Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

[Darryl1958]

Please spare us this sort of baiting

.
Not baiting.
Rather I was being baited, and chose to take the high road of keeping the thread on topic.

However, I will bite.
If you are familiar with the Beloveža Accords of 1991, you will know that Russia does possess an internationally acknowledged sphere of influence, namely the Commonwealth of Independent States. The CIS is the legal successor to the USSR and is still a functioning organisation to the present day. Ukraine is currently (even in 2015) a participating member, and Georgia withdrew only after the South Ossetian conflict in August of 2008. The remaining states of the former USSR (exempting the Baltic states) are all part of the CIS. Although I am no expert, I do believe that the provisions of the Accords do allow for Russia to maintain a garrison in the member states, even in peacetime, which should act as a warning to NATO. Even if this were not the case, the countries of the CIS are part of an acknowledged Russian sphere, regardless of opinion. Thus, any rapprochements by the west, such as those coming from NATO or the EU, are in fact ignoring the existence of an already established and recognised structure.

In other words, the UK and the US have 0 percent probability of annexing these territories, and the probability of Russia doing so is as real as the reality of what is happening right now.

The pattern of Russia’s wars, if you examine the history of the Russian Federation (which came into existence in 1991) is quite simple. You have this established sphere consisting of sovereign member states. A member state is offered rapprochement from a rival organisation in the west. Said state appears to accept the offers for whatever reason. Now there is a problem. Russia’s sphere is being undermined, with the further possibility of having a NATO state at its borders. Anybody can see a problem arising. This is Geopolitics 101.
Consequently, following this development, a war ensues (South Ossetian Conflict, Ukrainian Civil War), initiated by the emergence of pro-Russian separatism in that state.

In other words, the threat of annexing of these independent countries from Russia is very real.

The goal is simple. Outright conquest is nearly impossible and in fact unnecessary. Fragmentation will prevent the state from falling into enemy hands for two reasons. First, it preoccupies and weakens the current government, and secondly, if the state fails (partition, reduction of territory), then the asset no longer exists for both the US and Russia.

Russia is indeed acting rationally according to its imperialistic goals.

Is there Russian aggression in Ukraine? Possibly.
If there is, is Russia’s aggression unprovoked (from both the Russian point of view and realpolitik)? No.
Is the Russian Federation on a rampage of actual expansion?
Compare maps of Russian spheres of influence from 1948 until the present day and you will have a definite answer.

Everybody knows that the USSR has lost the Cold War. We are talking about current affairs, and the Putin regime, which did not exist in 1948.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are many of us who are tired of 15 years of war with no end in sight.

These wars have done a lot of harm.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is, of course, not one NATO foot on Russian soil.

Not true. President Vladimir Putin explains why he allowed a NATO base in Ulyanovsk, Russia.
youtube.com/watch?v=L7-NMq7-3Nw

 

[Tomdstone]

So explain what the USA were doing there? The EU I understand completely, and is the right of the Ukrainians to chose their path. But why were the US officials helping assist the coup d’etat government that was later admitted to by Obama - what were they doing there?

The USA was destabilizing the situation. Apparently, the US did not approve of the way that Mr. Yanukovich wanted to maintain good relations with Russia.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

.
Not baiting.
Rather I was being baited, and chose to take the high road of keeping the thread on topic.

In other words, the UK and the US have 0 percent probability of annexing these territories, and the probability of Russia doing so is as real as the reality of what is happening right now.

In other words, the threat of annexing of these independent countries from Russia is very real.

Russia is indeed acting rationally according to its imperialistic goals.

Everybody knows that the USSR has lost the Cold War. We are talking about current affairs, and the Putin regime, which did not exist in 1948.

Imperialistic goals? The map has been shrinking since 1991 as well (although I like your attempt at diverting the point ‘this was the USSR’).
Putin is not building an empire, as some would like to believe. If he is, then he is a failure, since during his tenure the Russian sphere of influence has lost two states.

All in all, the west plays a game of ‘innocence’, where a non-military provocation is sponsored, either financially or through other means. The pro-Russian government is overthrown, and immediately a pro-western government emerges. American or EU intervention/instigation would appear much less likely if the infamous ‘colour’ revolutions did not always lead to the emergence of a pro-western government.

