News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[DevilsAvocado]

What guess are you referring to?

This:

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

Either you are describing high-rank officials [maybe next U.S. President] in the western world as "hysterical", or you are just guessing that I was quite alone making these parallels.

 

[russ_watters]

Also we are still talking about a referendum and it is very questionable if anybody has "surrendered to a foreign army".

No we aren't: Russia seized control of military installations and border checkpoints with its military BEFORE the referendum.

In essence, Russia conquered Crimea militarily and then held a referendum to provide the after-the-fact appearance of legalization. The argument over definitions of wars doesn't change that or impact the historical company.

 

[russ_watters]

Free, good advice – always check your sources before guessing.

Hillary Clinton Compares Russia Moves To Nazi Aggression

Stephen Harper, John Baird compare Russia to WW II era Germany

Ukraine says Putin acting like Nazi Germany with Crimea annexation

What history can tell us about Russia, Crimea and Vladimir Putin

Want more?

The last made a couple if interesting points:

1. A similar referrendum was held in Crimea in 1991 and 54% voted to remain with Ukraine.
2. Austria held a referendum to vote in favor of German annexation too.

 

[kith]

Either you are describing high-rank officials [maybe next U.S. President] in the western world as "hysterical", or you are just guessing that I was quite alone making these parallels.

From your first link:
“She [Hillary Clinton] compared issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries,” Saltzgaver added. “She said, however, that while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II.” So no, Clinton doesn't say that Russia is on a level with Nazi Germany.

But this isn't my main point here. In my original post #380 I said "hysterical - or warmongering". I consider Clinton's comments to be well-calculated. Comparing something with big evils is a well-known tactic to stir up resentment (babies in Kuwait, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) and there's no bigger evil than what Hitler did. She doesn't even have to put Russia on a level with Nazi Germany for this. By simply summing the annexations up under "invading neighboring countries" she makes the begin of the Second World War seem like a logical consequence of these annexations alone.

 

[kith]

No we aren't: Russia seized control of military installations and border checkpoints with its military BEFORE the referendum.

Please make it a habit to source your claims. This is the second time I'd have to google them.

Even given what you wrote above, the question "who surrendered?" remains. How do you conquer an area which isn't opposed to you? Or do you think that the referendum was a massive fraud?

 

[russ_watters]

From your first link:
“She [Hillary Clinton] compared issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries,” Saltzgaver added. “She said, however, that while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II.” So no, Clinton doesn't say that Russia is on a level with Nazi Germany.

No one claimed she did. She's making a comparison with part of Hitler's actions - the beginning part - and that's it. You're trying to stretch the analogy to require complete equivalence that isn't claimed. That's argument absurdum fallacy: no one actually expects Putin to go as far as Hitler did.

The point here is as much about the West's response to Hitler as it is Hitler's early actions. We had no way of knowing just how far he would go after annexing Austria in 1938 but we knew at the time that it was wrong, chose to do little in response and know now that that helped embolden Hitler to do more. The same pattern is emerging here, regardless of how far Putin ends-up going. He's already put on the table a justification for invading all of Ukraine, so that is not out of the realm of possibility.

By simply summing the annexations up under "invading neighboring countries" she makes the begin of the Second World War seem like a logical consequence of these annexations alone.

It was. WWII in Europe started strictly because the Allies eventually got fed up with Hitler's annexations/invasions of countries they considered of lesser importance and decided they needed to stop him. Though a terrible part, the Holocaust was all-but a footnote to that and we never put serious effort into that aspect of the war (later acknowledged as a mistake).

 

[russ_watters]

Please make it a habit to source your claims. This is the second time I'd have to google them.

What do you need a source for? The fact that this was an armed intervention or the fact that it happened before the annexation referendum? Considering that your own source explicitly states this and it is dated more than a week ago, it is difficult to take you seriously when you apparently pretend not to know common-knowledge facts that you yourself claim to have read:

Troops under Russian command order Ukrainian soldiers to turn back before firing weapons into the air at Belbek airbase in Crimea. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Russia's armed intervention in the Crimea...

Even given what you wrote above, the question "who surrendered?" remains.

Again, your own source includes a photo and caption from a Ukrainian airbase captured by Russian soldiers.

Post #375 includes a story that describes a shooting today that killed one Ukrainian soldier and where others were captured.

These are some of many examples in this thread and all over the news and it is difficult to accept your ignorance of this.

How do you conquer an area which isn't opposed to you?

