at least not an effective one. I've already addressed why: viewtopic.php?p=19060870#p19060870



Now they might pull off some attacks, but it'll probably be very short lived, or not very effective.




Sure thing

Obviously, it would be nothing like Chechnya. The terrain is not as rough, the ethnic landscape is not as diverse, and it would be harder to smuggle militants and material into Crimea.

In any case, over-reacting to terrorist incidents will be a PR minefield. I'm sure international media is going to be digging around for any signs of abuse. Over-reacting to the journalists snooping will also create more bad PR.

I doubt that Russians in the Crimea would overreact to terrorists. Let's not forget that the Second Chechen War was forced upon Russia, and there wasn't a lot of time to prepare. The Russian Armed Forces of today are different.

[Sibirsky]

No, I didn't. And if I did, a depression is defined as a recession of 10% or more. So that would have been correct.

If it's above 10% according to WB, you'll be right.

If gas and oil exports are 9.3% of GDP and drop significantly, you better believe the decline could very well be above that. People do work in those industries and they spend their money outside of it.

This of course does not take into account oil and gas exports to regions that would continue to buy, or any action taken by the Russian government to address the situation. But the point remains. This is not a slight bump in the road.

Lol. Right. ASB has shown why it's valid.

Oh really? When's Russia annexing Estonia? I need to mark my calendar.

I must have missed where ASB said that annexing Estonia was inevitable.

That was not the reason the comparison was made. Besides, being emboldened by making unopposed moves is in no way, a unique trait.

That was the comparison that ASB initially made.

ASB was not the first to make the comparison.

That was explained to him.

That does not compute, since that is a comparison of Hitler (who invaded the glorious USSR, and is therefore satan) to Putin (who has presided over Russia rising from ashes to a considerable power, and is therefore god).

I may have slightly (but only slightly) exaggerated.

Slightly? I'm religious, so I wouldn't compare any person to God. You don't know much about me, Sib, so don't go around pretending otherwise, else you'll make yourself look like a fool.

And again, you missed the point. God is good and Satan is bad. That's the point. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I know enough.

A very short summary of your views... all horrible things in the USSR were caused by Stalin.

The USSR was fantastic. The worst thing about it was long lines.

Russia is awesome. Yeltsin was horrible and Putin is awesome.

The Russian middle class is better off than the American middle class.

You also lie about everything, even if the lies are easy to prove wrong. For example...

That's not to say that California doesn't suck in some aspects - we do. I mean the division between rich and poor, the way that homeless are treated, the completely inept politicians, I mean who else has a race between Governor Moonbeam and Bitch who almost bankrupted E-Bay? But overall, not bad to live here; at least massive austerity hasn't hit yet; now if we could only improve our healthcare system, school system, and keep on funding our colleges, we might actually survive 2012. Scary thought, I know.

Now, I do realize that you have a Soviet education, and that topics like revenue, profits and losses are not prominently featured, but...

Whitman served as president and chief executive officer of eBay from 1998 to 2008. During her 10 years with the company, she oversaw its expansion from 30 employees and $4 million in annual revenue to more than 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue.

Workforce growth of more than 49,900% and revenue growth of more than 199,900% is "almost bankrupting" only according to you.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So no, Russia isn't justified in annexing territory based on bringing benefits to the annexed region, but you still use this as a reason for them to do so?
You should probably cut that out so no one mistakes it for something it isn't. Or explain the criteria.

I don't have to do either one. I can, however, point out the differences in interpretation. For instance, I have no issues stating that 93/100 legislators in the Crimean Parliament, elected in 2010, represented parties who wanted to join with Russia. That's just stating a fact. If that annoys you, I don't particularly care, and I think I made that abundantly clear.

Of course you don't have to.
Doing so would just give your argument credibility, rather than clarify it as being either empty or too easy to criticize that you will only allude to it so as to avoid it being 'misunderstood' by those big meanie-head Russophobes on the Internet who just don't understand!

