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.
Did you EU consider it "illegal" when the US bombed Serbia? Or invaded Iraq?
International laws is only used when the EU find it convenient to. What a bunch of hypocrits. The double standard of western countries never ceases to amaze me.
And that's what Mr. Putin is going to use now to his advantage with a big pleasure.
I don't want to talk about America. Why you always want to talk about America in the first place! Do you ever participate in any thread on this forum without ever mentioning the US, whatever the topic is? Ever??? Do you really seriously think that it is your obligation to always link the US to any topic or any conversation and you feel it is appropriately to do this?
Well, you are criticizing a country (this case Russia), linking this criticism with justifying your stance on the current Russian-Ukrainian situation. You are stating "Russia bad, does this, does that", but living in a country (or at least I do, do you live in the US?) that does the same thing. How does it matter? Because the REACTION to this situation is being discussed, and this reaction includes the US.
And how it relates to your post is; you come off to me as someone overly critical of Russia, but some of the specific items you are critical about, the US does the exact some thing, or even worse. To me, you are linking these things with the current situation, but kind of giving a free pass to the parties reacting to the situation. The reaction is the subject, the only thing that has actually happened is a coup, and Russian occupation of the Crimea, not much to discuss. The discussion however, is centered on the reaction to Russia, and the what if's.
So sorry I invoke the US in this, but when you come with a statement like "Today, 97% of the public school students of Russia receive their education only or mostly in Russian, even though Russia is made up of approximately 80% ethnic Russians", and present as a criticism of Russia, thus linking it to the criticism of the present situation, I just have to think; really?
To me, it just looks like many times throwing rocks from a glass house. If the US was not involved at all in this, I probably would not refer to them. But the US has put itself right in the middle of this deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind
In any case, Russia does not look to me as a shining example of preserving languages other than Russian!
Any way you turn it around!
Actually, they preserved languages quite well. All gov documents had to be in Russian and the local language, some document would have three, four, or more languages on it. Also, the local languages were taught in schools as an option as well as other languages (German being popular).
I know this well, my family grew up in the USSR, in central Asia and Siberian areas. It is not "turning it" around, it is fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind
In my opinion, Ukraine, as an independent state (the first time in the history ?) just wants to get its language back. And this is probably partly the result of the process of russification which took place for centuries before.
Well, it has had its brief moments of independence, it is a good reading, there are a couple of factions involved, each with different goals.
I agree with the language issue, but the issue is; Ukraine gained independence how it did. Ukraine the area is not necessary Ukraine the ethnicity. Ethnic Ukrainians, have never had power in the south and east, areas historically dominated by the Tatars and Cossacks. To the East, it has always been heavily Russian. The lines drawn by the powers to be in the USSR, gave no logic other than for Soviet political/economic purposes. When the USSR broke up, this should have been addressed. It is sort of like the issues in Africa and the Middle East after colonization; borders create a spark for conflict.
They do teach Ukrainian in schools now. What seem many of the nationalists forgot is; millions of Ukrainians moved out of Ukraine into Russia and central Asia during the latter part of the Russian Empire. Many stayed in Russia after 1991, but many moved to Ukraine from central Asia after 1991; the language and anti-Russia issue is not just isolating ethnic Russians, but many Ukrainians as well.
Yanukovich won the 2010 election, he could have not done this without support from many ethnic Ukrainians. Fact is, many ethnic Ukrainians are weary of the nationalists also. The nationalists and supporters also regard Ukrainian immigrants as sort of "second class". While not in law or anything, it is more institutionalized and behavior towards those that migrated to Ukraine after 1991; this attitude is centered in and around Kiev.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind
How many countries in the world have more than one official language? How does Ukraine compare with most other countries in this regard?
I do not know. I know a few central Asian republics have Russian and their own language as official languages. There are numerous local official languages in Russia. I know Africa probably has French or English along with whatever local Language. India has two, and lots of local official languages, Europe has a few countries with two or more, S. America to; I think many countries have two or more official languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind
Can you answer those questions just once without mentioning the US (please)? Are you capable of this?
Oh please. Name one country that wouldn't try to put down an internal rebellion. A rebellion whose leaders wanted to establish a permanent slave empire in the USA. Get real.
Um...that is what I was saying. I implied rarely is a country not going to use force to put down a revolt, I used the US (since so many regard the US on the high moral ground) as an example to show this.
