Thus, I ask again where Russia's "regional" (notquiteright's term, post #167) or national security interest are concerned (i.e., protecting their oil pipelines that run through Ukraine or their Black Sea ports they leased to Ukraine), have these assets been threatened by Ukrainian military or militia groups? If not, then IMO Russia has no business sending their military into the Ukraine.
I agree it is not perfect, or even close to perfect. And I do have reservations about the fairness of the referendum.
However, with most Crimeans being of Russian descent and the fact that the Ukraine is a political and financial mess...I have a feeling that Russian troops or no Russian troops, the Crimea would rather be part of Russia then the Ukraine. I certainly would were I an ethnic Russian Crimean.
It all goes back to what I said earlier: If Russia is viewed as an occupying force on top of the so-called "free elections" being viewed as corrupt, then the world (NATO) will hold Russia in contempt. Thus, I ask again where Russia's "regional" (notquiteright's term, post #167) or national security interest are concerned (i.e., protecting their oil pipelines that run through Ukraine or their Black Sea ports they leased to Ukraine), have these assets been threatened by Ukrainian military or militia groups? If not, then IMO Russia has no business sending their military into the Ukraine.
I see the logic. However, for the logic to hold, everyone must agree on the definitions of both terms (threat and Ukraine). Crimea was part of Russia for two hundred years before it was tranfered to Ukraine (conveniently by an ethnically Ukrainian soviet premier). With that in mind, Russia concludes that Crimea is not "Ukraine".
There was a referendum twenty years ago ( a fair one) and most locals went for Ukraine. Likewise, the census data showing Russians in a strong majority is 13 years old - and large numbers of indigenous Tatars (pro Ukrainian) have returned to the area as well as the possibility of ethnic Russians having left. Even the Russian definition of "Russian" might be stretched. A certain number of the Russians are Russian gypsies and might not be inclined to vote along stretched ethnic lines.
If independence is an option (something the Russians dont want on the ballot), then the referendum gets even more cloudy. With all this, one can see why the Russians dont want to take chances with even remotely fair referendum.
I do, however, agree with your point about hypocrisy. Some how I think Obama would have a very different reaction if Puerto Rico tried to leave the USA. Likewise, the feds have announced that Alaska cant leave - even if they want to. Of course, splitting up other countires such as Serbia is a different matter....
Are the Russians there for humanitarian purposes but have no interest in oil?Please do read the article that Dave just linked. I agree somewhat with all you said, especially about this being for oil while humanitarian concerns are typical US smoke and mirrors.
Not so sure the recent elections bolster your argument that the Crimea wouldn't vote for Russia. the semi-autonomous parliament voted that way. The Crimea has voted for the Russian leaning now ousted President.
'We' are not a nation of global interests. Multinational corporations have global interests.
'We' pay the taxes that fund military involvement around the world.
'We' send our sons and daughters into 'harm's way' to bolster 'dear friends and allies' who more often than not share little interest in freedom, democracy, of human rights.
Howsomever using your definition 'we' don't have a global interest in the Crimean. Our old world order focus on continuing the containment theory of a by gone era is destructive not constructive.
We bristled at South American countries voting to have a socialist president and helped coups overthrow legitimate governments. Now we bristle at Russia acting to protect it's REGIONAL interest in the Black Sea?
We sacrificed thousands of men to attempt and maintain artificial constructs such as South Korea and Vietnam but now demand the Crimea, never part of the Ukraine until 1955 and even then a semi-autonomous region attached like an afterthought, be considered sacred Ukrainian soil and indivisible?
All farce and folly... we lack any true 'global interest' in the Crimea. The recent trend of attempting to pull the former Warsaw Pact into a Western circle of influence rather than allow them to be a buffer and trade as they see fit is creating turmoil and global unrest.
Not so sure the recent elections bolster your argument that the Crimea wouldn't vote for Russia. the semi-autonomous parliament voted that way. The Crimea has voted for the Russian leaning now ousted President.
Are the Russians there for humanitarian purposes but have no interest in oil?
You appear to give to much credit to Barrack Obama's smoke and mirrors abilities, especially in international politics..
"The semi-autonomous parliament voted that way" sounds like the Russian version of democracy at work.
Who do you think makes up multinational corporations? Who do you think engages in the economy? Sure. We reap the benefits when they exist, too. Or we go ourselves. I didn't got because of freedom, democracy, or human rights. I'm not an idealist. Why must it be about containment? Right. Because the US is about promoting American interests. It's not about playing fair. Why would any nation want to engage in such a strategy? lol yes? It's about American interests. That's it. You should alert them of that, then.
Yes, its true, the parliament voted for Russia 78-0. Of course, this was after armed Russian militia members booted out Ukrainian and Tatar members and gave their "vacated" seats to ethnic Russians. With such "results", its easy to see why the Russians dont want to take chances with a fair election....
Not worth what, though, that's the question. There's literally dozens of various options.
Is that any different than what happened in Kiev? Armed fascist demonstrators (trained and equipped by U.S. NGO's supposedly doing charitable work) overpowered police and security; the elected government resigned, the President fled because of growing lack of cooperation from leaders of his own security forces (indicating either a possible military coup in the works, or that they would allow him to fall to the mob like happened to one of the governors; the new parliament declares it has established a "legitimate" government (with no representation from Crimea or the eastern provinces, and even drafts a law as its first order of business making Ukrainian the ONLY language...ensuring a further divide; the U.S. and E.U. rush to recognize the new government...bearing their fingerprints; and yet, for some reason, it's a big deal when Russia does some arm-twisting to secure their hold on Crimea....read some history folks! The whole point of Russia since it was first created as an empire centuries ago was to first - drive out the Tatars who ruled most of the Russian territories, and drive south to establish a year-round sea port on the Mediterranean.Yes, its true, the parliament voted for Russia 78-0.
