Johnny_Red Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Ah yes. I remember my teenage years, the cold war, the ever present threat of nuclear annihilation. Take a tip from one who lived through those times. Don't fear the "bomb" it's out of your control. Live your life not in fear but in hope Edited March 9, 2014 by Johnny_Red 1
Creepermoss Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Well, having seen how slanted some of the US media is, I tend to look for my info elsewhere. I do hope none of this escalates to the point of war, and certainly not anything nuclear. I grew up during the cold war, and no-one was stupid enough to launch then, so it's likely no-one will now, either. Having said that, I had a friend growing up who was an American because his father was granted political asylum here. His father made the mistake of speaking his mind on things that ran contrary to the then-current government in Ukraine, and had legit reasons to fear for his family's safety. The wife was unfortunately captured before she could get out, but I don't think she survived, based on his father's reaction the one time stupid young me asked about it. That is a situation I can barely wrap my head around, having grown up in one of the so-called "free states", I cannot imagine how difficult it must be living in a region when there is so much turmoil and uncertainty present. I hope, for all parties concerned, that resolution comes without any serious conflict.
Sternjaeger Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I think the most interesting thing I have observed in this "Crimean crisis" was the fact that economic interests quickly dictated the position of all interested parties.. There is indeed a cold war going on, but it's on an economics level, and it's no more a war of nations.. 1
Mastermariner Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) I think the most interesting thing I have observed in this "Crimean crisis" was the fact that economic interests quickly dictated the position of all interested parties.. There is indeed a cold war going on, but it's on an economics level, and it's no more a war of nations.. There is not nor have there ever been any war that doesn't have a economic foundation. We will have the right to rob and tax you. and take advantage of your wealth, minerals, oil, etc and to be sole provider of the consumer goods your people needs, have always been the reason and will always be. It was in the old days cleverly disguised in a cloak of patriotism but today the greed stands naked in front of us all. Sunday will be a milestone in world history. Master Edited March 10, 2014 by Mastermariner
Allons Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Good post , Talek. What this forum can deliver in this crisis is interdicting generalization, prejudiction and demonising ppl. If ppl in the Crimean region will be freely voting for joining Russia everything should be OK with the EU/ NATO, but the overall process and blocking of OSCE - visitations indicate the contrary... Greetings, Allons! 1
=69.GIAP=MALYSH Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 The region already had a referendum, in 1991, in which the decision was reached for the Crimea to split from Russia with 94% approval. Any recent referendum therefore looks a little suspect and prone to interference. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage for Russia in this action. Hiding insignias suggests that the military action is not justifiable (besides being really unfair on the Russian troops, who joined the Russian army not some anational shadow militia) and the potential annexation of the Crimea would have to be presented as a fait accompli, which would cost so much diplomatic credit, it hardly seems worth it. Ukrainian citizens of Russian ethnicity (if we accept that there is a single Russian ethnicity) were hardly in serious danger, nor were Russian naval bases in danger of being siezed. It does seem like there is some personal economics involved, at a sub-national level. That'd be my guess anyway. That or a good old-fashioned blunder laced with hubris. The bright side is, that makes nuclear war even more unlikely. 2
Sternjaeger Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 There is not nor have there ever been any war that doesn't have a economic foundation. We will have the right to rob and tax you. and take advantage of your wealth, minerals, oil, etc and to be sole provider of the consumer goods your people needs, have always been the reason and will always be. It was in the old days cleverly disguised in a cloak of patriotism but today the greed stands naked in front of us all. Sunday will be a milestone in world history. Master yes, I know that, but this is not the point I was trying to make: the matter here is that the concept of nations, power and war are shifting toward a much newer concept which we don't fully grasp, but which has just shown how the threatening gesture of a country over another one's sovereignty has triggered transversal financial reactions which in turn altered what already looked like a done deal (the "invasion" of Crimea). All of a sudden one of the mightiest armies in the world has been stopped by a handful of phonecalls of concerned "investors" and "interested parties", and that's what we should really reflect on and be afraid of.. 1
johncage Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 All of a sudden one of the mightiest armies in the world has been stopped by a handful of phonecalls of concerned "investors" and "interested parties", and that's what we should really reflect on and be afraid of.. why fear that? long term economic benefits of peace and stability far outweigh those of war. anyone in possession of real economic power would be interested in peace. the past few major wars have had a mainly ideological basis. if economic interests had really been the foundation, iraq and afghanistan wouldn't have happened. instead a few cruise missiles would have been launched towards some medicine factory. gas prices would have stayed below 2 dollars, and the economy would have remained stable. i blame the industrial military complex simplification/fallacy. 1