It doesn't matter how many members of the Crimean Parliament supported unification with Russia (which, coincidentally, you haven't provided any actual evidence of beyond your own word and assurances that party x totes supports Russian annexation, much like Yanukovych was totes shot-at and those 'Crimean self-defense forces with stuff they bought from the corner store' totes weren't Russian soldiers).

So, again, you should either clarify why you think Russia was justified in invading and annexing Crimea and why such justification does not extend to other former regions of the USSR with substantial Russian populations which may desire to be part of Russia again, or not raise a disconnected point about conquered/'reunified' regions doing better under Russian rule.

Of course, as I said, you don't have to.
At this point, seeing as not justifying your own argument on anything more than rhetorical grounds seems to be a regular response by you, it makes your position seem pretty unsubstantiated, but that's your decision.

I'm rather weary of you dancing around a clear answer or confrontation of actual points raised, but fine, I'll answer your question:
SSRs got to decide because that's how it was determined the breakup would work.
Not my fault the USSR collapsed, and 'the West' isn't responsible for the fuckery that may have evolved from it. Simultaneously foreign invasion by Russia or any of the former Soviet Republics on their neighbors to correct any fuckery that may have happened isn't justified. If Russia fuckered their organizational districts, that's a problem. That's not a problem whose solution is Russian invasion of the SSR-derived territories based on ethnic reunification.

If Crimea was desired by Russia, there are perfectly legitimate manners in which a claim can be made and a referendum pushed for (I mean come on, it's not like Russia hasn't held the all-consuming gas card over Ukraine for what a decade at least now? Maybe more? If Russia wanted to pressure Ukraine over Crimea's status as a Ukrainian autonomous Republic, that's a damn big string to pull that Russia has been willing to pull before). Russia doesn't get to "correct" the "mistake" of Crimea's being legally transferred to Ukraine via anschluss of the region in blatant contravention of international law and treaties they've signed with Ukraine itself recognizing Crimea as belonging to Ukraine.
Or, I suppose, to be more accurate they don't get to without being called out on being massive imperialist dicks with no justification for doing so beyond the 'ethnic reunification' of the Greater German Reich Russian Federation and the pursuit of their own ambitions whilst flouting every international norm agreed upon.

Now, you can scream 'But yur Kosovo!' as loudly as you want, and perhaps even be correct in NATO having acted similarly. But tu quoque is a fallacy, not a justification.

Every international norm agreed upon? By whom?

The UN.
Also Russia, both by being part of the UN, former statements on international standards, and treaties with Ukraine.

The phrase "every international norm agreed upon" sounds silly in and of itself, as countries rarely agree on international norms, aside from the basics.

"Don't invade another country" is one of those basics.

For instance, under international norms, does "no fly zone" mean "bomb the shit out of the government"?

No, but "All necessary measures to protect civilians" definitely could.
What, are you saying Russia's UN ambassador was struck with a mental disability the whole time that resolution on Libya was being discussed and missed that part? He (or at least his translator) should probably be replaced if he hasn't been already if Russia misunderstood the meaning that greatly.

But then, Russia didn't. This is just some random internet-meme used...well, I'm not really sure what it's used for. To cement Russia and China as the stalwart defenders of national sovereignty of countries around the world* it seems.
*Offer not valid for Ukraine, possibly others depending on Russian/Chinese feelings on the matter

The difference between Crimea and Kosovo, is that 100,000 weren't ethnically cleansed from the Crimea, and that makes a huge difference.

Okay.
There weren't no ethnic cleansing in Crimea, so we can toss that aside, and now we know you're alright with the intervention in Kosovo it seems.

Even territorial integrity is a norm that can be breached in a case of actual Genocide, i.e. Rwanda.

Indeed. This is connected to...what exactly?
Because Ukraine wasn't committing a genocide in Crimea. So if we're returning to the "Russia haz to protect ethnic Russians!" argument, I'd like to nip that in the bud before it can sprout.

