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.
Well, it is a mixed bag, that is correct, but I don't see any reason why the EU should be blamed for anything. The EU didn't at any point make Ukraine choose between Russia and the EU. The EU would never do that either. If via Ukraine the EU and Russia could had get closer, EU would've liked it. It was Putin who made Ukraine choose, or Yanukovych, in fact. The people of Ukraine thought otherwise. Of course the EU didn't cancel their deal, but Yanu wouldn't had signed it anyway.
The only thing that was incompatible was that Ukraine could not be part of EFTA AND The Eurasian Union (or its customs union).
If Russia would've wanted to keep a free trade deal with Ukraine that would be ok. During the Cold War Finland was in EFTA but also had a bilateral trade deal with the USSR. No big deal. The CETA deal with Canada is due to get ratified in matter of days.
Of course the EU tries to influence policies of member candidates, as to become a part of this club you also have to subscribe to certain ideals, like fair elections, human rights, free press, fight corruption, not use military power against another member and so on. All the good stuff. But that also worked negatively when the Bun Head (Tymoshenko) was imprisoned, and the EU-Ukraine deal was then postponed.
In any case, even in 2013 we knew that it will take decades for Ukraine to even possibly become an EU member. If it would've been about trade, there were plenty of time to make whatever deals. But this wasn't Russia's point. For them it was unacceptable to let Ukraine get even an inch closer to the West, but stop the slippery slope in its tracks. Russia did it in 2008 as well with Georgia, and it worked. Back then there was talk about getting closer to the EU and NATO, now nobody talks about it anymore.
And as Russia is in a very weak situation, its only possibility to create and uphold an sphere of influence is acting like this. It has no soft power, slim economic powers, but it has military power. And if for some reason Lukashenka would be ousted and Belarus would want to get closer to the EU, the Russian tanks would roll into Minsk and all the talks would be over. And believe me: Russia will do that.
As long as Russia acts like this, it can expect no concessions or sympathy from the West. Neither has the West any interest in dealing with Russia more than necessary. And if as a result Russia turns inwards for good, it digs itself deeper into its cold war grave until it drowns.
For example, if the gas and oil pipes were shut off tomorrow, it might get a bit chilly inside houses in Western Europe, but in Russia there will be famine in a few years, and the Putin or whoever who's in charge then will have 1917 all over his hands again. When the pensions are not coming, you have no food, looking at a map of Crimea belonging to Russia will not keep the hunger away.
---
Regarding Crimea, it probably wanted to be a part of Russia. But the referendum was still a joke. If there isn't even a "no, stay with Ukraine" option on the ballot, the referendum is worth nothing. And even less, sending Little Green Men and take the peninsula by force is definitely not the way to go. Ukraine probably knows that it won't get Crimea back, the EU and US surely knows that, and in time Ukraine will probably accept it. But the separatist areas are a different story. To get things back to normal, Russia must step back, and as it won't do it, the situation will not normalise. But the EU and NATO can wait indefinitely, as the balance of power is so overwhelmingly in our favour. In 25 years we won't probably need that gas and oil anymore, as solar, wind and other renewable power will be become more and more common. And as Russia has nothing else to sell to us, well, there's your famine.
I can respect this reply and agree with most of what you said, also I found the image you posted funny
I can respect this reply and agree with most of what you said, also I found the image you posted funny
What Ariete mentions are all very good points, especially those in regards to Crimea. The other problem I have with the 2014 referendum is that the numbers are just not plausible. Apparently 97% voted to join Russia. That number is just way to high no matter how we look at it. Consider many separatist movements around the world ( I'm using the term separatist here very liberally to define any movement that wishes to split from the original country, regardless of whether they are seeking independence or wish to join another union) and you'll see that even in the very prominent ones like Quebec or Catalonia the votes in favour of independence max out at around 60-70% ( and that's largely through polls) and even then those numbers have dwindled. Just look at the Scottish referendum, where for all the talk about independence the 'Yes' vote failed.
How did we get such a unanimous vote in Crimea?
The bigger question is what are the implications for other former Soviet territories? If Crimea can go to Russia, what happens to the rest of Ukraine? What about other Soviet republics like Kazakhstan?
Well there's no way more than a tiny few Crimean Tatars would vote to join Russia. They are about 15% of the population so at most you'd have 85% wanting to join Russia. Some polls found support in the 80s % of the non Tatar population wanted to be in Russia. So they would have won a referendum, easily. It would have been in the 70s at least. But Putin can't help but rig it, so he did.
Crimea was not treated well under Ukrainian rule, so this should come as no surprise. Putin offered a somewhat credible increase to their livelihood. It hasn't materialized but it will improve when and if Russia and Ukraine strike a deal over Crimea.