Sternjaeger Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 why fear that? long term economic benefits of peace and stability far outweigh those of war. anyone in possession of real economic power would be interested in peace. the past few major wars have had a mainly ideological basis. if economic interests had really been the foundation, iraq and afghanistan wouldn't have happened. instead a few cruise missiles would have been launched towards some medicine factory. gas prices would have stayed below 2 dollars, and the economy would have remained stable. i blame the industrial military complex simplification/fallacy. that's for you living in a wealthy country... as for your consideration on Iraq and Afghanistan, I think you should look better at the numbers of those "wars on terror" before giving such statements.. 1
-=StF=-Take-oFF Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Steven Seagal on Ukraine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjYowz4CGuQ March, 4 2
Sternjaeger Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) It's probably me, but don't you think that, other than the terribly ill-informed crap he's talking about, it's grotesque that a (bad) movie actor is used as ambassador/political commentator? I mean, Dennis Rodman to North Korea, Steven Seagal to Russia... I really would like to meet the genius in DC who's behind this... For the record, the drivel Seagal is talking about is exactly what a lot of (professional) political commentator have been talking about: Russia trying to destabilise the relationships between USA and EU, helped also by "opinionists" along the lines of the coke-snorting, fat "ambassador" above.. Edited March 11, 2014 by Sternjaeger
SOLIDKREATE Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 It is not correct. And I hope it will not be. There are too many families sharing relatives from Russia and Ukraine. Probably it is the reason why no blood have been shed in Crimea yet. Some my personal thoughts on this matter: 3. Russian and Ukrainian citizens are just pawns in government and politician games. Both main parties - Russian and Ukrainian (new and old) governments are not saints and doing everything to escalate conflict. Propaganda brainwashes all sides of conflict, no solid evidence/information is provided by observers. Exactly my friend, games.
Picchio Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) it's out of your control. Live your life not in fear but in hope I can appreciate optimism, but this... wow, man. It's probably me, but don't you think that, other than the terribly ill-informed crap he's talking about, it's grotesque that a (bad) movie actor is used as ambassador/political commentator? I mean, Dennis Rodman to North Korea, Steven Seagal to Russia... I really would like to meet the genius in DC who's behind this... For the record, the drivel Seagal is talking about is exactly what a lot of (professional) political commentator have been talking about: Russia trying to destabilise the relationships between USA and EU, helped also by "opinionists" along the lines of the coke-snorting, fat "ambassador" above.. Some journalists probably think that having such a popular personality talking for them gives their news a definitive entitlement and a sense of deeper truth. Seriously though, all his "opinion" would have been well enough already if it was contained within the two seconds of his beautiful snort. Edited March 11, 2014 by Picchio
150GCT_Veltro Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I don't know if you guys did see this spot also in your countries. It was great, 1990 years. 3
LLv44_Mprhead Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Some journalists probably think that having such a popular personality talking for them gives their news a definitive entitlement and a sense of deeper truth. Seriously though, all his "opinion" would have been well enough already if it was contained within the two seconds of his beautiful snort. That was RT, so there was no journalism involved... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29 and mind you, it's also sources like The Guardian and Der Spiegel who say this. Anyway, now back to my hiatus from this thread.
DD_Arthur Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 That was RT, so there was no journalism involved... Exactly right.................
BraveSirRobin Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I really would like to meet the genius in DC who's behind this... There is no one in DC behind it. Those idiots are doing this on their own.
Sternjaeger Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) There is no one in DC behind it. Those idiots are doing this on their own. mmmmh you really think there's no government/secret services involved in this sort of "peacekeeping" missions? Edited March 11, 2014 by Sternjaeger
Cybermat47 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Posted March 11, 2014 Geez, I can only imagine what it was like for you guys having to live with the serious threat of Thermonuclear exchange over your heads for over 50 years :o This whole situation in the Ukraine must seem like a walk in the park compared to those times! Thank god we can talk to the 'other side' though. Hopefully the fact that the 'other side' is no different from anyone else will stop someone from taking this too far.
76SQN-FatherTed Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Geez, I can only imagine what it was like for you guys having to live with the serious threat of Thermonuclear exchange over your heads for over 50 years :o This whole situation in the Ukraine must seem like a walk in the park compared to those times! Well....yes. When I was your age it permeated everyday life. Gave me honest-to-God nightmares, in fact.
