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

[Miodrag]

Scot,

This Estonia stuff is too big a derail by now. Would you be so kind to open a separate thread for it, so it doesn't affect the discussion about Ukraine any more? You know, like all those other relief threads you started? Thank you.

Disclaimer: I wasn't serious in the above. I was joking. Now, joking aside, I'm actually curious: Is Russia allowed to express any concerns at all? Will Russia's concerns be greeted as nothing but 'threats' each time, regardless of possible legitimacy to those claims? I mean, if you read the Reuters piece, it says that Russian remarks are "echoing long-standing complaints over Estonia's insistence that the large Russian minority in the east of the country should be able to speak Estonian". So, it isn't exactly news. And, who knows, might be Russians from Estonia are denied some rights after all. Does it still count as "human rights abuse" if its about Russians? Perhaps the Western mainstream media that are so professional and unbiased didn't find it necessary to inform you about the ethnic tensions in Estonia and other Baltic states until now, but those tensions do exist for some time, just like the article suggests (very subtly, but still). All of which suggests that Russian concerns aren't exclusively connected to the moment and Ukrainian situation. And what's more, we don't know much about the actual concerns, because the source is "a Russian diplomat" as quoted in the "summary of the session". All things considered, perhaps calling it a threat is a little bit over the top, don't you think?

[Horza]

Yeah, why would anyone be drawing inferences about statements like that?

The Russian diplomatic corps is renowned for its plainspoken salt-of-the-earth style of communication and must be terribly embarrassed that an offhand comparison has been so grossly misconstrued.

[Miodrag]

Oh, and one more thing about that Reuters piece. Pay attention to the wording of this paragraph:

"The text of the Russian remarks, echoing long-standing complaints over Estonia's insistence that the large Russian minority in the east of the country should be able to speak Estonian, was not immediately available."

Estonia's "insisting" that the Russians "should be able to speak Estonian"?! What the hell does it mean? Why Russians aren't ABLE to speak Estonian in Estonia? What, there are forces in Estonia that forbid local Russians to speak Estonian? And Estonia INSISTS they should be able to? And Russia complaints over that?

Makes no sense at all. Either Russia already controls parts of Estonia from which they banned Estonian; or Reuters' hiding something.

[Lummel]

My friend in Baku who's wife is from Kazakistan advises that there the media is fairly pro-Russian and is framing events in raw power terms saying Russuan expansionism is good for the world and that it is time for poer to shift from the US to Russia as the US is too weak to actually us its power. He also advised there are rumors (just rumors) of Russia making moves to turn Kazakstan into a protectorate of the Russian Federation. Apparently the Kazak president is elderly and in poor health they fear the Russians will step in to "restore order" if he dies.

Yes his daughters have been quarrelling recently more or less publicly which has opened up concerns over which of them will inherit when Nazarbayev dies.

But Russian complaints about the injustice of citizenship laws in Estonia and Latvia go back some way, the two countries have been iirc fairly widely criticised, there's a wikipedia overview here.

[Miodrag]

Yeah, why would anyone be drawing inferences about statements like that?

The Russian diplomatic corps is renowned for its plainspoken salt-of-the-earth style of communication and must be terribly embarrassed that an offhand comparison has been so grossly misconstrued.

Of course, you're absolutely right. It's not like anything ever was blown way out of proportions by the mainstream media in The West.

Speaking of media freedom and style of communication, care to explain this little incident from several days ago:

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_14/US-banned-Russian-journalists-from-Obama-Yatsenyuk-meeting-for-fear-of-asking-undesirable-questions-Moscow-9829/

Or this one, from early February:

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_03/Barring-Russian-media-from-Ashton-s-press-conference-in-Kiev-violates-freedom-of-speech-Russian-Foreign-Ministry-8170/

Nothing wrong with barring reporters from press-conferences, right? Nothing wrong with that style?

Or am I out of line for pointing to possible examples of The H-Word, a phenomenon so undesirable it must never be mentioned again for the fear of violating Russia-hate?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

After invading and annexing Crimea of the same issue? Yes, they can but any such expression will raise serious worries at this point.

[Horza]

Of course, you're absolutely right. It's not like anything ever was blown way out of proportions by the mainstream media in The West.

Speaking of media freedom and style of communication, care to explain this little incident from several days ago:

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_14/US-banned-Russian-journalists-from-Obama-Yatsenyuk-meeting-for-fear-of-asking-undesirable-questions-Moscow-9829/

Or this one, from early February:

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_03/Barring-Russian-media-from-Ashton-s-press-conference-in-Kiev-violates-freedom-of-speech-Russian-Foreign-Ministry-8170/

Nothing wrong with barring reporters from press-conferences, right? Nothing wrong with that style?

Or am I out of line for pointing to possible examples of The H-Word, a phenomenon so undesirable it must never be mentioned again for the fear of violating Russia-hate?

So, a Russian diplomat just compared Estonia's language policies to Ukraine's totally idly and without any inferences intended because uh, whataboutery. Boy, that's a great argument Miodrag, really gets to the crux of the issue. I can't wait to further explore this strain of argument until we unearth the primordial Western offence that establishes why no one has any standing to attribute bad faith to any subsequent Russian officials.