As much as I hate to admit it, Marx did make one good point. The bourgeois elements seek to create the entire world in their image and will stamp out all competing native elements.

Judging by your username, I believe you are American. If so, may I gage your potential sources of information?
Вы говорите по Русский?

By the way, I love your confidence about taking the so-called ‘high road’.

 

[Darryl1958]

Imperialistic goals? The map has been shrinking since 1991 as well (although I like your attempt at diverting the point ‘this was the USSR’).
Putin is not building an empire, as some would like to believe. If he is, then he is a failure, since the Russian sphere of influence has lost two states in the process.

All in all, the west plays a game of ‘innocence’, where a non-military provocation is sponsored, either financially or through other means. The pro-Russian government is overthrown, and immediately a pro-western government emerges. America intervention would be much less likely if the ‘colour’ revolutions always lead to the emergence of a pro-western government.

As much as I hate to admit it, the infamous Marx was right. The bourgeois elements seek to create the entire world in their image and will stamp out all competing native elements.

By the way, judging by your username, I believe you are American. If so, may I gage your potential sources of information?
Вы говорите по Русский?

By the way, I love your confidence about taking the so-called ‘high road’.

You have laid out the way that Russia interferes and weakens those in its sphere of interference, er influence.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

You have laid out the way that Russia interferes and weakens those in its sphere of interference, er influence.

Not quite. After all, Georgia’s Rose Revolution installed a ‘NATOphile’. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine installed a pro-EU Yushenko. Finally, the leaders of the Kiev Putsch installed a pro-NATO and pro-EU government.
Is this Russia’s action?
You appear to have casually inverted what I have argued, namely the method of western provocation.

Humour me. Name one puppet government installed via putsch by the Russian Federation.

So much for American ‘honesty’.

 

[pepipop]

I never said it was because Britain is liberal. I imagine it is because there are more economic opportunities in Britain that so many Polish had opted to settle there.
That would be the most obvious reason why.
They go there to work, because of the greater opportunities than is presented to them in the homeland.

Yes, it is.

Yes.
I could google all that information, but it is mostly unrelated to what I had been implying.

The point being they may not have language skills to work anywhere else but an English speaking country, i.e. it would be too difficult to find work in China or Russia, Germany etc. as English is the official second language of most non-English speaking countries.

 

[boar2roar]

Britain is a very liberal country to move to, if it is the Russian lifestyle that is what is you deepest desire.

Understandably though, there is not as much economic opportunity in Russia for Russophiles as there exists in Western Europe, so from what I gather, England has a burgeoning Polish community now.

I don’t live or have ever stepped foot in Britain? And I like the country I was born in very much just not their foreign policy.

 

[boar2roar]

It is amusing though to see people who despise Britain sooo much that that is where they move to at the first opportunity.

Yea, posh boy has got a job for you to earn money with, or cushy welfare.

Posh boy hasn’t given me anything I don’t live in England… But thanks for stereotyping me I guess?

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t live or have ever stepped foot in Britain? And I like the country I was born in very much just not their foreign policy.

Oh, I am sorry.
Somehow I was of the impression that that is where you were living now.

 

[josie_L]

For whatever reasons or insinuations that come to mind as to why people oppose Russia taking over Crimea, Ukraine, or Georgia, the elephant in the room is that the US and the UK have zero probability of annexing the Ukraine, and meanwhile that is exactly what Russia is doing.

That is the elephant in the room that is still being ignored.

It is amusing though to see people who despise Britain sooo much that that is where they move to at the first opportunity.

Yea, posh boy has got a job for you to earn money with, or cushy welfare.

Exactly, this most crucial fact gets completely ignored.

 

[josie_L]

I doubt if it’s anything to do with being ‘liberal’ that others go to English speaking countries to work but due to language barriers.

Unfortunately, not too many Westerners are bi-lingual, aside from countries like thee Netherlands, the Swiss and Belgians.

Hence, I would guess English is taught as a second language at most non-English speaking countries’ schools, as opposed to Russian/German/French, etc… as English is now the official lingua franca and the recognised language for doing business transactions worldwide.