BraveSirRobin Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 mmmmh you really think there's no government/secret services involved in this sort of "peacekeeping" missions? Not with the likes of Seagal or Rodman. Absolutely no chance.
Sternjaeger Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Not with the likes of Seagal or Rodman. Absolutely no chance. well, if I were the US government I'd pay a visit to these characters and ask them "Honestly sir, what's the f*****g deal here?"
BraveSirRobin Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 well, if I were the US government I'd pay a visit to these characters and ask them "Honestly sir, what's the f*****g deal here?" I'm pretty sure the US government is already aware that they're both self-promoting imbeciles. That's the f*****g deal here. 1
DD_Arthur Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I'm pretty sure the US government is already aware that they're both self-promoting imbeciles. That's the f*****g deal here.
LLv44_Mprhead Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Here are couple of interesting links, the other one unfortunately in finnish but you can see the election poster in crimea for the coming referendum. Interesting fact about that is that the choises people are presented in that referendum for the question "Do you want Crimea to be a part of Russia" are "Yes, now" and "Yes, later". http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-russias-invasion-of-crimea/495918.html http://yle.fi/uutiset/krimin_kansanaanestyslipussa_kaksi_vaihtoehtoa_kylla_ja_kylla_liittymiselle_venajaan/7131723 Edited March 12, 2014 by 13./JG51mprhead
taleks Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Interesting fact about that is that the choises people are presented in that referendum for the question "Do you want Crimea to be a part of Russia" are "Yes, now" and "Yes, later". http://crimea.comments.ua/news/2014/03/07/145732.html Real questions are: 1. "Do you want to reunite with Russia as a federal subject entity" 2. "Do you want to restore Crimea Republic Constitution (1992) and be a part of Ukraine". Questions are mutually exclusive. The problem is that if you don't mark any rectangle, bulletin is invalid. Thus, "leave at as is" choice is not possible. It is almost granted that 1) will be the result of the referendum, cause public opinions monitoring in January-February revealed that about 40% оf Crimea citizens were supporting idea of uniting with Russia, several months earlier there were about 35% only, Russia promised Crimea financial support, thus chances to get 1) are doubled. I guess Crimea will not be united with Russia. It is just the move to gain stronger hand in negotiations. Russia wants to secure our bases in Crimea no matter what (moreover, it is one of sacred places for Russians/Ukrainians due to events during WWII. Like Stalingrad in some aspects), but there is no point in getting one more subsidized region. Probably, idea is to get back Sevastopol (might be as standalone federal city) and remove some military restrictions in exchange of Crimea being Ukrainian de-jure. That is just my speculation. Officially Duma quickly patches our laws to accept request for joining. Constitution and current laws prohibit it (it was earlier ruled by Constitutional Court in wake of South Ossetia and Abkhazia requests), cause country and country only is legitimate to suggest part of itself for joining to the Russian Federation, "part of country" is not legitimate entity for such requests (BTW: it seems the reason why Crimea declared some kind of independence several days ago). Citizens were not supporting military invasion to Ukraine no matter for what reason (about 70% IIRC) two month ago, however today percents may differ due a load of one-sided news on government sponsored TV channels. Latest events are the biggest topic in mass-media, there are many different opposing opinions, although official ones prevail. As I understand, government is not sure that it have supporting majority yet, thus is somehow quiet and guarded in official actions. Crimea is a sensible matter, cause it is widely assumed that it was given to Ukraine in 90s without proper law procedures. Ukraine is viewed as sister nation, but little sister nation. Ukraine itself is not uniform country and they have PITA trying to satisfy both parties (Western and Eastern/Southern Ukraine regions), there are no politicians there able to balance desires of both parts of citizens. That is one of the biggest problems of Ukraine and all post-Soviet countries. 6
