Ukraine VI: Crimea in the Center (AKA Putin's) pocket

[snake]

Ser Scot,

I'm talking with regards to Ukraine. If we hit Russia with heavy sanctions they will no doubt push the East and South into open rebellion and it's possible they could do so without having Russian troops there. Or perhaps they do send in the troops. Who knows? But they'll push back a little harder every time and the end result could very well be military conflict.

If we leave things as is that can be avoided.

broken one,

Well, you have to take into consideration what the Russians consider gentle. They have always maintained that Ukraine and Georgia are red lines for them. I guess we never truly believed them. Maybe we should have.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Or, Putin takes the lack of response as a sign of weakness and he keeps pushing.

[TerraPrime]

I think what Pitin might or might not do next is highly speculative and rather immaterial at this point, far as Ukraine is concerned. Let's keep this to the topic at hand for now and discuss Estonia and other topics only in the context of shedding light on what might occur next in Ukraine.

[Linsox]

The thing about Russians in Estonia goes back to the Russian view that Russian should be a lingua franca in post-Soviet states. It's part of what Scot touched on about regaining former glory. While I am sympathetic to Russian-speaking minorities (coming from one myself), to bring it up now, in this way, can only be described as trolling.

[Suttree]

delete

[Suttree]

DG,

Distributing cookies to protestors is clearly exertig undo influence. It's pretty obvious that the Maidan was a tough as it was against Yankouvych because they were hoping for more cookies.

Follow the cookies mate, that will lead you to the bottom of all this. I'm sure Moidrag can reach out to his anonymous "sources" and then spin yet another yarn of US/EU/neo-nazi meddling which justifies any and all actions Putin may take from now until the foreseeable future.

Oh and also you hate Russia.

[Miodrag]

Scot,

I'm not saying one violation is more serious than other. Not that I don't have an opinion about that, but my primary subject (and interest) in this debate is how far so many of you are willing to go in ignoring all the initial and evident violations of Ukraine's sovereignty US&EU committed. I think every single post of mine was dealing with that issue, one way or another.

And the facts are fascinating. From all of you that are debating me and few other posters for weeks now, literally nobody showed any willingness to even comment on those violations. Just look at you and DanteGabriel right now: both of you rather engage in a juvenile irony, than remember that Victoria Nuland - a senior State Department official - was caught in flagrante while instructing US ambassador how future Ukrainian government should look like. You talk about cookies and 'pitch' Nuland against an infantry division, and you think you're funny. You don't see nothing wrong with that. And why would you? It's not like you may be beaten by the thugs whose violent rise to power Victoria Nuland supported and helped. It's not like you live in a city in which the 'government' - backed and approved by Victoria Nuland - is preventing an investigation about the sniper shots that triggered chaos that resulted in dozens of dead. It's not like foreign power will blackmail your government to withdraw police from the streets occupied by radical extremists, or face sanctions. You'll be denied no cookie, because no foreign power will impose sanctions on your country. No infantry division will you face in combat, because divisions from your country fight only in other countries, throughout the world. So why not be ironical and funny about any US/EU misdeed? Just don't be concerned. Go on being concerned about anything Russia says, or about anything Putin might be thinking, or about anything mainstream media alarms you to be concerned. Just never show any concern about what US/EU might be doing, or planning to do, and everything's going to be OK. Stick to the cookies, and let Nulands do their job.

You know, I have a friend from Canada, who lives in Belgrade for years. He has a law degree, but he never practiced law, worked in the media all his adult life. Only, not in Canada, but in Japan, and now in Serbia. When Nuland tape was reported, we watched it together. His reaction was: "This is going to destroy any credibility of The West in Ukraine. This is a direct evidence that State Department official is preparing a coup in a foreign country. It's unheard off, not this flagrantly at least. It's as big an abuse of power as any. If the recording is true, the public in USA is gonna go wild. It is going to result in unparalleled scandal." I told him the opposite: nothing is going to come out of it.

