The Crimea in 1954 (WW2, ancient, war, Washington)
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.
So then we should remember then to whom the current territory of the US used to belong to just a few hundred years ago, right, following this logic.
No, just the opposite. The territory of the US belongs to the US. If Russia tried to retake Alaska or if Mexico tried to retake the south west, it'd be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No one is "taking over the other country" - Russia is taking over what rightfully belongs to her, that seaport that has been conquered by Russian sweat and blood back in history, and has been taken away from her because of all the events in the 90ies. So what Russia is doing now is only right ( when it comes to her geopolitical interests) and logical. Now if we'll start talking about the widening conflict in South-Eastern part of Ukraine, it's going to be a different matter.
Crimea doesn't belong to Russia and it hasn't for a very long time. Russians died for that land but they also killed for it. By your logic should we give it back to the Tatars? Khrushchev might have made the mistake of giving Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR but he didn't think the whole Union would fall apart. His mistake. If Putin gets his way and Crimea officially becomes part of Russia do you really think he'll settle for a hostile Ukraine on his border? Ukraine has a bit of leverage providing the power and water, but that will only last so long, at best it's a good bargaining chip to keep the gas prices from being sky high again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
"Respect their partnership with Ukraine" as in what?
Crimea is an autonomous republic under the administration of Ukraine. They're not Ukraine and they're not Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Not under the current government in Kiev as far as I can see.
The nice thing about youtube is you can find videos on any opinion. The pro-Russian Crimeans were pissed at the law making Ukrainian the state language. They repealed the law and all is "well". The ethnic Russians in Crimea and Ukraine aren't under any kind of threat and never have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I suspect Russia "has agreed" to many things back in the nineties, when the hand of those who were signing the "agreements" was guided by American advisers sitting in Kremlin.
Like it or not, they still agreed. Many Ukrainians weren't happy when they renewed the lease on the Black Sea Fleet, but they didn't send in their army.
Ukraine is in the state it's in because of corruption at the highest levels. The protests were all about removing that corruption and starting over. The current government is only temporary and hopefully the elections will bring about more stability and equal representation. Crimea should hold out and see what happens before just running towards the biggest short term gain. If Russia regains Crimea as a stepping stone, who's to stop them from going after others?
A good article in today's Guardian by Marina Lewycka is a British novelist of Ukrainian origin, who provides a useful insight in to the current situation.
New pro-Russian Crimean politics hope to get lavish financing from the Kremlin. This is the reason! Russia is of course a richer state than Ukraine.
But when Crimea will be a part of Russia it can't join to European Union as Ukraine. Which is better - to belong to European Civilization or to be a part of Russian Empire?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Long time ago, I'd say "Of course it's better to be part of European Union!"
I'd postpone my answer now.
As practice shows, it's great to be part of European Union when you are a German, a French or a Finn.
It's not so great when you are a Pole or a Bulgarian.
And it's probably going to be the worst, when you are a Ukrainian.
In fact, E.U never offered a membership to Ukraine, just an "alliance," with very tough economic conditions, which were meant to break her economy in the Eastern part ( or rather whatever was left from Ukrainian economy.) And all these loans that IMF is offering now, their conditions seem to be targeting the very same area.
Beware Ukrainians. Putin is an evil - yes, but the West is not going to be much kinder to you.
All they see in you is potential corporate profits and the way to swing at Russian geopolitical interests.
That's my 2 cents worth.
An excellent point has been raised in these posts, but it's worth noting that the EEU's proposed "second tier" admission of Rumania and Bulgaria, complicated by disparities in income and indusrialization, revolves around the same issue.
And for that matter, the disparities in income and living conditions in Puerto Rico vs. the American "mainland 48" undoubtedly played a part in its designation as a semi-autonomous "commonwealth" -- as opposed to a territory or full statehood.
An excellent point has been raised in these posts, but it's worth noting that the EEU's proposed "second tier" admission of Rumania and Bulgaria, complicated by disparities in income and indusrialization, revolves around the same issue.
And for that matter, the disparities in income and living conditions in Puerto Rico vs. the American "mainland 48" undoubtedly played a part in its designation as a semi-autonomous "commonwealth" -- as opposed to a territory or full statehood.
Very true. Any country whose economy isn't being diverted straight into the government's personal coffers and the Russian mafia will do better.
No, just the opposite. The territory of the US belongs to the US.
Right. And territory of Russia belongs to Russia, Crimea including.
Quote:
If Russia tried to retake Alaska or if Mexico tried to retake the south west, it'd be wrong.