I'd wondering though, would not Russia have taken the Crimea (and the rest of Ukraine) for themselves IN ANY CASE SCENARIO, coup or not?
This whole Crimea thing was.. how should I put it ? A sitting duck.
But when it comes to the rest of Ukraine - it's a different story.
Don't forget that Putin is all about money and taking over the whole Ukraine would have been regarded as financial burden by him and his whole Co.
I'd say ( to put it briefly) Eastern Ukraine would be really the only part for the interest of his pocket.
All this stuff is a wet dream for defense contractors aka the military industrial complex. I read news from the BBC that protesters and policemen were shot by the same weapons and that the new interim Ukraine government is unwilling to investigate. I guess if you want to seize power and have regime change you have to sometimes take ruthless measures including murder to achieve your goals.
Hmm... I thought about it a bit.
From what I'm reading here, on this Live Journal page - this is quite possible.
"The people's deputy Gennady Moscal has appealed to acting Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov and acting prosecutor general Oleg Makhnitsky with demand to put a stop to outrageous actions of Alexander Mysichko, known as "Sasha Bely ( White) in Rivna region.
Moscal wrote about it on his Face Book page.
Moscal noted that "In the name of revolution Sacha Bely commits crimes and none of the law enforcement officials are paying any attention to it. I keep on receiving complaints from the local inhabitants about the lawlesness of Sasha Bely, who announced himself the new gauleiter of Western Ukraine and who is discrediting everything that EuroMaidan stood for.
Moscal brought examples of Mysichko embezzeling money from public servants for the "development of the Right Sector" and" Maidan needs" and also confiscates cars from business owners for "the needs of Revolution."
Moscal called on Dmitry Yarosh to make a public statement and to dissotiate himself from the actions of this "revolutionary."
( The captioning above the video there says "The way Alexander Musichko was teaching a lesson to a public prosecutor."
Did you EU consider it "illegal" when the US bombed Serbia? Or invaded Iraq?
International laws is only used when the EU find it convenient to. What a bunch of hypocrits. The double standard of western countries never ceases to amaze me.
You're right and I am totally agree with you on this one.
Sometimes I have a strong feeling that some of these euro-commissars are just like demon-possessed.
And same thing with McCain, Nuland, Obama and others.
While the Western media is all talk about Crimea, where everything is actually quiet, - yeah, meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine -
(I just typed in today's date on Youtube and) - ...
Fact 1: There were no actions of fascists against Russian speaking Ukrainians.
Fact 2: Russia invaded anyway.
Also: The law never went into force and it would not have made speaking Russian illegal. But you are right: It was a big mistake to even think about stripping the language of its official status. Does that justify a military invasion? Not in my books.
I agree.
Besides there are a lot of regions which need dotations here. To add a new one isn't wise.
No, there will not be nukes in Crimea. Crimea is important because of the Black Sea, nothing more. There are not even nukes in Kaliningrad. I do not remember, but Russia withdrew or is going to from the intermediate missile treaty, reason is to secure the non-EU border with China and Pakistan having nukes. Russia has placed non-nuke intermediate range missiles in Kaliningrad and near the Georgian border area.
And again with this Memo; the Memo did not at all state action must be taken, there is not any enforcement language in the Memo, this is why you have basically seen this memo dropped from the debate between the parties involved. And again, you either forget, or are obtuse, to the issue revolving around who is the legitimate government (the fact there is a disagreement is enough for a pause and negotiation); that sort of throws a wrench in the whole Memo thing anyway.
will Russia include Crimea in the 1994BM wrt. nukes as they did with Ukraine, but in some
clearer, less "interpretable" language ?
I remember there was controversy wrt. nukes with Ukraine before, when they wanted to examine
Russian ships in Sevastopol for nukes.
Russia has access to the black sea through its other ports.
Crimea is militarily, strategically important, black-sea spying,surveillance,artillery,missiles,airplanes,
close to Turkey - remember Cuba 1962.
Most treaties and controversy about Crimea was wrt. the black sea fleet at Sevastopol.
Russia maybe was afraid that Crimea could have been used by NATO for that in future,
if Ukraine joined NATO.
Hard to believe that this is just about the Russian people there, and we had heard no
reports about violence there and UNO inspections are refused.
The memo has enforcement language in 4.) and 6.)
> reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide
> assistance to Ukraine ...
>... will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
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.
