Thread: Crimea joining the Russian Federation and its implications?

LOL...the tabloids & reporting are the propaganda!! It doesn't necessarily represent the view of the masses.

If they did we wouldn't have won the decision not to get involved in Syria in the way that the US (and incidentally our own government) were attempting to bully us into.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers!

By the way did you notice the trouncing the UK got in the tabloids after that decision and the subsequent attempts to make us feel guilty for it?

By the way, there is a remarkable nuance. This process of uniting was named in the official documents as "reuniting" (воссоединение), not "uniting". So you should consider it only in that way.

Originally Posted by Twonkybot

I have been in a bit of a vacuum recently unfortunately due to having been in a car accident, so I also have alot of catching up to do!

It seems to me that most nations can point to a time in their history when they wronged others and there comes a time when people need to try and put that behind them rather than letting that rule every future decision.

Doesn't the result of the referendum speak for itself? Surely that is a democratic action and therefore uniting a democratic result.

I'm still confused why a country like the US, who has a rather brutal history itself and rarely democratically decide anything, have any right in speaking out against anything.

I hope the accident wasn't too serious.
Btw, I only added the history of Crimean Tatar raids into Russia as a possible explanation for the distrust that led to their exile.

This is interesting. The shots that killed both the pro-Russian and the Ukrainian soldier in Crimea yesterday were fired from the same location by a sniper. They also believe that the sniper's a member of the "Right Sector". *cough cough* the snipers on the Maidan *cough cough*.
Задержан один из симферопольских снайперов — Петр Лихоманов —

Quite serious in that an articulated lorry tried to write me off but I've been VERY lucky and now just have a residual hip problem, but a bit of pain and immobility is better than being dead in my book! LOL

Most of the threads here in the UK are pretty much against the US and those in our own government who have decided to try and speak for us. I think there is still a residual mistrust of Putin himself but William Hague definitely DOESN'T speak for the masses here.

It's quite comical that the US called the Russian Federation land grabbers. We have a saying here in the UK 'pot calling the kettle black' which fits our view of it all quite well.

Originally Posted by Twonkybot

William Hague definitely DOESN'T speak for the masses here.

He ought to, right, isn't he a democratically elected MP?
No but seriously, they talk about issues with democracy in Russia. Sure whatever, but I doubt it's any worse than the UK. Two near identical parties to vote for, and after they're elected they do whatever they like anyway. Including running the errands for big corporations and tagging onto American wars that most Brits realise are wrong in every way.

Anyway, hope you are feeling better!

Originally Posted by Twonkybot

Quite serious in that an articulated lorry tried to write me off but I've been VERY lucky and now just have a residual hip problem, but a bit of pain and immobility is better than being dead in my book! LOL

Most of the threads here in the UK are pretty much against the US and those in our own government who have decided to try and speak for us. I think there is still a residual mistrust of Putin himself but William Hague definitely DOESN'T speak for the masses here.

It's quite comical that the US called the Russian Federation land grabbers. We have a saying here in the UK 'pot calling the kettle black' which fits our view of it all quite well.

It's awesome that you survived that! Never trust huge trucks. I got slammed by a small truck last year but it only knocked me into someone's yard and I wasn't hurt. It was like flying, lol. Still kinda scary and I lost my bike.

It's important to remember who's pushing the foreign policies in the west... the governments. There are people here that don't agree with what the US is doing in Ukraine (including me and my family) but nobody in Washington DC would ever listen to us. They only listen to other politicians and huge corporations.
Btw, you're right about the land grabbing thing. All the US land grabbing and invasions keeps a lot of people nervous here. I mean yeah, there are times when the US has to defend it's interests but I don't get how the US could have any really important interests in Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, or Syria. It just doesn't click and I haven't seen anything in the media that really explains it. Also, I don't like the idea of "world police". Why should it be our responsibility to police the world? I think the world would be better if it just policed itself.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't give a slightest fvck about "Jewish leaders" you mentioned and their opinion.

Obviously.

William Hague is an elected MP of one of the around 650 constituencies across the UK for whom he is supposed to represent the opinion of around 80,000 of the UK's popualtion who live in that one area.

He is in the news due to his job as Foreign Secretary in the Cabinet and I believe it's the Priminister and his advisors etc. who chose the Cabinet members.

What he states as Foreign Secretary is therefore towing the Cabinet line for the nation and therefore not necessarily the opinion of the nation OR in fact his constituency members.

This is why although the Cabinet were mostly in favour of joining the US in the Syrian crisis when it was put to a vote in the Commons each one that was an MP were representing a relatively small percentage of the the population with the majority of the other MP's representing their own constituencies voting against.