Otherwise, this is once again unrelated to much of anything we're talking about that I can identify.

Also, I might've been ok with Anchluss, provided that the Austrians actually wanted it, and that no severe repression of minorities took place. Wasn't Texas annexed to the US in a similar manner? My issue with Hitler is him going into places where he wasn't wanted, not his occupation of the DMZ in Germany. My issue with Hitler is his murder of tens of millions of innocent civilians!

There are more issues to have with Hitler than just the holocaust. Granted, that's the most direct action he took to object to, but one could also pinpoint his aggressive expansionism at gunpoint using rigged elections as justification until eventually trying for too much and plunging the world into war after the world attempted to garner 'peace in our time' by granting the man his demands.

You don't seem to be understanding one very major lesson from Hitler. A major lesson that was the reason for the utter and complete failure of the League of Nations in its purpose.
Allowing those who break international law and treaties to do so without punishment or condemnation raises more problems than it solves.

Then, of course, there is the issue of the Crimean referendum being entirely untrustworthy (perhaps not even incorrect in its expressal of the will of the populace, but untrustworthy from the international stage). We don't have any indication the referendum told the truth beyond it's own results (which, as mentioned, aren't trustworthy) and assurances by folks like you that it totes represents the will of Crimeans (this sounds familiar).

THEN, of course, there is the issue that even if the Crimean referendum was totally legitimate and expressed the real, unbiased viewpoint of a vast majority of Crimeans, COUNTRIES DON'T GET TO REORDER THEIR BORDERS BASED ON REFERENDUMS ALONE (or referendums and the prospective benefits rule by another country would bring the border region). Why? Because that's the way things have been agreed upon. Now, a single country can do so with the territories under its rule (their decision to make after all, see: Scottish referendum and the UK). But when a territory is controlled by a foreign country a poll of the people there (especially one boycotted by one side because its done under occupation by military forces) isn't sufficient for a transfer of that territory to a different country until that country has agreed to such. This is the way mutually accepted international borders work (it being important to note here that Russia accepted the territorial borders of Ukraine as including Crimea. And seeing as how no UN resolution was made for sending in peacekeepers, nor was there any genocide against Russians in Crimea that might serve as a justification for Russian intervention in the region, nor did Ukraine cede the territory to Russia, nor did Russia make any attempt at ANY discussion (with Ukraine or otherwise) it's really goddamned easy to say they broke every agreed upon international norm there is that is applicable in the situation).

Russia isn't special. It doesn't get special rules. Particularly when it has been, in the past, the most stringent advocate of the rules.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Actually the reason most people make the Hitler-->Putin comparison is because of the arguments used to justify their actions (and, to a lesser extent the manner in which the referendum was carried out. IE: Post-anschluss under the gun).

You know, since the justification for the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is based around reunification of Crimea with their ethnic Russian brothers who desire to be ruled under the Russian state as the Germans in the Sudetenland desired to be ruled under the German state.
Though I guess the comparison isn't entirely valid. Hitler negotiated with the international community in order to twist Czeckoslovakia into ceding the Sudetenland uncontested, whereas Putin just used the threat of overwhelming force and the sudden appearance of 'Crimean self-defense forces with equipment and Russian trucks with license plates linking them to the military district outside of Moscow (21-Chuvashia) and BTRs they bought from the corner store or the Internet.'

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. To OD, et al, international community is just the West. Other places like the USSR, aren't even considered as part of the International Community. We all remember that it was mostly England and France, along with Italy, agreed with Hitler. And yet, what does OD inadvertently let slip?

Hitler negotiated with the international community

The fuck he did. He handpicked a few countries, that didn't represent most of the international community. What an inadvertent slip by OD, one that shows his true colors!

Oh drat, you've exposed me! I'm secretly a 30s era British Conservative that wants to maintain peace in our time and the honour of the Queen and...and...the presence of 'u' in words like 'honour' and 'colour' and such! What-what, pip-pip-cheerio, and all that.