• It is an official language of almost 60 sovereign states and the most commonly spoken language in sovereign states including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and a number of Caribbean nations.[6] It is the third-most-common native language in the world, after Mandarin and Spanish.[7] It is widely learned as a second language and is an official language of the European Union and of the United Nations, as well as of many world organisations.*

Canada is bilingual (I myself am trilingual).

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think I used the word “hatred.” And, if it is any consolation, I couldn’t agree with you more. Western freedom doesn’t have to be reduced to capitalism or hedonism, for God’s sake. (my frustration is general, not aimed at you) Too many people live this way. And I agree we lose the value of individual cultures. Look at how everybody speaks English for example. People just take the easiest route possible. It’s weakness, plain and simple. I don’t think Putin is the answer though. He is just turning the situation to his own advantage - manipulating people based on their justifiable fear and scorn of Western decadence. If you are strong enough to resist one, you should be strong enough to resist the other.

The Bible will steer you clear of both.

Quite possibly the wisest thing I’ve heard anyone say regarding this thread and others related to it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Not quite. After all, Georgia’s Rose Revolution installed a ‘NATOphile’. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine installed a pro-EU Yushenko. Finally, the leaders of the Kiev Putsch installed a pro-NATO and pro-EU government.
Is this Russia’s action?
You appear to have casually inverted what I have argued, namely the method of western provocation.

Humour me. Name one puppet government installed via putsch by the Russian Federation.

So much for American ‘honesty’.

As a Canadian, I am in what would have once been considered the American sphere of influence, if the Monroe Doctrine had not long ago been discounted as rather boorish.

Be that as it may, American presidents have declined any attempts by the Ukraine to join the NATO military alliance, precisely as a good will gesture to Russia. America and the West have not been against all the military actions of Russia either, for there was understanding of why the butchery in Chechnya took place.

But Canada can and does regularly try to negotiate and enter into trade deals with countries outside of America, according to the economic interests of Canada. Whether or not America likes those deals, it is really none of America’s business, and there is no serious threat that a Canadian prime minister is going to come down with a severe case of radiation poisoning or have Americans in the Canadian community being urged into separating and weakening Canadian territorial integrity because Canada looks to strengthen its international trading partnerships.
Therein lies the difference between sharing a border with America, and sharing a border with Russia.

 

[pepipop]

Canada is bilingual (I myself am trilingual).

I was referring to non-English speaking countries not those whose official language is English - mainly in Europe.

 

[josie_L]

As a Canadian, I am in what would have once been considered the American sphere of influence, if the Monroe Doctrine had not long ago been discounted as rather boorish.

Be that as it may, American presidents have declined any attempts by the Ukraine to join the NATO military alliance, precisely as a good will gesture to Russia. America and the West have not been against all the military actions of Russia either, for there was understanding of why the butchery in Chechnya took place.

But Canada can and does regularly try to negotiate and enter into trade deals with countries outside of America, according to the economic interests of Canada. Whether or not America likes those deals, it is really none of America’s business, and there is no serious threat that a Canadian prime minister is going to come down with a severe case of radiation poisoning or have Americans in the Canadian community being urged into separating and weakening Canadian territorial integrity because Canada looks to strengthen its international trading partnerships.
Therein lies the difference between sharing a border with America, and sharing a border with Russia.

Which is why I asked the question, “Who here would want Russia as a neighbour?”

p.s. Not a single person, knowing the historical background of Russia would willingly want Russia to border it’s country.

 

[putinista]

Which is why I asked the question, “Who here would want Russia as a neighbour?”.

I would.

 

[Darryl1958]

Which is why I asked the question, “Who here would want Russia as a neighbour?”

p.s. Not a single person, knowing the historical background of Russia would willingly want Russia to border it’s country.

There are no rational reasons that any country would, and indeed no country that does considers themselves blessed for having shared that border.

But not everybody values rational reasons Hatred of America and Western values, for example, does not need a rational reason. Emotion is enough.

 

[putinista]

There are no rational reasons that any country would, and indeed no country that does considers themselves blessed for having shared that border.

But not everybody values rational reasons Hatred of America and Western values, for example, does not need a rational reason. Emotion is enough.

Refusal of values doesn’t equate hatred of them.

Basically, we don’t need your values since we have our own.