That is how basically it is possible for a decision to be made by the populous against Government preferences.

I think that is sort of how it works anyway in my simplistic brain and how we make a vain attempt at democracy in the UK, but that is obviously as long as it goes to a vote! ;-D LOL

I think you are right, there isn't alot between any government representative to be honest as it's rather like a game of Risk!

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Why should it be our responsibility to police the world? I think the world would be better if it just policed itself.

Totally agree! I've just been on a thread in the UK in which only one person has started saying what we need to do etc. and the rest of us have just said 'Why is it any of our business and who made us judge and jury'.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Why should it be our responsibility to police the world? I think the world would be better if it just policed itself.

You have a point. Though what about keeping promices? After the collapse of USSR Ukraine got rid of its part of Soviet nuclear weapon. USA instead officially guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders. USA disarmed us for the promice to protect. Now the promice looks broken.

Yeah, USA's breaking promices. This is unheard of!

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Btw, I only added the history of Crimean Tatar raids into Russia as a possible explanation for the distrust that led to their exile.

Hmm.. I wouldn't immediately agree with that. The Soviet regime at some point in its time used to displace peoples for various reasons, so the real reason remains uknown.

Population transfer in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suspect the historical relationship [of several hunded years ago] between the Crimean Tatars and Slavs were probably the least important in the list of the reasons.
Besides, what nation have never traded slaves in their history?

Culturally, the Crimean Tatars strongly associate themselves with Turkey, so if given a chance they would do anything they could to become part of Turkey again.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

You have a point. Though what about keeping promices? After the collapse of USSR Ukraine got rid of its part of Soviet nuclear weapon. USA instead officially guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders. USA disarmed us for the promice to protect. Now the promice looks broken.

"Some good questions
have no good answers."

Svensei

Originally Posted by it-ogo

You have a point. Though what about keeping promices? After the collapse of USSR Ukraine got rid of its part of Soviet nuclear weapon. USA instead officially guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders. USA disarmed us for the promice to protect. Now the promice looks broken.

The USA also officially promised not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, a promise which they broke pretty much immediately after having made it.

I don't see how nukes would make any difference in this conflict anyway. But it's rather disturbing that some people seem to think it's worth bringing up.

From one thing to another. Apparently Russia is going to significantly increase the measly state pensions that old people on Crimea are receiving. I don't see how they can survive on 200 USD per month it seems absolutely impossible unless you have no rent and buy nothing apart from cheap groceries. I was glad to see they will get more money and it's nice that Russia is processing this fast.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Apparently Russia is going to significantly increase the measly state pensions that old people on Crimea are receiving. I don't see how they can survive on 200 USD per month it seems absolutely impossible unless you have no rent and buy nothing apart from cheap groceries. I was glad to see they will get more money and it's nice that Russia is processing this fast.

You see, it's yes and no situation. If you hand out money to people, the first thing to happen is the prices will go up. That would probably be it more or less.

The real improvement of economy would usually corellate with the improvement in infrastructure which will give a chance to people to produce goods and services. Right now, the infrastructure in Crimea is more or less limited to the seasonal rentals of apartments to the visitors. Maybe also selling some food and stuff the visitors would need for their stay. There is virtually no other popular way of making money. Ukraine was never interested in improving the infrastructure in Crimea and Russia might be able to fill that gap to show the rest of the world what Russia is capable of. (Who mentioned Sochi?)

Hanna, he (it-ogo) still doesn't understand that the "project Ukraine" is closed. Well, at least the real leaders are arguing about its future (will it be closed or maybe one may give a second chance this fail state under Russian protectorate). Ukraine has never had own responsible elites, there were only thieves, clowns and crystal-clear fools that represent Ukrainian politicum. As we can see, for the last 20 years they learnt to jump together shouting "Кто не скачет - тот москаль" and that's all.

I have a question too, how long these outraged 'civilized people' will remain outraged? How soon the first 'Hilton' or 'Radisson' will appear in Crimea?

Originally Posted by Paul G.

Hanna, he (it-ogo) still doesn't understand that the "project Ukraine" is closed. Well, at least the real leaders are arguing about its future (will it be closed or maybe one may give a second chance this fail state under Russian protectorate). Ukraine has never had own responsible elites, there were only thieves, clowns and crystal-clear fools that represent Ukrainian politicum. As we can see, for the last 20 years they learnt to jump together shouting "Кто не скачет - тот москаль" and that's all.

This is about his country, of course he is upset. Absolutely everything that could have gone wrong, went wrong with this revolution, from the perspective of a decent and patriotic (but not nazi) Ukrainian.