Or, if we'd like to take a step back from incomprehensible gotcha babbling for a moment, we could perhaps notice that four countries talking about something can be called an 'international community'. But apparently this is now Russophobia (Sovietophobia?).
Just as calling the G-7 an international community is obviously now Russophobia, as it no longer includes that country.

I used 'international community' as a stand-in for English/French/Italian "Four Party Talks" (and their effect on Czechoslovakia), alright Shof? I apologize if this terminology offends you. Or do you claim that the USSR was involved in the Munich Agreement? Because I don't seem to recall that in...anything. The usage works because England and France were allied with Czechoslovakia, making their participation a major requirement for anything that occurred and a prime reason the Czechs lost their land. Now, the League of Nations was a broader international community that I suppose, were one unfamiliar with the Sudetenland crisis and the Munich Agreement, one could think I was speaking of, but I'm having serious difficulty seeing exactly what you're talking about in this context Shof?

If it makes you feel better, the LoN was also entirely incapable of doing anything to stop Hitler as well. Making them about as effective at confronting German expansionism as the UN is now at confronting the modern Russian version in Crimea.

Now, this has served as a very stimulating strawman/conspiracy-theory by you, Shof. But we really should return to the point of the comparison which you seem intent on avoiding at all costs lest you have to admit the comparison between Putin's actions in the Crimea and Hitler's in the Sudetenland are comparable.

There are avenues by which Russia could lie claim to Crimea, negotiations it could hold to influence the Ukrainian government into doing something about Crimea, and non-military measures which could be used to bludgeon Ukraine into taking action.
Russia skipped all that, skipped talking to ANYBODY (Ukraine itself or any member of the 'international community' or the UN), and jumped straight to 'Move in military, hold referendum, say all is good'.
I mean fuck, Hitler talked to Czechoslovakia's allies in the international community.
Putin didn't mention a peep to nobody and the Russian government actively denied any designs on Crimea until the nice men in balaclavas showed up in the Russian trucks with the Russian tanks, followed by the nice men in balaclavas with Russian patches.

[Hyosong]

The Cold War called. It says it wants its paranoia back.

Tell you what: If Russia hasn't moved into the Ukraine by the end of summer, I'll admit that I was mistaken..

The question is, if they have, will you?

Sure. It's a bet.

[Hyosong]

Russia isn't special. It doesn't get special rules.

Of course not, we all know only the US is special and gets to invade other countries with impunity, right?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Russia isn't special. It doesn't get special rules.

Of course not, we all know only the US is special and gets to invade other countries with impunity, right?

No, the US isn't special either.
Whether it acts like it is immaterial to this discussion, and a fallacy if somehow being used to justify Russian action.

Edit:

Every international norm agreed upon?

A good start would be that one Memorandum in which Ukraine, in what has now been proven to be a clear case of missplaced trust, gave up its nuclear stockpile in exchange of binding Russian guarantees to respect its territorial integrity.

Russia just must of forgot about it!
I mean, you know how treaties and such can get lost in filing cabinets or the like, and it's not like their current foreign representative Sergey Lavrov was a signatory of the Budapest Memor--

(Signed) Sergey V. LAVROV Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (emphasis in original)

Oh...Well...Isn't it a sad day to see a well-known Russian diplomat beginning to succumb to the terrible scourge of aging and memory loss?

[Tahar Joblis]

See? Not even a plurality of ethnic Russians. Let alone a majority.

I said that, and went to point that Russians would've had a plurality, eventually, and that the difference was 2.4%. However, if you want to be that anal about it, I could also point out that if you're going to split up Russians and Ukrainians in 1897, you should also split up the Crimean Tatars into three groups: Tats (55%), Yalibou (30%) and Nogay (15%), which would effectively give Russians a plurality. But that's besides the point, since Russians have a majority now.

No, it's not beside the point, because you were appealing to history.