Correct again, that's why Russia is retaking Crimea and not Alaska.
Quote:
Crimea doesn't belong to Russia and it hasn't for a very long time.
You mean like 20 years or so? Yes, that's long-long-long time.
Quote:
Russians died for that land but they also killed for it. By your logic should we give it back to the Tatars?
By my logic Russian is a Christian country that historically was on the forefront of the global fight with Islam. Russia fought for this land and wrestled it from the Osman Empire, thus advancing the cause of Christian culture vs Islamic culture. I don't see why it should give it back to Osman Empire that doesn't exist any longer.
Quote:
Khrushchev might have made the mistake of giving Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR but he didn't think the whole Union would fall apart. His mistake.
Well it was time to fix this mistake - that's all to it.
Quote:
If Putin gets his way and Crimea officially becomes part of Russia do you really think he'll settle for a hostile Ukraine on his border?
I don't know, since he is counting his money. Once he is done calculating how much what will cost him, he will make the next move. Or not.
This person has criminal mind of a swindler, although he pretends that he is someone different and may be even believes it.
Quote:
Crimea is an autonomous republic under the administration of Ukraine. They're not Ukraine and they're not Russia.
Well now they will be Russia where they belong.
Quote:
The nice thing about youtube is you can find videos on any opinion.
And that's what I do. I watch videos that express different opinions and then come to my own conclusions.
Quote:
The pro-Russian Crimeans were pissed at the law making Ukrainian the state language. They repealed the law and all is "well". The ethnic Russians in Crimea and Ukraine aren't under any kind of threat and never have been.
There is more to this law than meets the eye. You'd think that the government that has $70 billion in national debt would burden itself with more pressing issues, yet one of the first things it did, was to deprive Russian language of the status of official state language. May be to you it's not a big deal, but for people who live there, the message was clear; to tighten the screws on anything Russian and to start selling to the West the hatred for Russia, since this government doesn't have much to offer to the West, really. Sort of like Baltic countries. But that offer of anti-Russian cooperation - that's all good, it sells. And of course later they've repealed the law, once the Western advisers pointed the new government at their faux pas. Their actions were too thinly veiled, too obvious, so they've had to tone down their true intentions.
Quote:
Like it or not, they still agreed. Many Ukrainians weren't happy when they renewed the lease on the Black Sea Fleet, but they didn't send in their army.
They don't have much to send; you know the difference between Ukrainian army and Russian army, right? My heart aches for them when I see those old Soviet-style uniforms; they look now more Russian than Russians themselves. It's kind of telling their story, what their life has been for the last twenty years, even comparably to Russia.
Quote:
Ukraine is in the state it's in because of corruption at the highest levels.
And who helped them to unleash this corruption but not the West and its banking system, that was gladly accepting the loot right and left? After all the rule of law it's something that reserved for those in the club; as for the rest - please do feel free, we love your money criminal or not.
Quote:
The protests were all about removing that corruption and starting over. T
The protest were all about the naive belief that somehow, if they remove the government, their life will become magic when they'll float into the European paradise. What will become of it though, is yet to be seen.
Quote:
The current government is only temporary and hopefully the elections will bring about more stability and equal representation.
Sure, it's all about "representation," not money, right?
As far as representation goes - they are doing just fine, with ultra-right forces that were behind the violent protests all along now being represented on the governmental level.
But what about money?
Quote:
Crimea should hold out and see what happens before just running towards the biggest short term gain.
They don't want to wait. With Ukrainian nationalists in the government
point A; they don't want to take chances
and point B - they want to get out before the clashes between East and West begin.
Quote:
If Russia regains Crimea as a stepping stone, who's to stop them from going after others?
And if Russia regains Crimea not as a stepping stone, but as the ultimate prize, then what?
I suspect that if Eastern regions want to join Russia, they'll have to work hard for it, not less than Crimea and even more.
A good article in today's Guardian by Marina Lewycka is a British novelist of Ukrainian origin, who provides a useful insight in to the current situation.
Very good article, I've put check marks almost everywhere, except for probably one thing - the possible inclusion of Russia into European Union. Russia was never meant to be in EU - it's a different entity like the US. What it was meant to be though - a democratic stable country, a counter-balance to the US in global affairs, where Ukraine would firmly belong (at least biggest part of it; the Western part could become Polish province again for all I care.) But it didn't happen for a coupe of reasons, and that's why Ukraine now is where it is - on the ropes, in-between and with no salvation in sight.
An excellent point has been raised in these posts, but it's worth noting that the EEU's proposed "second tier" admission of Rumania and Bulgaria, complicated by disparities in income and indusrialization, revolves around the same issue.
