micromass said:Source please.
I agree. If I consider the NATO enlargement (which arguably goes against diplomatic agreements surrounding the German reunification), the seemingly arbitrary inner-Soviet transfer of Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 and the fact that Russia has its Black Sea Fleet there, I can hardly blame Russia for trying to prevent a future NATO influence by supporting a referendum in the current situation.lendav_rott said:I don't support either side in this, but it just seems a bit foolish in my eyes just to say "oh my god these russians!..." as if its Russia's fault that the 1st world is asking for trouble.
If such right of self determination of nations is so important for Putin and internal border decisions within the SU are irrelevant, what about Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?kith said:I agree. If I consider the NATO enlargement (which arguably goes against diplomatic agreements surrounding the German reunification), the seemingly arbitrary inner-Soviet transfer of Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine in 1954 and the fact that Russia has its Black Sea Fleet there, I can hardly blame Russia for trying to prevent a future NATO influence by supporting a referendum in the current situation.
I don't have an informed opinion on the details of the referendum and I'm far from approving of all of Russia's actions but the western mainstream seems to be clearly biased here.
Here is a Guardian article about the role of the U.S. including Nuland's quote and similar critisism as qspeechc's article.Czcibor said:Voice of Russia that you quoted is Russian gov radio. How do you think, maybe it might somewhat influence its objectivity? Or taking into account centralization of power in Russia you may as well just directly quote Putin's claims.
I didn't claim that Putin supports the referendum because of the right of self determination of nations. I also think that he has double standards. But I think he shares this with the U.S. and the West.Czcibor said:If such right of self determination of nations is so important for Putin and internal border decisions within the SU are irrelevant, what about Chechen Republic of Ichkeria?
kith said:Here is a Guardian article about the role of the U.S. including Nuland's quote and similar critisism as qspeechc's article.
Since this isn't 1961 and we didn't utilize our Cuban base as an entry point for invasion and annexation of Cuba, I have a hard time seeing real parallels.jim hardy said:That Russia is nervous about NATO placing " missile shield " silos that near their border seems natural enough to me.
Remember Cuba 1961.
I remember a Russian official telling Charlie Rose "I can't see inside those missile silos. How do i know they're defensive and friendly?"
Putin is doing what Eisenhower doubtless wishes he'd done about Castro.
I don't blame him for that.
Pythagorean said:Didn't the people of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia?
Even if we believed the vote to be real, that would not automatically make it or Russia's actions legal.Pythagorean said:Ahhh, I see :)
russ_watters said:That's a hot war even if no shots are fired and no amount of influence or treaty organization expansion can ever compare to it.
russ_watters said:Food for thought: when was the last time a principal combatant in WWII annexed part of another country? When was the last time anyone did?
The answers to - or difficulty in answering - these questions is a sign of the gravity of this situation.
Dr Jekyll Mr Hyde
------------------------------------------------
"Historical mess" "Historical mess"
Strong nationalism Strong nationalism
2014 Olympics 1936 Olympics
2014 Crimea 1938 Sudetenland
? 1939 PolandCzcibor said:Sure, they did so. In some regions (like Sevastopol) 123% of local population voted for that... :D
Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"kith said:I agree. If I consider the NATO enlargement (which arguably goes against diplomatic agreements surrounding the German reunification), .
Well you have read the article. Yes, there's nothing legally binding -and I didn't intend to suggest the contrary- but there were assurances like "for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”mheslep said:Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"
Ok, can you make that case, that the comparison is hysterical? Leave aside how hot, or not, the Crimea has become. The comparison to the early Nazi land grabs has been made in serious media outlets and by serious officials.kith said:Just for the record: I think that calling the current situation a "hot war" or putting Russia on a level with Nazi Germany in the late 30s is hysterical - ...)
kith said:Well you have read the article. Yes, there's nothing legally binding -and I didn't intend to suggest the contrary- but there were assurances like "for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”
mheslep said:Ok, can you make that case, that the comparison is hysterical? Leave aside how hot, or not, the Crimea has become. The comparison to the early Nazi land grabs has been made in serious media outlets and by serious officials.
And the slightly longer answer was also no: no only did no formal agreement not to expand NATO ever exist, but Gorbachev later formally AGREED to it!mheslep said:Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"
For my questions, "Germany, 1938" was not the answer to either. According to the wiki, Russia's current company is Iraq in 1990 and the UK in 1955 (setting aside, for the moment, Georgia).kith said:Just for the record: I think that calling the current situation a "hot war" or putting Russia on a level with Nazi Germany in the late 30s is hysterical - or warmongering. Already a cold war does not seem likely to me at the moment.
What I call hysterical is the idea that possible parallels between the annexations put the Russia of today on a level with Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and the resulting expectation that Russia may cause "another historic catastrophe" (like Devil's Avocado suggested in his post #376). Do you really want me to make the case why I think that the situation in Russia is not comparable to the situation in Nazi Germany?mheslep said:Ok, can you make that case, that the comparison is hysterical? Leave aside how hot, or not, the Crimea has become. The comparison to the early Nazi land grabs has been made in serious media outlets and by serious officials.
I didn't refer to your questions. Why didn't you bring this up in response to Devil's Avocado's post #376 who seemed to connect your questions with Nazi Germany? But funny that you mention it, my first idea was indeed Georgia. ;-)russ_watters said:For my questions, "Germany, 1938" was not the answer to either. According to the wiki, Russia's current company is Iraq in 1990 and the UK in 1955 (setting aside, for the moment, Georgia).
Well, we seem to use very different definitions of "war". Also we are still talking about a referendum and it is very questionable if anybody has "surrendered to a foreign army".russ_watters said:As for "hot war" and "cold war", so far use of either economic or military force has been minimal since Russia has presented a huge threat that everyone has backed down from. But make no mistake: if you surrender to a foreign army without firing a shot because you didn't want to die, you definitely still lost a war.
kith said:What I call hysterical is the idea that possible parallels between the annexations put the Russia of today on a level with Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and the resulting expectation that Russia may cause "another historic catastrophe" (like Devil's Avocado suggested in his post #376). Do you really want me to make the case why I think that the situation in Russia is not comparable to the situation in Nazi Germany?
What guess are you referring to?DevilsAvocado said:Free, good advice – always check your sources before guessing.