On the order of one third of the population was ethnically Russian, and we're on what is very literally and geographically on the edge of Russian territory.

EDIT: And in case you've forgotten the Ottoman Empire next door, I haven't. Crimea was of critical strategic importance because it was indeed on the edge of Russian-held territories, with an assortment of other polities a stone's throw away over the water.

I think we have a different definition of what periphery means. Using your definition, Boston was also on the periphery of the US, as was Washington DC.

Wouldn't qualify as far as ethnic or historical descriptions I've given for Crimea, and struggles to do so in terms of physical geography.

I can draw a straight line from Sevastapol to multiple cities within the Ottoman Empire, less than 200 miles long, that does not cross any Russian territory of note.

Try Detroit.

When there's turmoil, revolution, or economic depression, people tend to want to separate from the central government. If only I could think of a modern example of that... something like Crimea perhaps?

Surveys indicated otherwise. There's no solid evidence to indicate that Putin's referendum results are credible. Try again.

For that matter, a majority of voters in Crimea voted in favor of independence for the Ukrainian SSR, including a majority of ethnic Russians.

No more and no less than the entire Ukraine. As I pointed out, during the Russian Empire, Crimea was placed under larger administrative units which were both:

(A) Largely ethnically Ukrainian.
(B) Now fall entirely within modern-day Ukrainian borders.

See, Crimea was administratively part of Taurida:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurida_Governorate

(Principally Ukrainian on the whole, with ethnic Russians falling a distant second)

And before that, "New Russia," an even more Ukrainian administrative unit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk_Governorate

I'm not missing those parts of history. I'm putting them in complete context. The fact of the matter is that from 1783-1917, while Crimea was owned by the Russian Empire, so was what is now modern-day Ukraine, and Crimea was viewed as part of one or another largely-Ukrainian piece of it. Exactly corresponding, in other words, to the 1954-1991 status of Crimea as part of the Ukrainian SSR.

The appeal to historical possession you're making is no more and no less the same appeal to historical possession that would be trotted out were Putin to march troops into Kiev itself. The principal historical-ethnic claim on Crimea is Turkic; and the principal political-geographic claim on Crimea is Ukrainian. The predecessor states / administrative units / etc of the modern-day Ukraine owned Crimea 1783-1917 and 1954 up until Ukrainian independence in 1991.

The period in which Crimea has been part of an independent Ukraine (23 years) is nearly as long as the directly "Russian-but-not-Ukrainian" period (32 years), and far more recent. And that's the only historical period you can point to for claiming that Crimea should be Russian-but-not-Ukrainian territory.

Get the point?

Except Crimea was administered from Moscow, since in Imperial Russia, Moscow was the boss. As Emperor Paul I said it: "the only person who was important in Russia was the one speaking to the Emperor, and only while he was so speaking!" Granted, that's an exaggeration, but any Russian Emperor could've subordinated Taurida to any Russian administrative center, and no one would ask twice. The very fact that Crimea was shifted back and forth within the Empire, merely illustrated this concept, and the Russian Navy stationed in Crimea, held Imperial Decrees above local whims.

Crimea was "shifted back and forth" exactly one half of one time, that is, its status within Russia changed only when the Novorossiysk Governorate was dissolved into component parts, very early in Imperial Russian control of the territory.

Your assertion that the administrative unit was of no local significance is baldly incorrect. That the governor served at the whim of the tsar is true, but exactly as I said, does absolutely nothing to differentiate Crimea from the rest of Ukrainian territory. The same exact appeal to historical ownership could be made of any piece of land within modern Ukrainian boundaries.

As I pointed out, quite correctly, the period under Stalin where Crimea was part of the Russian SSR instead of the Ukrainian SSR is the historical anomaly. At all other points where Crimea was subject to authority from Moscow, Crimea was either the site of a hot war or considered part of a larger predominantly Ukrainian administrative unit. In terms of the history of the region, in other words, the Ukrainian claim is plainly and obviously stronger, and the Russian claim that it was Russian first can only be taken as either:

(A) Devoid of sound reasoning.
(B) A declaration that Russia does not respect the sovereignty of all former possessions of Russia.