Well there's no way more than a tiny few Crimean Tatars would vote to join Russia. They are about 15% of the population so at most you'd have 85% wanting to join Russia. Some polls found support in the 80s % of the non Tatar population wanted to be in Russia. So they would have won a referendum, easily. It would have been in the 70s at least. But Putin can't help but rig it, so he did.
Crimea was not treated well under Ukrainian rule, so this should come as no surprise. Putin offered a somewhat credible increase to their livelihood. It hasn't materialized but it will improve when and if Russia and Ukraine strike a deal over Crimea.
The problem is that, like what Ariete said, there were only 2 options, either "join Russia" or "restore 1992 constitution ". Without an option to remain, no matter how slight of a chance it had, the referendum cannot be viewed as legitimate. I can buy that Crimeans were in favour of joining Russia, but the numbers are just bogus, even 80% is pushing it. If Putin did in fact rig it, then I'll give him props for not going with the cliche 99% like some dictators do.
Polls are also not the best way to view things, for the simple reason that pro independence forces tend to be more proactive there. Many polls held in Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia would lead you to believe that an overwhelming majority of the population seeks independence. The reality is that none of them succeeded until now. Sure, there was a sizeable portion who voted for independence, but it topped out at around the 40-45%. Polls would lead you to believe that the UK would choose to remain in the EU, or that Hillary would crush Trump in the final election.
The problem is that, like what Ariete said, there were only 2 options, either "join Russia" or "restore 1992 constitution ". Without an option to remain, no matter how slight of a chance it had, the referendum cannot be viewed as legitimate. I can buy that Crimeans were in favour of joining Russia, but the numbers are just bogus, even 80% is pushing it. If Putin did in fact rig it, then I'll give him props for not going with the cliche 99% like some dictators do.
Polls are also not the best way to view things, for the simple reason that pro independence forces tend to be more proactive there. Many polls held in Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia would lead you to believe that an overwhelming majority of the population seeks independence. The reality is that none of them succeeded until now. Sure, there was a sizeable portion who voted for independence, but it topped out at around the 40-45%. Polls would lead you to believe that the UK would choose to remain in the EU, or that Hillary would crush Trump in the final election.
What kind of opportunities?
So from what Ukrainians are describing as far as "Europeasation" of their country goes, it sound all too familiar to Russians, the kind of process they went through back in the nineties, when neo-liberals took over their economy and their society, with the help of American "economists" as I've said many times. And the memories of it are still painful.
The 90's already happened in Ukraine, the same time it did in Russia - in the 90's. Do you think Ukraine has been communist until today?
And you can't blame the US. What happened in Russia in the 90's was inevitable, as there wasn't a central government strong enough to prevent it. Russia had its hands full already to keep the country together. Otherwise we would have countries today called Chechnya, Dagestan, Tatarstan and Yakutia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
You dear Western partners will come to understanding that Crimea is all Russian of course and remove the sanctions. We in turn will shove LNR and DNR back in "united, federalized Ukraine" and then there will be business as usual.
We have no reason to remove the sanctions. And we don't negotiate with terrorists. The annexation of Crimea might be tolerated, but it won't be officially recognised. With the separatists the only option is for them to let down their arms.
There the entire site is beautiful)))
Although it's sad that there are people who use these slops (((
Unfortunately, I read on this forum posts that Ancient Rus is not the same state as Russia. This posts was not wrote from Ukraine. Perhaps Ariete, I do not remember. This point of view exists in the West.
And they ignore the arguments that territory, national composition, language, religion, name (Russia is the Greek form of writing Rus) and the ruling dynasty (Rurik's) did not change.
But if we say that Russia and ancient Rus is one state (like Ukraine and Belarus), then next step is recognition that we are parts of single people. And this is excluded in the current system of view. Therefore, they have to ignore these arguments.
And, by the way, term "Kievan Rus" is not true from a historical point of view. Contemporaries did not use it.
It was just Rus. For example, Andrew Bogolyubsky conquered Kiev (in 1169) and he moved the capital to Vladimir. And this was not formation of a new state, it was the internecine conflict within Rus.
Hitler used these same arguments in the 30's for breaking up neighboring countries and annexing the pro German or German speaking areas. Its not just a "western" point of view that this doesn't lead to good things.
And they ignore the arguments that territory, national composition, language, religion, name (Russia is the Greek form of writing Rus) and the ruling dynasty (Rurik's) did not change.
Well hell yes we do. You should do that instead of living in a fantasy reality.
If you want to play the "territory" card, hand over Karelia to us and Königsberg to Germany and then we go further from that.
Last edited by Ariete; 09-20-2017 at 12:17 PM..
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.