taleks Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 What this forum can deliver in this crisis is interdicting generalization, prejudiction and demonising ppl. If ppl in the Crimean region will be freely voting for joining Russia everything should be OK with the EU/ NATO, but the overall process and blocking of OSCE - visitations indicate the contrary... Actually, OSCE in deadlock. They cannot accept referendum for obvious reasons, but that way they lose opportunity to tell "referendum votes are forged or biased" (after all Russia has a long history of forged elections). I think, majority in Crimea is ready to vote for going out with Russia, but who knows? and it is one of the chances to prove Russia's actions are not justified by desires of Crimea population. Central election commission of Ukraine wants to send theirs representatives and observers, so. But I guess they will meet obstacles in theirs work. The problem is that, USA made really significant precedent in Kosovo. Although there are unquestionable differences, this precedent exists. Russia appeals to it, but our government shouldn't, cause that is two-sided sword, it may harm Russia in future. We have some regions, that one day may declare independence as well (in fact, we had it not such long time ago). Which is difference between our regions and Crimea? It will be nightmare. Anyway, if someone is jerk, it is not indulgence to be jerk itself. Russia shouldn't accept referendum of Crimea, especially when neutrality of Russia in preparation of this referendum is questionable. We will lose a lot of our allies due this. There are post-Soviet Middle Asia countries around Russia, where Russians were treated like 2nd or 3rd sort of humans for decade (Ukrainian radical nationalists actions are saint comparing to those countries official policies), they will fear us, which will lead them to hug China. It is diplomatic mistake from any point of view. China of course doesn't support separatism, that will lead to more frictions with PRC. Moreover, it gives carte blanch to NATO expansion in Ukraine. We have long history of clashes with NATO, obviously it is not too wise to give such opportunities to concurrent military block. So, result of this will be diplomatic exile and, possibly, violation of military balance in future. Russia signed Budapest Act, our country signature should have its value. Otherwise nobody will believe any Acts. If other sides will not react, it will show that similar Acts related to non-proliferation treaty are just meaningless papers, which in turn will make it more difficult to persuade other countries to stop nuclear-weapon related researches. In brief, I don't agree with our government actions in Crimea. Although they are not such cruel and outrageous as they are painted by some mass-media, but they are unacceptable from ethical point of view, give my country no significant benefit in short or long term. So, why perform that actions and perform them now? Official rationale is laughable, it's just a bunch of stereotypes spiced by biased details in order to utilize Russians fears. I don't like it. 6
Allons Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Fully acc, i see the upcoming of a circulus vitiosus with regions around russian federation getting more and more worried, seeking others to protect them wich causes increasing worries in russia leading to actions like currently at the Crimea (or Georgia) etc.. Best, Allons!
DD_Arthur Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 @taleks; thanks for really interesting post by ordinary member of Russian public. Makes a change from the usual series of talking heads that we rely on for our news. 3
Mac_Messer Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It's probably me, but don't you think that, other than the terribly ill-informed crap he's talking about, it's grotesque that a (bad) movie actor is used as ambassador/political commentator? I mean, Dennis Rodman to North Korea, Steven Seagal to Russia... I really would like to meet the genius in DC who's behind this... For the record, the drivel Seagal is talking about is exactly what a lot of (professional) political commentator have been talking about: Russia trying to destabilise the relationships between USA and EU, helped also by "opinionists" along the lines of the coke-snorting, fat "ambassador" above.. He doesn`t even know how it all started. He should stick to his crappy pictures. Well maybe the biggest RUS success here is showing that EU doesn`t really want to have anything to do with Ukraine. Factual Russian military aggression against Ukraine was met virtually with no reaction. This keeps going in peaceful way just because the Ukrainians didn`t chose to defend themselves. Now all we need is Russian Federation declaring Crimea again becoming part of it and the West praying that Putin doesn`t want the eastern part of Ukraine.
LLv44_Mprhead Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 2. "Do you want to restore Crimea Republic Constitution (1992) and be a part of Ukraine". My understanding was that there was a catch in this question, but I am happy to be wrong in this one.
Rama Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 EU doesn`t really want to have anything to do with Ukraine. The problem isn't that EU is interested or not by Ukraine fate (Some countries of EU are, like Germany, others don't really care). The problem is that EU doesn't exist as a military power. EU has no common army and not even a common defense policy... EU only start to have a nucleus of common diplomacy (but quite weak, and often ignored by national diplomacy goals). The only "power" of EU is economical, and to be used efficiently, it would need a much stronger common foreign affairs policy.