One of the arguments I made, was Kiev ignoring Crimea, when they had the two plus decades to help out the Peninsula. Did Estonia ignore Estonia? Nope. Perhaps Latvia ignored Latvia? Nope. Hmm, but maybe, just maybe, Lithuania ignored Lithuania? Nope. As for Kazakhstan, the government actually gives a shit about their peripheries. The Government should give that a try, instead of the crap they usually do. They still have a chance with Odessa. But I doubt they'll be smart enough to realize it.

I would say that you're full of crap when you claim that Kiev was ignoring Crimea. Again, I point to the surveys of public opinion: Crimeans indicated they would rather be ruled by Kiev than Moscow. The non-secret referendum conducted at gunpoint (the results of which are neither legitimate nor trustworthy) did not even give the option of being ruled by Kiev; you cannot even point to that in support of your claim that Crimeans did not want to be ruled by Kiev.

We have, simply, that the Russian government marched troops in without uniforms, seized Parliament on the 27th of February, and installed a new prime minister whose party had gotten 4% of the vote in the last election. Under military occupation, the Parliament "declared" Crimean independence (at gunpoint), "voted" for a referendum on joining Russia (at gunpoint), which the population then got to participate in (at gunpoint). All prior indications are that those who wanted Crimea to rejoin Russia were a vocal minority with little support.

[Respawn]

It seems that Right Sector leader, Aleksandr Muzychko, has been killed.

I know it is RT, but this appears to be a legit story.

[Keventle]

When will Obama grow some balls to actually do something? I mean he puts silly sanctions which Putin doesn't care. He tries to gather allied support, but oh wait we spied on them early! Blast!

[Keventle]

(Im not calling for WW3) or any military conflict at that.

[Avenio]

(Im not calling for WW3) or any military conflict at that.

When will Obama grow some balls to actually do something? I mean he puts silly sanctions which Putin doesn't care. He tries to gather allied support, but oh wait we spied on them early! Blast!

What, exactly, do you want him to do then, if not start WWIII?

[Sibirsky]

(Im not calling for WW3) or any military conflict at that.

And what do you expect him to do?

Sanctions, according to you, are not enough. Military action, also according to you, is too much. What then?

[Occupied Deutschland]

(Im not calling for WW3) or any military conflict at that.

And what do you expect him to do?

Sanctions, according to you, are not enough. Military action, also according to you, is too much. What then?

The only proper and honorable thing for Obama to do is challenge Putin to a duel.

[Raktio]

And what do you expect him to do?

Sanctions, according to you, are not enough. Military action, also according to you, is too much. What then?

The only proper and honorable thing for Obama to do is challenge Putin to a duel.

Nothing says honorable like a duel.

[Sibirsky]

And what do you expect him to do?

Sanctions, according to you, are not enough. Military action, also according to you, is too much. What then?

The only proper and honorable thing for Obama to do is challenge Putin to a duel.

I support this.

[Alien Space Bats]

Also, I might've been ok with Anchluss, provided that the Austrians actually wanted it, and that no severe repression of minorities took place. Wasn't Texas annexed to the US in a similar manner?

You can't be that ignorant of American history.

Texas formally petitioned Congress for admission to the United States as a State in 1845, nine years after the Texans won their independence from Mexico (in 1836); the offer was made after lengthy negotiations between the U.S. and Texan government, into which the duly elected government of the Lone Star Republic entered into willingly. Indeed, negotiations over the admission of Texas to the U.S. had began in secret in 1843; agreement was reached with the Houston administration in 1844, at which point the treaty was divulged to the public; this led to it becoming a campaign issue in the U.S. Presidential Election of 1844.