Ukraine is opposed to Russia's invasion of it and Russia conquered it the way any country conquers any territory from another: by sending troops to seize control of it and displace the enemy troops that are trying to defend it. Again, this mis-characterization from you is far too bad to be accidental.

Or do you think that the referendum was a massive fraud?

I do, but that's inconsequential to the question at hand, since as I said before and you must know, Russia conquered Crimea before the referendum.

Frankly, if your grasp of the facts of what is happening is actually this weak, you need to spend time getting up to speed before posting more in this thread: read the whole thread and many of the links because this is all covered in the thread. I'm going to try to keep my moderator hat off in this thread, but it is difficult to accept your weak grasp of the facts as being accidental and purposeful misinformation is not allowed here. Either way, it needs to stop.

 

[DennisN]

Full video: Putin's address on Crimea joining Russia, signing ceremony

:thumbs: Thanks! I was looking for that address before, but I could not find it. Now I will watch it.

EDIT: I've now watched the entire speech. Again, it was a very, very talkative Putin. And a seemingly well prepared speech. He talked a lot about history, Crimea, Russia, USSR. He reiterated the historical ties between Russia and Crimea. Concerning international politics, he compared Crimea to what happened in Kosovo. To my ears, he gave a pretty ambiguous description of the development in Ukraine; he said he understood the worries and concerns of the Ukrainian people and the Euromaidan, but he did not approve of the way the events have turned out. He warned of Nazi and nationalist elements in Ukraine, and fears of ethnic cleansing.

He also said that NATO forces on Crimea could have been a future possibility, and he did not want to visit Crimea as a guest of NATO, but rather that NATO could visit Crimea as a guest of Russia (something like this, I don't remember the exact words). He also said he had nothing against NATO, but he did not want any military alliance close to Russian borders (again, something like this, I don't remember the exact words).

For those who like to hear the exact words, again, here's the whole speech (about an hour):
Full video: Putin's address on Crimea joining Russia, signing ceremony

 

[kith]

No one claimed she did. She's making a comparison with part of Hitler's actions - the beginning part - and that's it. You're trying to stretch the analogy to require complete equivalence that isn't claimed. That's argument absurdum fallacy: no one actually expects Putin to go as far as Hitler did.

The part you quote was a response to Devil's Avocado who seemed to actually expect this in post #376 by talking of "another historic catastrophe". And as I said I think Clinton aims at such reactions.

Also after reading your posts #369 and #373 again, I still think that taken by themselves, they suggest a greatly exaggerated reading of the situation. Devil's Avocado seemed to have read them in such a way but you didn't make them more precise until I criticized you.

As far as the process of the annexation and the referendum are concerned, I will stop posting for the moment. I don't think you have accurately represented the discussion between us at all but on the other hand this is not my main point. And for the record: I disapprove of all of Russia's military actions which are not covered by bilateral agreements.

 

[kith]

It was. WWII in Europe started strictly because the Allies eventually got fed up with Hitler's annexations/invasions of countries they considered of lesser importance and decided they needed to stop him.

WWII started when Hitler stopped annexing regions where he had a big support in the population and started attacking nations where he had no support. That the events of WWII look like a logical sequence has its cause in his clearly stated intentions to conquer more "Lebensraum" for the german people and in the unresolved conflict of WWI.

I consider people who compare the actions of Russia to the ones of Nazi Germany but don't mention these glaring differences to act insincere.

 

[DennisN]

For those who like to hear the exact words, again, here's the whole speech (about an hour):
Full video: Putin's address on Crimea joining Russia, signing ceremony

And here is the full speech, in text, avaliable at the Kremlin website:
"Address by President of the Russian Federation" (on Crimea, the referendum and more)
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

 

[DevilsAvocado]

:thumbs: Thanks! I was looking for that address before, but I could not find it. Now I will watch it.

EDIT: I've now watched the entire speech. Again, it was a very, very talkative Putin. And a seemingly well prepared speech. He talked a lot about history, Crimea, Russia, USSR. He reiterated the historical ties between Russia and Crimea. Concerning international politics, he compared Crimea to what happened in Kosovo. To my ears, he gave a pretty ambiguous description of the development in Ukraine; he said he understood the worries and concerns of the Ukrainian people and the Euromaidan, but he did not approve of the way the events have turned out. He warned of Nazi and nationalist elements in Ukraine, and fears of ethnic cleansing.

