News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Evo]

Going forward, any member whose post doesn't meet "current event" guidelines will be timed out, that is 5 points and a 3 day ban, unless the 5 points causes a longer or permanent ban, depending on current points a member might have. So think twice before you post.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

Never mind what the West thinks -- the Kremlin says Ukraine's Crimea region is now part of Russia.
A signing ceremony Tuesday between Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister of Crimea and the mayor of the city of Sevastopol made it official, the Kremlin said in a statement.
Crimea and Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea fleet is based, are now part of the Russian Federation, it said.

 

[qspeechc]

My guess is it will be impossible for Putin to reinstall any pro-Russian government in Ukraine again (without military force), because it was very close in last election, and now approx 1 million pro-Russian voters are no longer Ukrainians... maybe something he should have considered in the first place?

Are you are insinuating that Putin installed the government of Yanukovych by military force? Please provide evidence in support of this.
Under 'First Round Ballet', 'Fraud suspicions and accusations', and 'International observers'

The first round ballot was held on January 17 and was internationally widely recognized as meeting democratic standards.
[...]
According to all international organizations observing the election, allegations of electoral fraud in relation to the first round ballot were unfounded, they declared that the conduct of the elections was within internationally recognized democratic standards and a testament to the will of the people of Ukraine.
[...]
After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest

Also, please provide evidence that he was 'pro-Russian'. According to wikipedia:

During his presidency, he led Ukraine toward closer ties with the European Union. November 2013 saw the beginning of a series of events that led to his ouster as president. Yanukovych rejected a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.

And the article DennisN quotes clearly says '"We would like for each state that wants to join the Customs Union, the Common Economic Space, and in future the Eurasian Union, to make that choice consciously, so that nobody then says they were roped in," Medvedev said'. The Eurasian Union is clearly an economic union. So too is the EU. So why is the Eurasian Union a sign that Russia wants a return to empire, but the same is not true of other economic unions? And Medvedev explicitly adds that joining the union will be voluntary.

I don't know how you make the leap from nostalgia over the USSR, and trade pacts, to the claim that Russia wants to bring back the USSR. So far you have not put forward anything tangible, like oh I don't know, bringing countries into a military alliance:

FROM THE moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

I really suggest you read that http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-03/backstory-russia-ukraine-confrontation-us-and-nato-encirclement-russia

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but the government that came into power by a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government, is entirely acceptable?

If two wrongs make a right, three wrongs would be a wrong again.

Or: regardless of Ukraine's internal problems, invading and/or annexing a piece of it is not OK.

 

[jim hardy]

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.

 

[qspeechc]

Three wrongs do not make a right.

I agree entirely. My problem is with only pointing out some wrongs, but turning a blind eye to others. I must state clearly that I am NOT on the side of the Russians. I think politics in general is a joke, whether Russian, European, American or whatever. I think the handling of the situation Ukraine has been a colossal balls up on the part of all parties. It's more tragic than anything; we could be seeing the start of another Cold War, perhaps even a world war.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree entirely. My problem is with only pointing out some wrongs, but turning a blind eye to others. I must state clearly that I am NOT on the side of the Russians. I think politics in general is a joke, whether Russian, European, American or whatever. I think the handling of the situation Ukraine has been a colossal balls up on the part of all parties. It's more tragic than anything; we could be seeing the start of another Cold War, perhaps even a world war.

...I reworded/added after I posted, sorry. Please have another look.

That said, the west has done very little of substance here so there at no "wrongs" by them to compare with what Russia is doing.

 

[lendav_rott]

Russia has made its claim, which I don't support, but still, I can't blame Russia for it. The funny thing, the media in either of two worlds paints the other one as the villain and the bad guy and a threat. The truth is, the media is just there so you (you and me) would shut up and eat your dinner.

Russia cannot afford Ukraine to be lost to a western government. It's a big hit geographically (somewhat of an analogy with the Cold War when the Soviets had a military instalment in Cuba while the US had one in Italy and somewhere else in Europe) And economically (Ukraine owes a crapton to Russia for the natural gas) - more importantly Russia cannot afford to lose this huge economical conveyer to the west (the 1st world). It's about control.

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.

The latest says that Putin officially recognizes Crimea as an independent state, but the west is not agreeable.

 

[Czcibor]

There are quite a few reports that there were no independent observers at the referendum, which contradicts this:

I checked this alleged independent observer, because I've heard that there was someone from my country... Adam Kępiński - a low rank member of post communist party.

Are you challenging: "observers" or "independent observers"?

2) I simply don't buy the assertion that voters in Crimea are being forced at gun-point to vote to join Russia. For one, that doesn't square with the acknowledged fact that some people abstained from voting precisely because there was no option to remain part of the Ukraine; why were they not forced at gun-point?

In Sevastopol there was a support of over 120% for joining Russia...