The treaty failed its first approval vote before the U.S. Senate in June, 1844. Following the victory of the pro-annexation Democratic candidate, James K. Polk, in November, 1844, the treaty was resubmitted for approval. After some further legislative maneuvering, the annexation was finally approved in December, 1845, and the annexation actually took place in February, 1846.

---

Germany's Anschluss with Austria followed quite a different trajectory. Rising Nazi pressure on the government in Vienna ultimately led to a failed coup in July, 1934 that left Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss dead. Austrian police moved quickly to suppress the coup, and most of the conspirators fled to Germany, where their German friends gave them refuge.

Over the next four years, the Austrian secret police worked to keep the Nazis in check; over time, however, the Nazis gained more and more momentum, and the German Reich pressed Asutria ever harder in turn to make concessions. Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg finally made concessions to the Nazis under pressure from Hitler in February, 1938, placing a Nazi in charge of all police forces in Austria. Less that three weeks later, under further pressure from Germany, Schuschnigg scheduled a plebiscite on unification for March 18th, 1938.

Two days later — and a full week ahead of the plebiscite — Hitler demanded that Schuschnigg resign, handing all power over the Austrian Nazis; as he did so, the German Wehrmacht (Army) began removing border barriers and entering Austria. Without support from France or Britain, Austria could not successfully oppose the German invasion; thus Schuschnigg chose to resign that evening, calling upon Austrians not to resist in order "to avoid the shedding of fraternal blood". German forces entered Vienna triumphally on March 15, 1938; two days earlier, Austria's new Nazi government decreed that Austria and Germany were united subject to the pending plebiscite, which was shoved back to April 10, 1938. The subsequent plebiscite was neither free nor fair, essentially rubber-stamping the actions of the Nazi government Hitler had imposed on Austria under threat of force.

---

There are obvious differences here between what happened in Texas and what happened in Austria. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Texas was ever under any pressure to join the U.S., that voices of dissent were suppressed, or that the results represented anything other than the will of those affected. The same cannot at all be said of what happened in Austria.

[Russian Homeboy in LA]

Attention to all concerned:

We are back. Our long term goal, as a people, is the return of all former Russian lands to the Soviet Union which we shall eventually be reviving. This includes not just Crimea and Transdniestra but also Hawaii, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

Further if our demands for constitutional reforms in Ukraine are not met, you should know that the Russian government is prepared to take certain actions which NATO and the US are totally powerless to prevent.


We suggest the British government not get any ideas of military involvement considering that our backfire bombers have been able to penetrate all the way through British air space while not a single british air craft has been able to enter Russian air space. It would after all, be ufortunate for them if the UK were to lose control of the North Sea oil fields.

Do not forget we have people in UK, US, and Canada that can make trouble should things escalate.

The EU and America should not forget that Russia has operational military bases in both Syria and Venezuela.

For three decades you have foolishly lived under the false assumption that Russian people were defeated impoverished nation. What you have seen in Crimea, Syria, and Georgia should shock back to the reality which is that Russia is still and always was a power to reckon with.

You need to realise that the reason your countries are limiting their response to whining and slap on the wrist sanctions is that both Europe and the US cannot stop the Russian armed forces steam rolling across Europe or America any time we choose to do so. This is has been greatly helped by your foolish military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other parts of Africa where your strength was sapped by bogged down military operations that also wiped out your economies which are now so dependent on mother Russia that serious sanctions on Russia would destroy the economies of all Europe.

As the Americans say, you have check mated.

[Russian Homeboy in LA]

Also, I might've been ok with Anchluss, provided that the Austrians actually wanted it, and that no severe repression of minorities took place. Wasn't Texas annexed to the US in a similar manner?

You can't be that ignorant of American history.

Texas formally petitioned Congress for admission to the United States as a State in 1845, nine years after the Texans won their independence from Mexico (in 1836); the offer was made after lengthy negotiations between the U.S. and Texan government, into which the duly elected government of the Lone Star Republic entered into willingly. Indeed, negotiations over the admission of Texas to the U.S. had began in secret in 1843; agreement was reached with the Houston administration in 1844, at which point the treaty was divulged to the public; this led to it becoming a campaign issue in the U.S. Presidential Election of 1844.