He still can't believe how wrong and naive he was. I show him this debate occasionally, and he's literally speechless when he sees some posts. He's somewhat older than me, not too interested in internet comments as a way of assessing certain culture at least partially (well, now he is), and he didn't live here when Serbia was targeted by US&EU, so I give him some slack.

[Miodrag]

Follow the cookies mate, that will lead you to the bottom of all this. I'm sure Moidrag can reach out to his anonymous "sources" and then spin yet another yarn of US/EU/neo-nazi meddling which justifies any and all actions Putin may take from now until the foreseeable future.

Oh and also you hate Russia.

I've had vicious followers, and I've had 'disingenuous' followers, but I don't think I've ever been cursed with... (you'll figure out the rest)

[Shryke]

Ser Scot,

I'm talking with regards to Ukraine. If we hit Russia with heavy sanctions they will no doubt push the East and South into open rebellion and it's possible they could do so without having Russian troops there. Or perhaps they do send in the troops. Who knows? But they'll push back a little harder every time and the end result could very well be military conflict.

If we leave things as is that can be avoided.

Well, the sanctions are coming. From the US anyway.

The larger problem on the sanctions front is that Europe are the ones that need to do most of that since that's where the Russian money is. And the EU right now is doing their usual indecisive dithering.

And you can't avoid military conflict. It's already happened. There was an invasion and annexation of a chunk of Ukraine. Whether it gets bigger is more the question and that's alot more dependant on Russia then anyone else. Do they regard this as a game of brinkmanship or not basically.

[aceluby]

Snake,

Or, Putin takes the lack of response as a sign of weakness and he keeps pushing.

Like Georgia?

[Linsox]

Like Georgia?

Don't go there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aceluby,

This is a step further after Georgia.

[aceluby]

Aceluby,

This is a step further after Georgia.

How do you figure?

[Shryke]

Don't be so upset. I just reminded you of the very recent instance in which you asked no corroboration at all before you jumped to a conclusion. It might suggest you demand corroboration when an information doesn't suit your views, but you need no corroboration when an information may support, or be twisted to support, your views. It's evident, this habit of yours.

As for how informative this or that news is, OK, it's a legitimate question. But, once again, yesterday's report about overtaking Tatars' lands was also very uninformative. Not much details there, too. But, you didn't hesitate at all with "it's already begun in Crimea".

Not to rub your nose in it, but my reaction to Tatars' lands report was very different than yours reaction today. I said it's alarming if true, and that, even though I lack information (because, once again, the initial report was uninformative), it may be indicative of some foul-play. What you're doing today is very different. Because there's no English-language corroboration, you seem ready to disregard it. (That's why I asked are you going to doubt and disregard anything Western media failed to report; I'd say I was very clear on that; speaking of misreading other peoples' posts.) And OK, you're right, there's no English-language corroboration. But, is there a rebuttal? Is anyone saying Russian Ministry is lying? I mean, it is a Russian Ministry, in the middle of the information war, saying that Russian journalists were barred from two press-conferences: Wouldn't West be very happy to prove Russian Ministry is fabricating facts? And, since nobody in the West rebutted the report, only ignored it completely (as your search suggests) - is there anything to conclude from that? And if not, does it mean you refuse to conclude anything that wasn't already concluded for you by the media you follow?

Whatever bigotry and bias you accuse me of, you're way more guilty of it yourself.

Yeah, no. Sorry, but you've continued to display a staggering amoutn of bias by the types of things you bring up in this thread that are irrelevant to the issue at hand, as well as your statement of completely unsupported "facts" that you have even admitted you have no proof of. You've come into this thread with a clear agenda from the start, regardless of what the facts actually were.