Of course, this was after armed Russian militia members booted out Ukrainian and Tatar members and gave their "vacated" seats to ethnic Russians. With such "results", its easy to see why the Russians dont want to take chances with a fair election....
A very few of 'we' make up the multinationals, and multi-nationals are quick to abandon us, like Halliburton.
A lot of 'we' just pay taxes, which we note multinationals play games to avoid a great deal themselves. The economy isn't a sacred place, the economy is as fed by consumers as multinationals. name the benefits? The 'opportunity' to pay whatever a multinational says they should get? Would we have the huge tax burden to support a world wide navy, AF and Army if we didn't constantly go it alone when it comes to 'safeguarding' resources in far flung places?
Funny a guy who's handle is old world order asks why must it be about containment... that is trying to flip the script.
It shouldn't be about CONtainment but for some perverse reason USofA policy has been just that, from attempting to organize the herd of cats that are on Russian's southern Border to pushing missiles and radars into Poland. Russia has told us it isn't about to tolerate this sort of meddling along it's borders. (We damn sure wouldn't tolerate it being reversed as the Cuban missile crisis showed us how upsetting having nukes so close- we had them in Turkey back then)
We can promote Coke and blue jeans, but fomenting rebellion in other nations is a perversion of the 'shining city on the hill' beacon of democracy. It is head scratching to hear talk about why play fair when we demand others do just that, from trade to human rights.
The problem is that there has been far too much talk in the United States about bringing Russia into NATO. The problem with that is that it increases the probability that an armed conflict could break out between Russia and the United States. There is nothing in the Ukraine that is worth a war between the United States and Russia.
So what was the number of vacated seats? But once again that doesn't explain the previous presidential elections being so far in the Russian leaning president's favor. Using only one pin point of data is how false premises are built and how huge blunders are made.
Who has ever talked about bringing Russia into NATO?
I dont think the parliamentary represenatives have lost their seats. Likewise, the "Ukrainian only" laws for Russian areas have been rescinded. That aside, I think you have some good points. At some point, legitimate protesters in Kiev did turn into rioting right wing "Pushters".Is that any different than what happened in Kiev? Armed fascist demonstrators (trained and equipped by U.S. NGO's supposedly doing charitable work) overpowered police and security; the elected government resigned, the President fled because of growing lack of cooperation from leaders of his own security forces (indicating either a possible military coup in the works, or that they would allow him to fall to the mob like happened to one of the governors; the new parliament declares it has established a "legitimate" government (with no representation from Crimea or the eastern provinces, and even drafts a law as its first order of business making Ukrainian the ONLY language...ensuring a further divide;
That question needs to be asked to the Russians as well. My guess is that the answer to both questions is "no".The only question left to be answered is: are they psychopathic enough to roll the dice and risk a full out nuclear war with Russia?
Don't they have employees? Employees who buy things? Buy things from companies that have employees? Don't they have shareholders? What did you have for dinner last night? How much did it cost? You're the one that brought it up. No, we wouldn't. But it's about American interests, not playing fair. Because it's in the pursuit of American interests. That's the point. All's fair in love and war, means something. Not "all's fair in love and war except for like when you talk about trade and human rights"- everything. All.
I dont know. Using the 2000 census, and if the number of seats mirrored the ethnic make up, the number of "vacated" seats could have been 30 so so - maybe even more if the number of indigenous Tatars has gone up. In either case, look at the pictures of Crimean streets. Though there are thousands of Russian security contractors and militiamen present, the Ukrainians are locked up in their barracks, the Russians contractors have not exactly been greeted with ticker tape parades and the "parliament's" referendum and following announcement by the Russian parliament was not greeted with wild adulation. Rather, there has been some support from some ethnic Russians for annexation by Russia.
Nothing is over, in fact its going to get more intense. Obama has already threatened to "isolate" Russia, but this does not appear to be sufficient to stop Russia. This conflict is about get worse.
In the mean time, the flag of the Russian Empire (end of XIX c) hangs on Russian BTR in Crimea.
òðàññà Êðàñíîäàð-Íîâîðîññèéñê, êîëîííà âîéñê ÐÔ â Êðûì | VK
Okay, I'll rephrase my response then: Russia is never going to allow more than a western rump state Ukraine to join NATO.WOW!!!
MY BAD BIG TIME!!!!
Meant to say bringing Ukraine into NATO!!!!!
Typo
Okay, I'll rephrase my response then: Russia is never going to allow more than a western rump state Ukraine to join NATO.
What I find has been most ignored and overlooked by all of the western observers, is that Putin's rise to power came largely because he was the kind of leader that most Russians were looking for after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The feeling of collective humiliation...having to go make deals to privatize their economy to get loans from western banks, and pull their troops home and allow NATO expansion, led directly to Putin's rise to power. Attempts to personalize the conflict as just a result of a megalomaniac in Moscow, ignores the trend towards nationalism of Russian people. The attempt to flip Ukraine to the west, and threaten Russia with sanctions is not going to reduce Putin's popularity or prestige in Russia. So, if it keeps up, a full scale war could be the eventual result.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?