[Shryke]

Of course, you're absolutely right. It's not like anything ever was blown way out of proportions by the mainstream media in The West.

Speaking of media freedom and style of communication, care to explain this little incident from several days ago:

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_14/US-banned-Russian-journalists-from-Obama-Yatsenyuk-meeting-for-fear-of-asking-undesirable-questions-Moscow-9829/

Or this one, from early February:

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_03/Barring-Russian-media-from-Ashton-s-press-conference-in-Kiev-violates-freedom-of-speech-Russian-Foreign-Ministry-8170/

Nothing wrong with barring reporters from press-conferences, right? Nothing wrong with that style?

Or am I out of line for pointing to possible examples of The H-Word, a phenomenon so undesirable it must never be mentioned again for the fear of violating Russia-hate?

Can't explain it because there's no source for it beyond that one article. Everything links back to it. And the article itself provides no direct reference to what actually happened.

[Miodrag]

Miodrag,

After invading and annexing Crimea of the same issue? Yes, they can but any such expression will raise serious worries at this point.

Care to elaborate that "same issue" thing? Russia seems to be complaining about Estonia's treatment of local Russians for years and years. Which suggests that the mistreatment may indeed be real, but also that all this time it wasn't serious enough to cause some deeper international crisis. It warranted to be addressed over and over again, as it was, but it appears no lives were at stake. And there was no coup in Estonia, there is a legal government there, a government Kremlin is obviously speaking to and with. Kremlin's not going behind anybody's back, they are expressing their concerns in a place designed for such concerns, and they showed no initiative to do anything other than that. How is that "the same issue" with uncontrolled Nazi thugs taking power through involvement in a coup orchestrated by foreign powers and then taking quite a few steps - both real and symbolic - at antagonizing Russian minority? Do you have to take everything so literally? Anti-Russian bill was just one of the things that lead to Russian intervention in Crimea. The fact that the language was at spot that one time doesn't mean only the language is behind Crimea's or Kremlin's moves, nor that any language issue will now inevitably be solved through Russian military intervention.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

Are you trying to be obtuse? Think of it this way once the "big stick" has been used people will listsn with care when the nation "speaks softly".

[Miodrag]

Can't explain it because there's no source for it beyond that one article. Everything links back to it. And the article itself provides no direct reference to what actually happened.

Funny that yesterday "that one article" about lands of Crimea Tatars didn't prevent you from concluding that "it's already begun in Crimea", even though any search will show you that all the news about possible takeover of Tatars' lands came from the same source (an interview Rustam Temirgaliyev gave to RIA Novosti), and even though the article itself was actually less dramatic than the headline. Raising concerns over such a news was understandable, but what you did was something else. And now, only a day after, you suddenly can't explain an official statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry, because there are no other sources. OK, you're suspicious of Russian officials (much more so than of other countries' officials), so you don't believe them: But, was their claim denied? Did anyone prove Russia wrong in that one... sorry, those two incidents? I guess it would've been the easiest thing in the world to prove such a lie: there are records of journalists present at events like those (maybe not in Kiev, but in Washington most definitely), and there are, you know, reports. And if no Russian journalist actually came to the press-conference, it would also be easy to prove, through credential applications (Washington most definitely, Kiev probably).

Are you to doubt and disregard anything Western media failed to report?!

P.S. Guess you are, based on this conclusion of yours from the other day:

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.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I read in all of the threads here, not to mention the best example of how far anti-Russian propaganda may take you.

[Shryke]

Funny that yesterday "that one article" about lands of Crimea Tatars didn't prevent you from concluding that "it's already begun in Crimea", even though any search will show you that all the news about possible takeover of Tatars' lands came from the same source (an interview Rustam Temirgaliyev gave to RIA Novosti), and even though the article itself was actually less dramatic than the headline. Raising concerns over such a news was understandable, but what you did was something else. And now, only a day after, you suddenly can't explain an official statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry, because there are no other sources. OK, you're suspicious of Russian officials (much more so than of other countries' officials), so you don't believe them: But, was their claim denied? Did anyone prove Russia wrong in that one... sorry, those two incidents? I guess it would've been the easiest thing in the world to prove such a lie: there are records of journalists present at events like those (maybe not in Kiev, but in Washington most definitely), and there are, you know, reports. And if no Russian journalist actually came to the press-conference, it would also be easy to prove, through credential applications (Washington most definitely, Kiev probably).

Are you to doubt and disregard anything Western media failed to report?!

I should have known you'd blow a gasket over this. You haven't demonstrated a good grasp of what people are actually saying when they talk to you so far. Maybe you should read more careful next time and see what I actually said in that post:

There are no corroborations for the story beyond what you linked. And what you linked has basically zero information in it. So no one can comment on the issue. We know nothing about why it happened or how it actually went down. Even your one source gives no details and there is no other corroborating story.

