Thread: Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russia’s Retaliatory Trade Measures

(Deleted. L.)
Any Russian (national - who knows what group you belong to) who promotes Putin and the status quo that much is pathetic.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

(Deleted. L.)
Any Russian (national - who knows what group you belong to) who promotes Putin and the status quo that much is pathetic.

If Рutin promoted the "status quo", he would have Russia block the Russia-Ukraine border just as he learned about the crazy nutjobs there fighting everyone "in the name of Russians". Looking at what it is now, it can't be called anything but an aggressive war. And we all know who takes whose side in that conflict, so what "status quo" are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

If Рutin promoted the "status quo", he would have Russia block the Russia-Ukraine border just as he learned about the crazy nutjobs there fighting everyone "in the name of Russians". Looking at what it is now, it can't be called anything but an aggressive war. And we all know who takes whose side in that conflict, so what "status quo" are you talking about?

The status quo in general or the status quo regarding Ukraine? Regarding Ukraine, the status quo is to interfere, engage but deny doing anything. What did you think I meant?

Separatist fighter admits Russian tanks, troops 'decisive in eastern Ukraine battles' - Telegraph

https://news.vice.com/article/russia...ing-in-ukraine

Putin admits annexation of Crimea put in motion weeks before referendum - World - Israel News | Haaretz

The Kremlin denied having soldiers that were blocking Ukrainian personnel - 'little green men' but later conceded - when it didn't matter any more. The Kremlin/Putin confessed to having a plan to annex Crimea before the 'referendum' - before accusations of closing down Ukr. TV/media and the rest of unethical/immoral interference claims. So, there are some occasions in which the Russian government concede their interference but the status quo is to deny, distract and accuse - until they're willing to admit A or B - and on their own terms.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

If Рutin promoted the "status quo", he would have Russia block the Russia-Ukraine border just as he learned about the crazy nutjobs there fighting everyone "in the name of Russians". Looking at what it is now, it can't be called anything but an aggressive war. And we all know who takes whose side in that conflict, so what "status quo" are you talking about?

If he had closed the border he would have been criticized for doing that instead!
I.e. "Putin uses Soviet tactics and stops free travel" "Families split by Putin's blockade", "Putin confiscates passports" would be the headlines we'd see then! There is always a double standard when reporting about Russia.


If the West does Action A, it's for freedom, democracy and human rights.
If Russia also does Action A, then in that context it's a sign of "dictatorship", "infringement of human rights" and "aggression".

Nothing that Russia could have done would have been acceptable.

If Russia had tried to identify the people who wanted to go to Donbass and fight - by spying on citizens, then it would have been criticized for that instead. It would have also had to physically prevent people from travelling (i.e. human rights)

It seem some Chechens, some extreme Russian nationalists, and guys who simply like to fight did go to Donbass on their own initiative. But what can the modern Russian state do to prevent that?

It's always been the case in Europe, that volunteers sometimes join in wars in neighbouring countries, for family reasons, historical, religious or ideological reasons. It's nothing new about the fact that some Russians decided to do that.

Russia clearly didn't instigate or want this new cold war.

Whatever action Russia takes, it's always interpreted in the darkest possible light in Western media. This time Russia is being dragged into a cold war against its will and seems largely innocent if you take a step back and view both sides of the argument.

Finally, the proof is in the pudding: Every time Western countries interfere in foreign countries, it ends up worse than it was before, with suffering, refugees and hardship. Maidan would not have resulted in the overthrow of the government, unless Western powers had been pulling the strings. That's what started the problem.

Anyone who says they believe in democracy would have respected that Yanukovich was democratically elected and that there'd be an election the following year, i.e. now.

Russia doesn't, for instance, spur on the recent riots in American cities, or make demands that the US president needs to step down because some people are unhappy with his government.

Closing the UA/RU border as Eric proposes is simply not realistic. It's a very long border between to very large countries. It would have been cruel to people on both sides who have family across the border - there was no border there for 70 years, then relatively free movement for 20 years. Eric, apparently wants to build walls and close borders!

Originally Posted by Hanna

If he had closed the border he would have been criticized for doing that instead!
I.e. "Putin uses Soviet tactics and stops free travel" "Families split by Putin's blockade", "Putin confiscates passports" would be the headlines we'd see then! There is always a double standard when reporting about Russia.


If the West does Action A, it's for freedom, democracy and human rights.
If Russia also does Action A, then in that context it's a sign of "dictatorship", "infringement of human rights" and "aggression".

Nothing that Russia could have done would have been acceptable.

If Russia had tried to identify the people who wanted to go to Donbass and fight - by spying on citizens, then it would have been criticized for that instead. It would have also had to physically prevent people from travelling (i.e. human rights)

It seem some Chechens, some extreme Russian nationalists, and guys who simply like to fight did go to Donbass on their own initiative. But what can the modern Russian state do to prevent that?

It's always been the case in Europe, that volunteers sometimes join in wars in neighbouring countries, for family reasons, historical, religious or ideological reasons. It's nothing new about the fact that some Russians decided to do that.

Russia clearly didn't instigate or want this new cold war.

Whatever action Russia takes, it's always interpreted in the darkest possible light in Western media. This time Russia is being dragged into a cold war against its will and seems largely innocent if you take a step back and view both sides of the argument.

Finally, the proof is in the pudding: Every time Western countries interfere in foreign countries, it ends up worse than it was before, with suffering, refugees and hardship. Maidan would not have resulted in the overthrow of the government, unless Western powers had been pulling the strings. That's what started the problem.

Anyone who says they believe in democracy would have respected that Yanukovich was democratically elected and that there'd be an election the following year, i.e. now.

Russia doesn't, for instance, spur on the recent riots in American cities, or make demands that the US president needs to step down because some people are unhappy with his government.

Closing the UA/RU border as Eric proposes is simply not realistic. It's a very long border between to very large countries. It would have been cruel to people on both sides who have family across the border - there was no border there for 70 years, then relatively free movement for 20 years. Eric, apparently wants to build walls and close borders!

So, am I getting it right, you say no Russian military or heavy weapons have been crossing the border ever since, and all who have were ordinary crazy Russian individuals, whom the Russian government would actually like to stop, but just doesn't know how ?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

So, am I getting it right, you say no Russian military or heavy weapons have been crossing the border ever since, and all who have were ordinary crazy Russian individuals, whom the Russian government would actually like to stop, but just doesn't know how ?

У каждого на этот счёт может быть своё мнение, основанное на различных источниках информации, так что не нужно задавать провокационные вопросы.

Originally Posted by Lampada

У каждого на этот счёт может быть своё мнение, основанное на различных источниках информации, так что не нужно задавать провокационные вопросы.

Я постарался как мог, чтобы этот вопрос не звучал провокационно, а только лишь уточняюще. Что ж, дождемся ответа, чтобы увидеть удалось ли это мне. =))