A good example is exactly this false equivalency you are drawing here. You bring up a story with no relation to the Ukraine situation at all. It's solely an attempt (as most of your posts here have been) to cast aspersions at the US because ... well, that's the thing. There's no obvious reason to bring it up in a conversation about the Ukraine. Like what has already been covered multiple times with you and others, the whole "Well the US did X!" argument neither matters nor makes sense in context. That the US, say, invaded Iraq has no bearing on the situation in the Ukraine in any moral or ethical sense.

The only reason to do so is to attempt to either muddy the waters with rhetoric to deflect blame from Russia or to use any random opportunity that comes to hand to attack the US/the West. Which is what this is really all about for you because that's what all your posts circle back to in the end. Not because you might disagree with others in this thread, but because the content of your posts is chock full of irrelevancies and pointless comparisons that serve no other purpose.

And here you are again, trying to do the exact same thing with a random story about russian journalists being barred from some interview that is so light on details we know nothing. It has no bearing on the situation. The only reason you brought it up was, as you outright stated, was to cast aspersions on Western media in an attempt to better justify the narrative you've been trying to build from the start.

To further this point, you dismissed the report immediately as false, based on nothing. And then you try and draw a connection between that and the statement that we can't comment on your irrelevant russian journalist story because there's no details to discuss on it. It's just another bit of your patterns.

And fyi, the link I gave did have details. You'd know that if you were bothering to read things instead of just trying to support your own pre-written agenda. It's also been picked up elsewhere. Here's the Moscow Times:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crimean-tatars-asked-to-vacate-land-regional-official-says/496451.html

Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev said Tuesday that the new government in Crimea, where residents voted Sunday to become part of Russia, wants to regularize the land unofficially taken over by Crimean Tatar squatters following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"We have asked the Crimean Tatars to vacate part of their land, which is required for social needs," Temirgaliyev said. "But we are ready to allocate and legalize many other plots of land to ensure a normal life for the Crimean Tatars," he said.

I'm sorry, but your accusations of bias against others are unsupported. You've accused plenty of other people, including me right now, of it without a shred of reasoning for it beyond the fact that we've been poking holes in your attempt to construct your narrative. You've displayed clear bias here from the start and it's getting rather tiring and ridiculous.

I mean, fuck, you've already accused everyone of being Nazis. Your first fucking post in this topic was to try and say "The US invaded Iraq so what Russia is doing is ok".

PS - Victoria Nuland is another irrelevant thing you've brought up. I'll add it to the list.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aceluby,

Georgia happened in 2008 with little or no consequence to Russian power. Now Russia invades and annexes Crimea first Georgia now Crimea.

[Shryke]

From what you said, Russia can't possibly have any legitimate concern over NATO expansion. If Russia complains, it only proves Russia's belligerent: that is what you wrote. Let's check it one more time:

NATO expansion is only threatening to Russia because it blunts Russia's ability to exert power and influence over it's neighbours. The fact that NATO expansion pissed off Russia is the very proof that NATO expansion is not responsible for Russian belligerence because NATO expansion is only threatening to Russia if they are already belligerent.

Yep, that is what you're saying. You refuse even the possibility that NATO expansion may be wrong, or unwise, or whatever. Because, if Russia objects it, it automatically shows Russia's belligerence. It's a logical fallacy of the most obvious kind. I assume you based it on the idea that NATO membership is voluntary. I don't think it's entirely true, but my reservations aside, your stance is still illogical, because it denies the very possibility Russia (or anyone else, for that matter) may have legitimate concerns and complaints toward a voluntary military alliance. If that was indeed your reasoning, then sorry, but it really is extremely ridiculous, because the history is full of examples of voluntary military alliances that done plenty wrong.

It's not that I disagree with you. I'm used to that, I disagree with pretty much everything you said so far in these threads. It's that in this instance you don't think it is logically possible to disagree with you. Not factually, but logically! It doesn't get more ridiculous than that, as far as internet discussions are concerned.

