Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no love lost between the Tatars of Crimea and the Russians. Stalin accused them, falsely, of collaborating with the Nazis and transported a ton of them to Russia where they were poorly treated. About half died during this whole fiasco, but many have come back. Whether they will fight a Russian takeover remains to be seen.
“Our people are peaceful, but if they threaten us, our men will defend the community,” Mr. Murat said.
(NYT, 3/1/14)
We'll see.
Stalin moved a lot of Russians to the Crimea. Whether these folks want to be under Russian rule -- well, time will tell.
Just remember that Stalin was not Russian, that Tatars account only for 13% of Russian population and what Russians in Crimea want to do - it's their own business.
But so far that's what I see is going on in Sebastopol; Crimea
Russia is a genuine fascist state (proper fascism is a corporate state without a fig leaf of democracy), it appears that most of Russian people don't want any fig leaf of democracy anyway, since they link democracy with corruption and moral & power decay, never mind the fact that less than democratic Russia is among the most corrupt, and morals are not that great either. So, it's not just evil Putin, Putin resonates well with Russian psyche. Modern Russian psyche wants State Imperial glory, international respect if not fear, achievements in science, sports and industry, internal order but fortunately it relies on a strongman to deliver all of that and more.
Russians are no longer capable of overcoming challenges the old Russian/Soviet way - using cheap/slave labor, peasant fatalism, temporary soviet enthusiasm and millions of lives, they are too soft and incapable for that now, and they didn't learn any other way. So, globally speaking, Russia is not particularly dangerous despite reviving old Soviet propaganda templates and Hitler' invasion scenarios. Even assuming inaction of the West and inevitable spike in delusion of grandeur, Russians are impotent. Russians are no longer an imperial nation, they are too narrowly nationalistic if not Nazi like for that. Sure, Germans were Nazis too but they were not soft and they didn't deal with challenges the Russian way, see above.
Russians posses a special kind of imperial nationalism, they are so accustomed to it, they just don't notice it. I guess it's because the culture westerners call "Russian" is not particularly Russian, it's bastardized Western European culture transplanted on the Russian soil, and it bothers them. To compensate for the latent inferiority complexes, Russians fell in love with "The White Man's Burden", they do imagine themselves as a higher race that brings knowledge, language and culture to the lesser tribes in Eurasia, amount of the racial and ethic slur is deafening for a PC American ear (even if it's from deep South). Naturally, master race cannot be inconvenienced by the subhuman languages of the lesser tribes, it's not right and it's not convenient. It's sacrilegious for the imperial Sevastopol Russians to be exposed to untermensch Ukrainian language, the fact of simple exposure (no knowledge or learning required) constitutes an abuse. That's the empire-cultural roots of the current turmoil. The rest is economics.
Russia is done as an expanding global force, it doesn't mean it should be allowed to replay 1938.
Russia is a genuine fascist state (proper fascism is a corporate state without a fig leaf of democracy), it appears that most of Russian people don't want any fig leaf of democracy anyway, since they link democracy with corruption and moral & power decay, never mind the fact that less than democratic Russia is among the most corrupt, and morals are not that great either. So, it's not just evil Putin, Putin resonates well with Russian psyche. Modern Russian psyche wants State Imperial glory, international respect if not fear, achievements in science, sports and industry, internal order but fortunately it relies on a strongman to deliver all of that and more.
Russians are no longer capable of overcoming challenges the old Russian/Soviet way - using cheap/slave labor, peasant fatalism, temporary soviet enthusiasm and millions of lives, they are too soft and incapable for that now, and they didn't learn any other way. So, globally speaking, Russia is not particularly dangerous despite reviving old Soviet propaganda templates and Hitler' invasion scenarios. Even assuming inaction of the West and inevitable spike in delusion of grandeur, Russians are impotent. Russians are no longer an imperial nation, they are too narrowly nationalistic if not Nazi like for that. Sure, Germans were Nazis too but they were not soft and they didn't deal with challenges the Russian way, see above.
Russians posses a special kind of imperial nationalism, they are so accustomed to it, they just don't notice it. I guess it's because the culture westerners call "Russian" is not particularly Russian, it's bastardized Western European culture transplanted on the Russian soil, and it bothers them. To compensate for the latent inferiority complexes, Russians fell in love with "The White Man's Burden", they do imagine themselves as a higher race that brings knowledge, language and culture to the lesser tribes in Eurasia, amount of the racial and ethic slur is deafening for a PC American ear (even if it's from deep South). Naturally, master race cannot be inconvenienced by the subhuman languages of the lesser tribes, it's not right and it's not convenient. It's sacrilegious for the imperial Sevastopol Russians to be exposed to untermensch Ukrainian language, the fact of simple exposure (no knowledge or learning required) constitutes an abuse. That's the empire-cultural roots of the current turmoil. The rest is economics.