 

[micromass]

In Sevastopol there was a support of over 120% for joining Russia...

Source please.

 

[Czcibor]

Source please.

"There are massive anomalies in the vote, even as it is recorded, including the fact that, based on the census in Sevastopol city, 123% of the Sevastopol population would have had to have voted yes for the referendum."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/us-eu-sanctions-russia-ukraine-crimea-referendum

I hope that The Guardian is not a newspaper with serious right wing bias ;)

 

[kith]

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.

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.

 

[Czcibor]

qspeechc:
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 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.

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]

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.

Here is a Guardian article about the role of the U.S. including Nuland's quote and similar critisism as qspeechc's article.

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?

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]

Here is a Guardian article about the role of the U.S. including Nuland's quote and similar critisism as qspeechc's article.

The article that I mocked was about the USA founding Nazi groups in the Ukraine.

Thanks for this article. I thought that the USA does not care too much about my region, and now I'm a bit reassured. (yes, reassured, keep in mind that in this game the possible gain of the US is small in comparison to gains of central and eastern Europe freed from dependency on Russian natural gas) Anyway slowly building civic society in Ukraine does not sound to me as something that would be placed within the top 10 most evil things that the USA does.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

Putin isn't stupid or naive and I don't think anyone else here is either: in the Cold War, the threats really were multilateral, but today the threat exists in one direction only.

In other words, our military posture really was aimed at the USSR and theirs at us, but for a quarter century it has only been true that Russia's is focused on us. Our focus has been and remains elsewhere and we intend no threat to Russia, but clearly Russia is a threat to us/the West.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, I shouldn't have to remind people, but all cold war parallels became moot yesterday when Putin reversed himself and declared his intent to annex Crimea. 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.

 

[Pythagorean]

Didn't the people of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia?

 

[Czcibor]

Didn't the people of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia?

Sure, they did so. In some regions (like Sevastopol) 123% of local population voted for that... :D

 

[Pythagorean]

Ahhh, I see :)

 

[russ_watters]

Ahhh, I see :)

Even if we believed the vote to be real, that would not automatically make it or Russia's actions legal.

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know about legality, but from a moral perspective, it's in a grey area if the people of Crimea actually want to be part of Russia, given their recent history with their own government. Though that's probably irrelevant given Putin's voting standards.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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.

True, but it was maybe a matter of just a few minutes after the "victory speech":

Ukraine Officer Shot Dead In Simferopol, Crimea

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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.

Thank you very much for this russ, I was beginning to feel like a "hysterical tocsin" in this thread. 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...

 

[SteamKing]

Sure, they did so. In some regions (like Sevastopol) 123% of local population voted for that... :D

They did just what former Gov. Earl Long of Louisiana told his supporters long ago: "Vote early and vote often."

 

[mheslep]

I agree. If I consider the NATO enlargement (which arguably goes against diplomatic agreements surrounding the German reunification), .

Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"

 

[Pythagorean]

It looks like Turkey wants a piece now too.

That is to say, a Turkish columnist :P

 

[kith]

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.

One of the first indicators will be the reaction of the EU which is to be expected at the end of the week. NATO founding member France for example, does not sound enthusiastic even about stopping weapon delivery to Russia yet: "If Putin carries on like this, we could consider canceling these sales." (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140317-711663.html )

 

[kith]

Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"

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]

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 - ...)

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.”

Agreed, and those reunification discussions are relevant.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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.

:thumbs:

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Full video: Putin's address on Crimea joining Russia, signing ceremony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayu3Ecdbl0Q
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ayu3Ecdbl0Q


Kerry: Putin's rhetoric doesn't jibe with reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qByDgxz6lC8
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qByDgxz6lC8

William Hague addresses House of Commons over Ukraine crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6NEIn72H-Y
http://www.youtube.com/embed/L6NEIn72H-Y

Joe Biden Denounces Crimean Annexation: Russia 'Stands Naked And Alone'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHu4pizMYM
http://www.youtube.com/embed/zDHu4pizMYM

McCain: Russia Is a 'Gas Station Masquerading As a Country'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scTjdnT7CCo
http://www.youtube.com/embed/scTjdnT7CCo

 

[russ_watters]

Per the article you reference there arguably is no such agreement, I.e "the short answer is no"

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!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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).

...of course the UK's last ever territorial acquisition was literally a rock: 20m high and 800 sq m in area. Of course, if that one's too silly then, yeah, things get a bit crazy.

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]

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.

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?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This man was clearly in some sort of 'war' already back in 2012 [and surely long before this].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30oMuEo4eDw
http://www.youtube.com/embed/30oMuEo4eDw

Peculiar notion of a "modern country"...

 

[kith]

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).

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. ;-)

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.

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".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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?

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?

 

[kith]

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

What guess are you referring to?

 

[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.