Yes, you've correctly identified the point. Well, kinda. You seem to think the voluntary part is key ... somehow. Despite the fact that I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm willing to give you partial credit for mostly correctly understanding the point I was making.

The problem is that you haven't actually said why I'm wrong. Or how this is propaganda either.

Russia can have legitimate concerns over NATO expansion. It's just those concerns all inevitably wrap back around to NATO expansion constituting a diminishment of Russia's ability to exert regional power. Through force most especially.

Since you're so good in reading other peoples posts, I'll post a link to a previous post of mine in which I counted all the ways Ukraine's sovereignty was violated way before any possible violation by Russia:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/105781-ukraine-vi-crimea-in-the-center-aka-putins-pocket/page-6#entry5538258

One has to be very biased to ignore those violations of international law, all of which are - you'll love this part - corroborated by numerous English-language sources. One would have to be poisoned by... what was the word... propaganda?

None of those are violations of Ukraine's sovereignty. None of the ones that aren't crazy conspiracy theories anyway. I'm sorry, but we are again running up against the fact that you don't really understand the issue very well and are making wild accusations.

And, let's be very clear here, even if you do believe it's a bad thing, it's like 10000 steps below invasion and annexation. So again, we are back to your usual schtick of trying to make excuses for Russia by calling the US bad.

[Miodrag]

PS - Victoria Nuland is another irrelevant thing you've brought up. I'll add it to the list.

This is pure gold. The rest of your posts is also spectacular, but this... This is... I don't know how to call this exactly, but I can't deny its greatness. I'll try to include this in my signature or something, to preserve it for future generations somehow. SHRYKE: VICTORIA NULAND IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT THING YOU'VE BROUGHT UP. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

I mean, you managed to misinterpret or misunderstand each and every thing I posted in these threads, and to dodge most of the points that disapprove your numerous misconceptions, and to continue ignoring facts like death tolls and international law (of which you obviously know very little, so I don't hold it against you that much), and to imagine some patterns and agendas of mine all the while accusing me of imagining conspiracy theories... And I could go step by step and reply in details to all the nonsense from your post, but, one, I don't have that much time, and, two, there is no need. This, what you said about Victoria Nuland, is all one needs to know. It shows everything. Therefore, here it is once againe:

SHRYKE: VICTORIA NULAND IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT THING YOU'VE BROUGHT UP!

[aceluby]

Aceluby,

Georgia happened in 2008 with little or no consequence to Russian power. Now Russia invades and annexes Crimea first Georgia now Crimea.

I'm not seeing the logical link. Why wait 6 years? What does this predict for the future? That another country might be invaded in 2020? Sooner? If so, which one?

[E-Ro]

This is pure gold. The rest of your posts is also spectacular, but this... This is... I don't know how to call this exactly, but I can't deny its greatness. I'll try to include this in my signature or something, to preserve it for future generations somehow. SHRYKE: VICTORIA NULAND IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT THING YOU'VE BROUGHT UP. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

I mean, you managed to misinterpret or misunderstand each and every thing I posted in these threads, and to dodge most of the points that disapprove your numerous misconceptions, and to continue ignoring facts like death tolls and international law (of which you obviously know very little, so I don't hold it against you that much), and to imagine some patterns and agendas of mine all the while accusing me of imagining conspiracy theories... And I could go step by step and reply in details to all the nonsense from your post, but, one, I don't have that much time, and, two, there is no need. This, what you said about Victoria Nuland, is all one needs to know. It shows everything. Therefore, here it is once againe:

SHRYKE: VICTORIA NULAND IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT THING YOU'VE BROUGHT UP!

Lmao, do you think you have proved some sort of point here? Is Repeating what another poster said over again in caps lock and bold some sort of argument?

[E-Ro]

I'm not seeing the logical link. Why wait 6 years? What does this predict for the future? That another country might be invaded in 2020? Sooner? If so, which one?

The point is if something was done to Russia after the invasion of Georgia the invasion of Ukraine would not have happened.