Russia is done as an expanding global force, it doesn't mean it should be allowed to replay 1938.
LOL. Would read and laugh again.
What are your thoughts on USA secretly funding $5 Billion to de-stabilize and help over-throw a democratically elected leader in Ukraine?
And how Americans would feel if Russia did this with Mexico?
What are your thoughts on USA secretly funding $5 Billion to de-stabilize and help over-throw a democratically elected leader in Ukraine?
And how Americans would feel if Russia did this with Mexico?
What do you LOL about? Have you counted those 5 billions? Perhaps some bills stick to your hands? Could you spare a few, please, very please?
Populace has the the right for rebellion, just ask founding fathers. It was a rebellion, it succeeded despite the odds, even pro Yanukovich regions accepted the fact that they elected a scumbag who fled and abandoned his duty to boot. Nobody was going to stir up trouble over the ousted president, even Crimea, if not for Russian meddling. How many billions would this Putin macho circus cost to mother Russia? What about long term costs? Any guesses?
How America would feel about Mexico sending its troops to California to protect Spanish speaking population and to oversee a referendum on California "independence" (i.e. annexation by Mexico)?
What do you LOL about? Have you counted those 5 billions? Perhaps some bills stick to your hands? Could you spare a few, please, very please?
Populace has the the right for rebellion, just ask founding fathers. It was a rebellion, it succeeded despite the odds, even pro Yanukovich regions accepted the fact that they elected a scumbag who fled and abandoned his duty to boot. Nobody was going to stir up trouble over the ousted president, even Crimea, if not for Russian meddling. How many billions would this Putin macho circus cost to mother Russia? What about long term costs? Any guesses?
How America would feel about Mexico sending its troops to California to protect Spanish speaking population and to oversee a referendum on California "independence" (i.e. annexation by Mexico)?
They are in denial of way too many things, idiocy of their fearless leader, for one. Which one you are talking about? Putin lost his marbles over Ukraine. He managed to unite most of the Russian and Ukrainian speakers outside of Crimea, Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine didn't break away to unite with mother Russia, never mind zero power of the new Ukrainian government to affect things over there. He's lost Ukraine to have a slight chance on annexation of Crimea (not a fact yet). Now he must occupy entire Ukraine (currently impossible) or face yet another less than friendly nation with fresh sour memories on the Russian borders, a member of NATO, that's almost certain.
No, nothing like "Hitler" (the all familiar Fox News reference); A coup happened in Ukraine, it overthrew an elected president. The US sent troops into Haiti to restore Aristide after a coup, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to quell protesters; yet somehow Russia is wrong on this? The US sent troops into Grenada to "protect American students".
The word I used was "reminiscent", intending nothing more. But I still think there are similarities in the German justification put forward in 1938-39 and those of Russia today.
I don't get the Fox Channel from my particular cable service so, I can't add to, nor take from, what you say. All I know about it is what is said about it, which is that it's very much right-wing spin rather than news - but I don't know personally.
The mechanism by which Yanukovitch was dismissed is puzzling; was it legal under the Constitution, and if so, what does that say about that Constitution?
You can take it that Grenada - and other notable actions too - were in my mind when I mentioned "the high ground". But, two "wrongs", we used to say, don't make a "right". I thought Grenada was wrong, and the Sudetenland invasion in 1938 was wrong. So, yes; I believe Russia/Ukraine too is wrong, because they have invaded another country, for their own reasons; and I think their stated justification for doing so is unconvincing, until I see convincing contrary arugment.
See, where I come from, we have had our own issues with a large, imperial power intimidating, occupying, expropriating, and being responsible both for primary, directly collateral, secondary, tertiary and even generational casualties and losses. This sort of thing can influence one's thinking, it may be admitted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
In regards to Georgia; Georgia is the one who started the attack, this is not dispute, all global bodies like the US and OSCE hold Georgia responsible for the Russia-Georgia conflict. If US soldiers acting as peacekeepers were attacked, would the US not retaliate? The only think Russia was criticized for was the use of disproportionate amount of force, as if a country is not suppose to use what it has to protect its troops; the US is using multi-million dollar equipment against AK-47 Taliban.
Well; if a country has an overwhelmingly strong military capability, the "appropriate/commensurate response" proposition is always very dubious. Because that capability is always available, and will certainly be used if deemed necessary, the outcome is never in doubt. See, it's always the more powerful country that decides the response, and how much it is prepared to inflict in delivering it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