Sure, we can re-name "second sort" by "second tier" and it will make it all sound so much better))))
Quote:
And for that matter, the disparities in income and living conditions in Puerto Rico vs. the American "mainland 48" undoubtedly played a part in its designation as a semi-autonomous "commonwealth" -- as opposed to a territory or full statehood.
Sorry I don't know much about Puerto-Rico and what's the life like there.
Very good article, I've put check marks almost everywhere, except for probably one thing - the possible inclusion of Russia into European Union. Russia was never meant to be in EU - it's a different entity like the US. What it was meant to be though - a democratic stable country, a counter-balance to the US in global affairs, where Ukraine would firmly belong (at least biggest part of it; the Western part could become Polish province again for all I care.) But it didn't happen for a coupe of reasons, and that's why Ukraine now is where it is - on the ropes, in-between and with no salvation in sight.
There has been a lot of discussion about Russia eventually joining the EU, just as there has been in relation to countries such as Turkey. Personally I think that Western Russians is far more European than most of Turkey, but then again a lot of people including myself are none too keen on Turkish entry in to the EU.
There has been a lot of discussion about Russia eventually joining the EU, just as there has been in relation to countries such as Turkey. Personally I think that Western Russians is far more European than most of Turkey, but then again a lot of people including myself are none too keen on Turkish entry in to the EU.
In all honesty I don't understand why Islamic country ( Turkey) that was bent on destroying European culture throughout history ( Byzantium, anyone?) should enter now European Union.
As for Russia, of course it's European country - not only Western part of it, but the utmost Eastern parts of it too, wherever the Russian cities are up in the Russian Far East. But that's the whole point. Russia is a European offshoot, the forepost of European/Christian culture, although a somewhat different version of it, comparably to Western European version. Therefore Russia had its own historic purpose and mission, as much as Europe and the US. That's why it didn't/doesn't make sense to include it in the E.U and what's even worse - to make an attempt to destroy it or to undermine its global influence. It should be only carefully counter-balanced, as any power in this world needs "check and balance."
I believe that by the nineties of the previous century Russians had enough of trials and tribulations and they deserved a break - a decent government, a balanced, European style politics, healthy relations with European countries and healthy, competitive relations with the US. They deserved peace, prosperity and decent management of the country. If this were a case, then as I've said Ukraine would have firmly belonged there, and I believe there wouldn't have been a need for the E.U to begin with (it's an artificial creation, that binds countries/cultures of too diverse of a background. The E.U in my opinion came in place only as a necessity to counter-balance the economic pressure of the US, since Russia has been taken out of a picture as a viable competitor/counterbalance to this pressure.)
So all of it was quite possible, but someone somewhere and very intentionally at that, made sure that things would go by different scenario. And that's why we are where we are - with Eastern European countries being second sort ( sorry, "second tier" ) in E.U, "Old Europeans" being annoyed by the influx of their impoverished citizens to more prosperous European countries, the US trying to impose its will on the rest of the world, Ukraine being used by both Russia and E.U, the radical Islam on the rise, and the last but not least - Russia taking over Crimea and again setting course for future world confrontations.
You just can't get rid of that pesky Russia; no matter under what guise it fulfills its mission - as peaceful democratic state or belligerent militant country, it will still keep on doing so, and there is nothing nobody can do about it, as much as they'd wish to.
That's the way I see it.
You just can't get rid of that pesky Russia; no matter under what guise it fulfills its mission - as peaceful democratic state or belligerent militant country, it will still keep on doing so, and there is nothing nobody can do about it, as much as they'd wish to.
That's the way I see it.
Well I'd suggest a crucial point is why that the US and Russia simply have so much hostility between each other and why the enmity hasn't relaxed at all. Oh yeah there's been detente and all but I've always felt it was a smoke-screen thrown up to camouflage the unrelenting difference in how to solve problems in the world. All it takes is something like the Ukraine to stir up the dust storm again.
You know both countries have their own internal problems but I'd suggest the Russians have it worse much worse domestically. There's a decline in population, diseases like AIDs and tuberculosis are on the increase, high rates of alcoholism, the life expectancy of Russian men is 64 years. This makes one ask where is the country going and what will it look like. Even if Russia would want to join the EU, would Europe be getting the 'best' Russia it could get under the circumstancess?? Outside oil and gas resources what will she contribute towards European integration and their societies where 'freedom' arguably could perhaps be and mean another word? Frankly, I think she would be very uncomfortable.
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.