Emgy Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) It's a little funny to see people (not on this forum, elsewhere) complain that EU has no military clout - that's what NATO's role is supposed to be. Especially since many of these people come from the country which has been actively blocking the creation of a EU army. Anyway. Baltics are fracking, Poland is re-starting their fracking plans (to hell with drinking water safety regulations!) and Germany is building coal plants (flexible CO2 regulations...) so there's a long-term plan at work here, in regards to strategic energy resources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/estonia-shale-oil-drilling_n_3357830.html Edited March 13, 2014 by Calvamos
csThor Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 The problem isn't that EU is interested or not by Ukraine fate (Some countries of EU are, like Germany, others don't really care) Quite honestly (as a german) I have serious doubts whether "Germany" really cares about the Ukraine. Fact is that this diplomatic offensive prior to Feb 21 and the eventual outcome revealed just how "common" this so-called "Common EU Foreign Policy" really is. While nobody in the EU was really against the association agreement with the Ukraine only those directly concerned with Ukraine's political, cultural and social orientation were willing to invest heavily and go beyond the bare minimum. And those states were, unsurprisingly, the states of Eastern (or Central) Europe with Poland in the vanguard. Those states do have historical perspectives on Russia that are derived from decades of soviet dominance and really wanted Ukraine to join the "Western" political family (both to weaken the authoritarian tendencies in russian politics and to create a buffer between them and Russia itself). In my opinion (which I gained from reading newspaper articles and comments on their websites) the mood in Germany prior to the ousting of Yanukovich was a lot like "Oh dear, yet another half-dead economy wanting our money". I don't get the sense that germans by and large gave a flying **** about Ukraine. And certainly nobody here is willing to get overly tough over something that many consider to be Russia's backyard, anyway. The problem is that EU doesn't exist as a military power. EU has no common army and not even a common defense policy... EU only start to have a nucleus of common diplomacy (but quite weak, and often ignored by national diplomacy goals). The only "power" of EU is economical, and to be used efficiently, it would need a much stronger common foreign affairs policy. And such a unity in foreign policy and especially defense issues presupposes a European identity and culture, something that may one day develop but is still generations if not centuries away. Or it may never come at all.
Rama Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 .../... EU has no military clout - that's what NATO's role is supposed to be. Sorry but no... NATO is an alliance of nations, that don't replace in any way the common foreign affairs and defense EU is supposed to develop since the EU creation.... with no or almost no progress. Quite honestly (as a german) I have serious doubts whether "Germany" really cares about the Ukraine. You know more than me on this matter, so you're certainly right. And such a unity in foreign policy and especially defense issues presupposes a European identity and culture, something that may one day develop but is still generations if not centuries away. Or it may never come at all. The problem is that this European identity and culture will not develop further without a strong policy of exchanges, not only for the economy, but also for all the internal policies... in short, it will not progress without a stronger overall european policy. That's seems to be the story of the chicken and the egg... but in fact EU was build by political will, and will progress only by political will.... and this political will is either stagnating, or worse diminishing in almost all the oldest EU members.... except maybe in Germany (but you may also correct me there if I'm wrong).
Emgy Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 I think the most interesting thing I have observed in this "Crimean crisis" was the fact that economic interests quickly dictated the position of all interested parties.. Yep http://www.nytimes.c...-russia.html?hp But American businesses are warning against overreaction. Representatives of groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States-Russia Business Council have been holding meetings at the White House or in Congress to share their views. Although the United States does only $40 billion in trade with Russia each year, American businesses argue that the amount understates the real economic ties. Ford, for instance, has two assembly plants in Russia that make cars with material that comes from Europe, so that would not be reflected in import-export figures. Boeing has sold or leased hundreds of planes in Russia and projects that the republics of the former Soviet Union will need an additional 1,170 planes worth nearly $140 billion over the next 20 years. Moreover, the company has a design center in Moscow, has just announced new manufacturing and training facilities in Russia and depends on Russia for 35 percent of its titanium. “There’s no doubt that key economic groups, especially energy, don’t want us to act,” said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Obama and now dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. 1
150GCT_Veltro Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Actually we should not have to repeat this....... ......and what has been said above about Kosovo is 100% right. Sincerly i really don't understand what we are (UE<->NATO<->USA) "are searching for" in this crisis considering that we will never use our military forces against Russia...we can't and we don't have to. Edited March 13, 2014 by 150GCT_Veltro
Sternjaeger Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Yep http://www.nytimes.c...-russia.html?hp exactly, and on an European level, we buy HUGE amounts of gas from the Russians, you don't really want to mess around with that.. Edited March 13, 2014 by Sternjaeger
csThor Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 The gas dependence is problematic and I think over the mid-term (at least) something will be done on a European level to reduce that. What's a bit funny to see is all those fracking-advocates coming out of the woodwork again and promoting that shale gas extraction method just for that purpose. Can't see that happening, however, as Fracking has a nasty reputation and I for one can't see any german politician (who wants to be reelected next time, that is) argue in favor of that.
Recommended Posts