The treaty failed its first approval vote before the U.S. Senate in June, 1844. Following the victory of the pro-annexation Democratic candidate, James K. Polk, in November, 1844, the treaty was resubmitted for approval. After some further legislative maneuvering, the annexation was finally approved in December, 1845, and the annexation actually took place in February, 1846.

---

Germany's Anschluss with Austria followed quite a different trajectory. Rising Nazi pressure on the government in Vienna ultimately led to a failed coup in July, 1934 that left Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss dead. Austrian police moved quickly to suppress the coup, and most of the conspirators fled to Germany, where their German friends gave them refuge.

Over the next four years, the Austrian secret police worked to keep the Nazis in check; over time, however, the Nazis gained more and more momentum, and the German Reich pressed Asutria ever harder in turn to make concessions. Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg finally made concessions to the Nazis under pressure from Hitler in February, 1938, placing a Nazi in charge of all police forces in Austria. Less that three weeks later, under further pressure from Germany, Schuschnigg scheduled a plebiscite on unification for March 18th, 1938.

Two days later — and a full week ahead of the plebiscite — Hitler demanded that Schuschnigg resign, handing all power over the Austrian Nazis; as he did so, the German Wehrmacht (Army) began removing border barriers and entering Austria. Without support from France or Britain, Austria could not successfully oppose the German invasion; thus Schuschnigg chose to resign that evening, calling upon Austrians not to resist in order "to avoid the shedding of fraternal blood". German forces entered Vienna triumphally on March 15, 1938; two days earlier, Austria's new Nazi government decreed that Austria and Germany were united subject to the pending plebiscite, which was shoved back to April 10, 1938. The subsequent plebiscite was neither free nor fair, essentially rubber-stamping the actions of the Nazi government Hitler had imposed on Austria under threat of force.

---

There are obvious differences here between what happened in Texas and what happened in Austria. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Texas was ever under any pressure to join the U.S., that voices of dissent were suppressed, or that the results represented anything other than the will of those affected. The same cannot at all be said of what happened in Austria.

Comrade you forget that the US illegally annexed the entire northern half of Mexico and Europe illegally chopped up Serbia while illegally using its military to depose the legitimate leaders of both Iraq and Libya.

[Costa Fierro]

Attention to all concerned:

We are back. Our long term goal, as a people, is the return of all former Russian lands to the Soviet Union which we shall eventually be reviving. This includes not just Crimea and Transdniestra but also Hawaii, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

Further if our demands for constitutional reforms in Ukraine are not met, you should know that the Russian government is prepared to take certain actions which NATO and the US are totally powerless to prevent.


We suggest the British government not get any ideas of military involvement considering that our backfire bombers have been able to penetrate all the way through British air space while not a single british air craft has been able to enter Russian air space. It would after all, be ufortunate for them if the UK were to lose control of the North Sea oil fields.

Do not forget we have people in UK, US, and Canada that can make trouble should things escalate.

The EU and America should not forget that Russia has operational military bases in both Syria and Venezuela.

For three decades you have foolishly lived under the false assumption that Russian people were defeated impoverished nation. What you have seen in Crimea, Syria, and Georgia should shock back to the reality which is that Russia is still and always was a power to reckon with.

You need to realise that the reason your countries are limiting their response to whining and slap on the wrist sanctions is that both Europe and the US cannot stop the Russian armed forces steam rolling across Europe or America any time we choose to do so. This is has been greatly helped by your foolish military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other parts of Africa where your strength was sapped by bogged down military operations that also wiped out your economies which are now so dependent on mother Russia that serious sanctions on Russia would destroy the economies of all Europe.

As the Americans say, you have check mated.

COMRADE! WHY YOU DRINK ALL OF VODKA?