Glad you found it interesting, I agree, if you want a fine analysis of the speech, I can recommend this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ll-us-about-russia-crimea-and-vladimir-putin/


P.S: Thanks for the text link!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The last made a couple if interesting points:

1. A similar referrendum was held in Crimea in 1991 and 54% voted to remain with Ukraine.
2. Austria held a referendum to vote in favor of German annexation too.

Yes, the article is very interesting.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

But this isn't my main point here. In my original post #380 I said "hysterical - or warmongering".

The part you quote was a response to Devil's Avocado who seemed to actually expect this in post #376 by talking of "another historic catastrophe".

To me, your logic seems a little bit 'peculiar'... you allow yourself to gather arguments through "one-eyed-cherry-picking", while at the same accusing others for being "hysterical warmongers"...

That doesn't work, does it?

With all due respect, if you characterize this as "warmongering", then the problem is probably not on my behalf:

[my emphasis]

It's hard to avoid the 'parallels':

Dr Jekyll                 Mr Hyde
------------------------------------------------
"Historical mess"         "Historical mess"
Strong nationalism        Strong nationalism
2014 Olympics             1936 Olympics
2014 Crimea               1938 Sudetenland
?                      1939 Poland

Of course, one can never be sure on what's going on, and what the real plan are, but this has to be handle firmly, careful* and right to avoid another historical catastrophe...

*dictionary.reference.com
care•ful Spelled [kair-fuhl]
adjective
1. cautious in one's actions: Be careful when you cross the street.
2. taking pains in one's work; exact; thorough: a careful typist.
3. (of things) done or performed with accuracy or caution: careful research.
4. solicitously mindful (usually followed by of, about, or in ): careful of the rights of others; careful about one's behavior; careful in speech.
5. Archaic.
a. troubled.
b. attended with anxiety.​

The last thing any sane person on this globe wants is U.S. to engage in a military conflict with Russia. That would be the end of everything.

This is what you are talking about; dinosaur warmongering, dreaming about lost 'glorious days' [that will never return]:

Russia biggest war games 160,000 troops 130 planes 70 ships thousands tanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xneZp5Ycm24
http://www.youtube.com/embed/xneZp5Ycm24

Putin and Lukashenko join forces against insurgency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxX8SuUPC88
http://www.youtube.com/embed/JxX8SuUPC88

What insurgency? Ukraine??

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The point here is as much about the West's response to Hitler as it is Hitler's early actions. We had no way of knowing just how far he would go after annexing Austria in 1938 but we knew at the time that it was wrong, chose to do little in response and know now that that helped embolden Hitler to do more. The same pattern is emerging here, regardless of how far Putin ends-up going. He's already put on the table a justification for invading all of Ukraine, so that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Without doubt; the best combination of letters in this thread this far. :thumbs::thumbs:

Road to World War II Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, Manchuria, Munich Pact
[Note: This video contains some war footage]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojT_PAupY4
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9ojT_PAupY4

 

[DennisN]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA2I0TR20140319 (Reuters, 19 March, 2014)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA2I0TR20140319 (Reuters, 19 March, 2014)

Gosh Wasn't there some sort of 'agreement' (until 21 of March)??

 

[DennisN]

Gosh Wasn't there some sort of 'agreement' (until 21 of March)??

Good point! I actually forgot about that . Things have happened so quickly the last couple of days.
EDIT: Yes, my post #312 was about a truce;

Ukraine, Russia agree Crimea truce until March 21 (Reuters);

(Reuters) - The defense ministries of Ukraine and Russia have agreed on a truce in Crimea until March 21, Ukraine's acting defense minister said on Sunday.

"An agreement has been reached with (Russia's) Black Sea Fleet and the Russian Defense Ministry on a truce in Crimea until March 21," Ihor Tenyukh told journalists on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting.

"No measures will be taken against our military facilities in Crimea during that time. Our military sites are therefore proceeding with a replenishment of reserves."

(Reporting by Natalya Zinets, Writing by Ron Popeski; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/16/us-ukraine-crisis-truce-idUSBREA2F0DP20140316

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Good point! I actually forgot about that . Things have happened so quickly the last couple of days.
EDIT: Yes, my post #312 was about a truce;

Ukraine, Russia agree Crimea truce until March 21 (Reuters);

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/16/us-ukraine-crisis-truce-idUSBREA2F0DP20140316

No worries mate, Putin apparently has a much worse memory...