And yes, I do trust the BBC as a news source more. If you aren't evaluating the source of your information, you are just gonna eat nothing but bullshit from shitty sources.

I have no idea wtf the rest of your post is on about. You are rambling incoherently. But that's been your schtick for awhile now in these threads. A whole lot of very biased bullshit as you twist about trying to push the "US bad, Russia good" stance on everything, even issues (like the stuff in Ukraine) where the first part of that doesn't even make sense and including it just serves as a signal that you are pushing an agenda regardless of anything else.

P.S. Guess you are, based on this conclusion of yours from the other day:

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.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I read in all of the threads here, not to mention the best example of how far anti-Russian propaganda may take you.

How is that biased? Do tell what's ridiculous about it? And how is it propaganda? Propaganda is not "a statement I disagree with".

Russia just invaded and annexed the sovereign territory of another country. A country with which they even had a treaty specifically saying they wouldn't do that. This is a clear cut demonstration of exactly why NATO should exist and why countries want in it. And it's also a clear demonstration of why Russia doesn't like NATO because NATO membership would prevent what they just did this month.

Maybe this post explains your whole contribution to this thread. You don't actually know what propaganda is or how to read a news story or vet a news source.

[Miodrag]

Miodrag,

Are you trying to be obtuse? Think of it this way once the "big stick" has been used people will listsn with care when the nation "speaks softly".

Are you?

Whenever someone in these discussion brought up all the ways USA violated and continues to violate all the international laws it accuses Russia of violating, you were the first to deny any significance America's misdeeds bare in Ukraine situation. Which means that right now you're contradicting yourself flagrantly. When US&EU were "speaking softly" about sanctions they want to impose on Kiev unless Yanukovych withdraws police from the streets, you weren't thinking of "big sticks" US&EU used and are using all over the world. But now you want to talk about "big sticks" all of a sudden.

And hey, it's alright. When considering a context is concerned, it's better late than never. But, the context you're trying to shoehorn a news report about a UN session summary in might be wrong. It might be right also, for all we know. Neither you nor I nor anyone here can read Putin's mind (opposite to what some posters obviously think), so some violent escalation of Russia-Estonia conflict is definitely not outside the realm of possible, even if neither side actually seeks escalation (and we can't be sure even about that). For all I know, Russian guy was maybe out of line for real in that session. Maybe he wasn't careful enough and therefore misunderstood. But, its also very possible that he was just revisiting already known complaints, adding Ukraine as a valid example.

The context I'd pay much bigger attention to is this: the Reuters report is obviously very lacking, because, if the reporter actually read the summary, why is he not telling us did anyone object Russia's concerns, or the way they were delivered? And if he didn't, what's his source?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

I sincerely hope the report is incorrect or overblown because if Russia moves militarily against a NATO State it cannot go unanswered as Crimea might.

[Miodrag]

I should have known you'd blow a gasket over this. You haven't demonstrated a good grasp of what people are actually saying when they talk to you so far. Maybe you should read more careful next time and see what I actually said in that post:

There are no corroborations for the story beyond what you linked. And what you linked has basically zero information in it. So no one can comment on the issue. We know nothing about why it happened or how it actually went down. Even your one source gives no details and there is no other corroborating story.

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.

I have no idea wtf the rest of your post is on about. You are rambling incoherently. But that's been your schtick for awhile now in these threads. A whole lot of very biased bullshit as you twist about trying to push the "US bad, Russia good" stance on everything, even issues (like the stuff in Ukraine) where the first part of that doesn't even make sense and including it just serves as a signal that you are pushing an agenda regardless of anything else.

Victoria Nuland says hello.

How is that biased? Do tell what's ridiculous about it? And how is it propaganda? Propaganda is not "a statement I disagree with.

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.

Russia just invaded and annexed the sovereign territory of another country. A country with which they even had a treaty specifically saying they wouldn't do that. This is a clear cut demonstration of exactly why NATO should exist and why countries want in it. And it's also a clear demonstration of why Russia doesn't like NATO because NATO membership would prevent what they just did this month.

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?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Miodrag,

Isn't Russia interfearing in Ukraine to prevent EU membership or NATO memebership at least the same as the Western interfearance you claim is a more serious violation of sovereignty than an actual invasion and annexation?

[DanteGabriel]

Miodrag,

Isn't Russia interfearing in Ukraine to prevent EU membership or NATO memebership at least the same as the Western interfearance you claim is a more serious violation of sovereignty than an actual invasion and annexation?

As far as I can tell, Miodrag believes Victoria Nuland wields as much power as an entire infantry division.

[snake]

Ser Scot,

I would say Russia's next move will be determined by what the West does next. There is still a possibility to diffuse this crisis but if we get more aggressive the Russians will as well.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

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.

Snake,

The problem is what Russia considers "aggressive" if Estonia tells the Russians to "mind their own business" is that "aggressive"?

[broken one]

There is still a possibility to diffuse this crisis but if we get more aggressive the Russians will as well.

It is said Putin was brought up by the street, so I suppose the more gentle you are, the more aggressive he becomes ;)