Thread: What's it like in Gagra today?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

If Russia wanted Crimea so badly, why wouldn't it consider solving all those technical issues prior to doing the annexation, so the peninsula wouldn't be dependent on "its former state" ?

It was an urgent situation, not something that was pre-planned.
The people in Crimea got seriously worried about a Majdan type situation there, and hooligans from that neo-nazi organisation coming there and wreaking havoc (which they had said they would).

So various leading figures locally decided to take pre-emptive action by blocking action and talking about a referendum. Russia was more than happy to play along, with green men and everything else that followed.

There wasn't time to stop and think about water viaducts and gas pipelines or whatever else has been causing problems after Ukraine started blocking.
Plus, I think that as things progressed, the Crimeans got re-assurances from Moscow that Russia would have their back whatever happened.
I think Russia was prepared to do pretty much anything at all to help people there and was absolutely over the moon about having Crimea back.
It somewhat unfair though - that Crimea is treated like the Prodigal Son whereas Donetsk/Lugansk are on their own, and really suffering despite turning to Moscow.
It's a complex situation but Russia decided to pull out all the stops for Crimea but not for Donetsk/Lugansk.

On the Transnistria issue: Thanks for the update Basil77. That is SO sad to hear. Of course, this is not covered in Western media at all. Nobody knows anything about it. I know I said that the country is "cool" and that's true, but there is also a lot of poverty and problems there, so in a way, my comment was stupid.

They are cut off from the international monetary system. A lot of infrastructure was in a really bad state - for example I travelled in a tram that looked like 1950s vintage - it was fixed up with duct tape to keep it together.

People there are forced to live on really low sums of money - I'd guess a few hundred dollars a month if they are lucky. All sorts of shady business going on for people to stay afloat. That is not "cool", it's sad. It's the spirit of the people that was admirable. I spoke with a woman who had moved there from Moscow to be with her husband who was local She said they had chosen to live there, rather than Moscow because the country needed them. Admirable, since this couple was well-educated and could have a much better living standard in Moscow, no doubt. There were lots of banners and slogans saying things like "Friendship with Russia forever" and similar. Plus, instead of removing Soviet symbols, I got the impression they actually put up more. And everybody seemed to be religious! It was a very unique kind of place with a very resilient and gutsy population.

I wonder if Donetsk / Lugansk will end up in a similar situation as Transnistria and Abkhazia - in limbo / vacuum.

Originally Posted by Hanna

People there are forced to live on really low sums of money - I'd guess a few hundred dollars a month if they are lucky.

You would be surprised to learn that a lot of Russian/CIS areas, and specifically lots of those you traveled to in 2011 have that poverty issue - median salaries of $100-200 a month, it's safe to say that Moldova and Belarus are going through that for sure - those are the poorest countries of the area. Well, I think it's the price they pay for having socialist imbeciles in the office. What's sadder is not all of those areas let people decide on the government they wanna have, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It somewhat unfair though - that Crimea is treated like the Prodigal Son whereas Donetsk/Lugansk are on their own, and really suffering despite turning to Moscow.

The Russians know they broke the international law by the annexation of Crimea alone, and they're not likely to take the risk and gamble with other areas of sovereign countries with that sort of action. Plus, they've had the chance to see what those "Donetsk fighters" really are, and I think at this point, they despise them even more than the Ukrainians do.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You would be surprised to learn that a lot of Russian/CIS areas, and specifically lots of those you traveled to in 2011 have that poverty issue - median salaries of $100-200 a month, it's safe to say that Moldova and Belarus are going through that for sure

Yes I am aware if this, and several people told me their personal situation; it's between 500-1000 for regular people in Belarus, but you need to bear in mind that they have regulated economy with artificially reduced prices for basic products.

Tragically in Ukraine, it's below USD 100 for some people, and simply no jobs for many healthy and well educated adults. Apparently over a million have are working in Poland in addition to millions already in Russia. It's too tragic for words. Well educated people picking fruit and cleaning in Poland while their kids are with grandparents.

(Deleted. L.)

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes I am aware if this, and several people told me their personal situation; it's between 500-1000 for regular people in Belarus, but you need to bear in mind that they have regulated economy with artificially reduced prices for basic products.

Tragically in Ukraine, it's below USD 100 for some people, and simply no jobs for many healthy and well educated adults. Apparently over a million have are working in Poland in addition to millions already in Russia. It's too tragic for words. Well educated people picking fruit and cleaning in Poland while their kids are with grandparents.

I think what makes Ukraine different from those other poor areas there is, it's only temporary in Ukraine, and caused by unforeseeable factors (violent war, terrorism, and annexation of their territories). Just as they deal with the situation in the east (which is the most crucial of all they still have pending), they'll start getting back to normal. They might even (at last) join the EU & NATO. While those other areas seem to have made their miserable existence their lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Hanna

(Deleted. L.)

Would you please stop putting my name in quotes from now on? Because that can very well be treated as a personal insult (and it will be), and this resource, AFAIK, has a zero tolerance policy for that.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Would you please stop putting my name in quotes from now on? Because that can very well be treated as a personal insult (and it will be), and this resource, AFAIK, has a zero tolerance policy for that.

Sure. I'll explain why I did it though. I do not think it's your name. That spelling is used in the English and French speaking countries. You are not a native English speaker and I do not believe you are from the francophonie either; or you would have been open about your background.

If my assumption is incorrect; feel free to explain the real circumstances!
In the meantime, I pay no respect to comments from somebody who is set to be a "ghost" while everyone else is debating with open cards.

My conclusion is that your nickname is not based on your real name — hence the quotation marks.

It would not bother me if somebody put quotes around my nickname; why should it?

-------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing rude about the above mark: It is an honest and politely phrased response to a comment directed at me, from a member who consistently joins every thread I start, or participate in. He expresses strong sentiments and views without ever explaining his own interest, or the source of his statement.

I find this situation frustrating.

If my response is removed, I will be offended.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Sure. I'll explain why I did it though. I do not think it's your name. That spelling is used in the English and French speaking countries. You are not a native English speaker and I do not believe you are from the francophonie either; or you would have been open about your background.

If my assumption is incorrect; feel free to explain the real circumstances!
In the meantime, I pay no respect to comments from somebody who is set to be a "ghost" while everyone else is debating with open cards.

My conclusion is that your nickname is not based on your real name — hence the quotation marks.

It would not bother me if somebody put quotes around my nickname; why should it?

-------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing rude about the above mark: It is an honest and politely phrased response to a comment directed at me, from a member who consistently joins every thread I start, or participate in. He expresses strong sentiments and views without ever explaining his own interest, or the source of his statement.

I find this situation frustrating.

If my response is removed, I will be offended.

I don't ask anybody here to "open their cards". If they do so, it's their deliberate choice and I just respect it. Just the same way, I expect my choice on that matter (not to reveal my personal information) to be respected too. I don't see how it could be a problem for anyone, except those planning to use that information to do malicious stuff. And honestly, nobody besides you on this forum has ever requested this information in a way that would make me worry.

Now, if I say it's my name, would I be expecting anyone saying s/he doesn't believe it's my name? Obviously, not! Making assumptions (faulty, mostly) about someone and doubting any fact about him like you do is at the very least impolite. I would expect that kind of behavior from someone who is 10-12 y.o., but from what you said about yourself, you're 3 times as old. So, please stop that primitive trolling - there are plenty of ways to smash your opponent's arguments in a debate, other than reducing to mocking their name.