(= he can't be trusted )

 

[Borek]

Russian forces storm Ukraine base

Officially these are "not" Russian forces, but the "Crimean self defense force", not controlled by Russia. Nice trick.

At least that's how it is reported here.

 

[AlephZero]

If anybody in this thread is interested in economics rather than warfare, there was a comment in today's Financial Times newspaper: the USA could do significant damage to Russia's oil-based economy by running down its strategic petroleum reserves. The high level of the current US reserves does not reflect the fundamental shifts in the USA's oil industry that have resulted from to shale oil.

The FT analyst suggests that gradually reducing the US strategic reserves to their internationally agreed minimum level (60 to 90 days reserve supply) could lower the world oil price by $10 to $12 per barrel for a period of about two years, which would significantly dent the Russian economy.

By comparison, the alternative "threat" of exporting US LNG to Europe to replace Russian gas imports is just talk, since it would take several years to set up the infrastructure to implement it.

 

[DennisN]

Officially these are "not" Russian forces, but the "Crimean self defense force", not controlled by Russia. Nice trick.

At least that's how it is reported here.

Here is a slideshow with pictures from the events at the naval headquarters in Sevastopol, March 19, 2014 (24 pics, Reuters):

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR3HPXG#a=1

Many names for many people: pro-Russian forces/supporters, Crimean self-defense units, Russian servicemen, Ukrainian servicemen...

 

[SteamKing]

Meanwhile, back at the Kremlin:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Estonia - the next domino to fall?

 

[mheslep]

By comparison, the alternative "threat" of exporting US LNG to Europe to replace Russian gas imports is just talk, since it would take several years to set up the infrastructure to implement it.

I hope the oil resources can be used as suggested, but so can gas.

The futures markets for natural gas run out ten years in the US and the EU, driven in Europe by utilities and industry across buying long term Russian gas contracts today, not several years from now. There are now some twenty-five applications into FERC and DoE for LNG export facilities. Approving many, or all, of them immediately would thus immediately depress the value of long term contracts and thus the value of Russian natural gas reserves, even if 5-6 years were required to ship the first US BTU's. Even if there were no immediate impact on Russian gas (and as I've shown there would be), I think the lesson drawn of current events for strategic purposes is to get moving now.

I don't know the full economic value of such action, but I expect it would be larger than placing banking sanctions on seven Russians who like to tweet.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Officially these are "not" Russian forces, but the "Crimean self defense force", not controlled by Russia. Nice trick.

Sigh... more "Putin Logic". He has declared to the whole world that he was forced to save Crimea from "unconstitutional thugs" and "neo-Nazis", and now when he has the power and responsibility, he allow/encourage "anonymous forces" and thugs to run down military stations as if it was the most natural thing in the world.

The man is a constitutional joke.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If anybody in this thread is interested in economics rather than warfare, there was a comment in today's Financial Times newspaper: the USA could do significant damage to Russia's oil-based economy by running down its strategic petroleum reserves. The high level of the current US reserves does not reflect the fundamental shifts in the USA's oil industry that have resulted from to shale oil.

The FT analyst suggests that gradually reducing the US strategic reserves to their internationally agreed minimum level (60 to 90 days reserve supply) could lower the world oil price by $10 to $12 per barrel for a period of about two years, which would significantly dent the Russian economy.

Yay! Smart! This is how it should be done!

I think U.S. and EU has to deliver a full package of similar "Evil Things" right under the nose of Putin to make him crawl back to his dear gas station. Fast!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Meanwhile, back at the Kremlin:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319

Estonia - the next domino to fall?

I am very disappointed on Mr. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, whom has acted very logical and responsible up till now. Does The Great 21th Century Tsar not understand that there are much more crucial "anonymous-land-grabbing" to be done elsewhere, as is clearly indicated on the Russian diaspora "Help Me!" list:

The only logical order of priority must be: Ukraine, Germany, Latvia and then Estonia & United Kingdom!


Edit - Note: strong irony warning

[If there is anything more to this than a rhetoric war of words – it's insane]

 

[mheslep]

I am very disappointed on Mr. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, whom has acted very logical and responsible up till now...

Responsible? No.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Responsible? No.

Sorry mheslep, my fault, I should have been clearer – strong irony warning in my post #419!


[I thought the bracket note would be enough...]

 

[SteamKing]

There are either >200,000 Russians in Germany or 2 million: that's quite a few people hiding in the closet or under the bed. I'm surprised the Germans have let things get out of hand so, considering what happened the last time 2 million Russians were in Germany.