From a Ukrainian perspective, Russia's behaviour is extremely opportunistic and like a bully, taking advantage of superior strength in a weak moment of the republic. Ukraina could never do the same thing against Russia, and there is plenty of history where Russia has not treated Ukraine very well. I happen to think that Ukraine brought this upon itself, but that doesn't change the fact.

It-Ogo explained that he changed his position the moment it became clear to him that there were Russian troops operating on Ukrainian soil, because this crossed as line for him. I think that's a logical perspective.

Although I have a different viewpoint based on how I see the situation, and because I have an axe to grind with EU / USA, I still totally sympathise with the way he feels.

Who with the slightest amount of patriotism wouldn't be extremely upset at the mere thought of foreign troops on their soil, REGARDLESS of any mitigating circumstances...? (well apart from brainwashed Western Europeans who think it's normal to have US bases on their soil decade after decade - yes, talking about Brits, Germans, Italians & co. )

Plus it takes courage to stand up and keep defending your viewpoint the way he has done.

It seems to me that Crimea is a done deal so I am starting a new thread about Eastern Ukraine.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

You have a point. Though what about keeping promices? After the collapse of USSR Ukraine got rid of its part of Soviet nuclear weapon. USA instead officially guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders. USA disarmed us for the promice to protect. Now the promice looks broken.

It's wrong to break promises but now Ukraine knows how much the US can be trusted. I'm strill trying to wrap my head around Ukraine giving up it's nuclear status. I wonder if Russia woulda invaded Crimea if Ukraine was still a nuclear power.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Hmm.. I wouldn't immediately agree with that. The Soviet regime at some point in its time used to displace peoples for various reasons, so the real reason remains uknown.
Population transfer in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suspect the historical relationship [of several hunded years ago] between the Crimean Tatars and Slavs were probably the least important in the list of the reasons.
Besides, what nation have never traded slaves in their history?
Culturally, the Crimean Tatars strongly associate themselves with Turkey, so if given a chance they would do anything they could to become part of Turkey again.

Thanks for the link. It was just a thought. Even several hundred years doesn't always erase everything. Native Americans still live here on reservations and they have their own laws.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The USA also officially promised not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, a promise which they broke pretty much immediately after having made it.
I don't see how nukes would make any difference in this conflict anyway. But it's rather disturbing that some people seem to think it's worth bringing up.
From one thing to another. Apparently Russia is going to significantly increase the measly state pensions that old people on Crimea are receiving. I don't see how they can survive on 200 USD per month it seems absolutely impossible unless you have no rent and buy nothing apart from cheap groceries. I was glad to see they will get more money and it's nice that Russia is processing this fast.

$200 USD per month? That's just fun money. Are prices that much lower in Ukraine? I don't think they are much lower in Russia because we were looking at ads for houses with indoor pools and the prices were about the same in the US and Moscow. People need a lot more than $200 to live on.

Originally Posted by Hanna

This is about his country, of course he is upset. Absolutely everything that could have gone wrong, went wrong with this revolution, from the perspective of a decent and patriotic (but not nazi) Ukrainian.
From a Ukrainian perspective, Russia's behaviour is extremely opportunistic and like a bully, taking advantage of superior strength in a weak moment of the republic. Ukraina could never do the same thing against Russia, and there is plenty of history where Russia has not treated Ukraine very well. I happen to think that Ukraine brought this upon itself, but that doesn't change the fact.
It-Ogo explained that he changed his position the moment it became clear to him that there were Russian troops operating on Ukrainian soil, because this crossed as line for him. I think that's a logical perspective.
Although I have a different viewpoint based on how I see the situation, and because I have an axe to grind with EU / USA, I still totally sympathise with the way he feels.
Who with the slightest amount of patriotism wouldn't be extremely upset at the mere thought of foreign troops on their soil, REGARDLESS of any mitigating circumstances...? (well apart from brainwashed Western Europeans who think it's normal to have US bases on their soil decade after decade - yes, talking about Brits, Germans, Italians & co. )

Plus it takes courage to stand up and keep defending your viewpoint the way he has done.
It seems to me that Crimea is a done deal so I am starting a new thread about Eastern Ukraine.

Don't forget, Ukraine has a long history of Russian and European intervention that starts with Oleg of Novgorod conquering Kiev, in 882, to create Kievan Rus'. Since then, Russia has fought with Poland and Lithuania, Germany, and Austria (to name a few) in west/east land grabs that were still happening when the October Revolution began. I think the west half was still under Polish control during WW2 and there were more than 4 Ukrainian States at that time. So it wasn't just Russia that wanted Ukraine.