Crimea.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I am not a professor of Crimean history or the politics of this spot of land, however I do know a few things and have studied Russian history.

Crimea, a very strategic spot for oil distribution, has been the subject of a chess match for power for a very long time. It was a part of the former USSR most of that time as its importance rose in the early part of this century. Granted, Crimea was an important shipping center prior to the importance of oil, but not as strategic of a location as it is in modern terms.

So is what Russia has done so terrible or are we upset because we are losing access to an important strategic location?

Since the end of the USSR, Ukraine has been the subject of a great tug-a-war between Eastern and Western interests. Crimea was a location that many ethnic Russians had migrated to during the Soviet period. When Ukraine fell apart a month or so ago the area came under anarchy. (Now what caused Ukraine to fall apart, who pushed and who pulled and who set that up is a legit question) While this area was under anarchy Russia saw a land directly on its border with a majority of ethnic Russians in anarchy. They sent in troops and set up an election. The new Ukraine had intended to do the same thing, after rebel factions took extra constitutional action by throwing out their government, they were taking action to set up a vote that would have favored their interests.

So here we sit, to me there is no "moral" side, only the side that is in our best interests. What should we do, press for our advantage, which is the same thing Russia did, or relax and not get involved.

What I hate to see is this ranting about how we have a moral obligation to stop the evil Putin and evil Russia, any action we take is just as biased and self interested as the action they are taking.
 
Gee I don't know Jarod; how would you have felt if NATO sent in troops and annexed Crimea from the Ukraine?

I am amused by your argument that this is about "western interests" versus "Russian" when "western interests" are that Ukrainian territory should not be invaded by a neighboring nation via an illegal invasion.

DUH
 
Jarod said:
What I hate to see is this ranting about how we have a moral obligation to stop the evil Putin and evil Russia, any action we take is just as biased and self interested as the action they are taking.
Click to expand...

This is another of your famous strawmen Jarod; who is ranting about a moral obligation to stop the "evil" Putin and "evil" Russia? Answer=No One.
 
Jarod said:
I am not a professor of Crimean history or the politics of this spot of land, however I do know a few things and have studied Russian history.

Crimea, a very strategic spot for oil distribution, has been the subject of a chess match for power for a very long time. It was a part of the former USSR most of that time as its importance rose in the early part of this century. Granted, Crimea was an important shipping center prior to the importance of oil, but not as strategic of a location as it is in modern terms.

So is what Russia has done so terrible or are we upset because we are losing access to an important strategic location?

Since the end of the USSR, Ukraine has been the subject of a great tug-a-war between Eastern and Western interests. Crimea was a location that many ethnic Russians had migrated to during the Soviet period. When Ukraine fell apart a month or so ago the area came under anarchy. (Now what caused Ukraine to fall apart, who pushed and who pulled and who set that up is a legit question) While this area was under anarchy Russia saw a land directly on its border with a majority of ethnic Russians in anarchy. They sent in troops and set up an election. The new Ukraine had intended to do the same thing, after rebel factions took extra constitutional action by throwing out their government, they were taking action to set up a vote that would have favored their interests.

So here we sit, to me there is no "moral" side, only the side that is in our best interests. What should we do, press for our advantage, which is the same thing Russia did, or relax and not get involved.

What I hate to see is this ranting about how we have a moral obligation to stop the evil Putin and evil Russia, any action we take is just as biased and self interested as the action they are taking.
Click to expand...


The people of Crimea voted, until we found that it was fixed or they were pressured to vote for annexation, then we, as a Democratic Republic must respect this vote.

I say we don't get involved.
 
Sardonic said:
The people of Crimea voted, until we found that it was fixed or they were pressured to vote for annexation, then we, as a Democratic Republic must respect this vote.

I say we don't get involved.
Click to expand...

Anytime the voting results exceed accepted norms; you can bet on irregularities. The only voting results that equate to 96% pro anything occur in dictatorship or Communist nations.

It doesnt take more than two brain cells to recognize that there is something wrong when the Russian population is below 50% and yet the results indicated 96% voter support.
 
Sardonic said:
The people of Crimea voted, until we found that it was fixed or they were pressured to vote for annexation, then we, as a Democratic Republic must respect this vote.

I say we don't get involved.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they voted on it or not. Are you willing to declare WW3 for the Crimea? Because that's what's being proposed. When we pushed NATO right up to the Russian border we made commitments to those countries that an attack on them would be considered as an attack on us. Except when we did so we did under the assumption that Russia would always be weak. Well they're not. So those advocate military response are saying the Crimean people are worth a nuclear war.
 
Twerk Master Miley said:
It doesn't matter if they voted on it or not. Are you willing to declare WW3 for the Crimea? Because that's what's being proposed. When we pushed NATO right up to the Russian border we made commitments to those countries that an attack on them would be considered as an attack on us. Except when we did so we did under the assumption that Russia would always be weak. Well they're not. So those advocate military response are saying the Crimean people are worth a nuclear war.
Click to expand...

Obviously not, since my last sentence stated we should not get involved.
 
1) I do not thing this will result in nuclear war
2) I don't think it will result in military conflict (outside of a potential Ukraine vs. Russia, in which case it will be relatively short)
3) Europe has too much dependence upon Russian Nat Gas, they are likely to rattle sabers, toss some economic sanctions on Russia to appear they are doing something and that will be the end of it.

4) The US will likely toss some sanctions out (more than already done) and we may be more severe than the EU (because we don't depend on Russian nat gas). We may rattle some sabers or send Biden to Poland to show Russia how 'tough' and 'serious' we are... but that too will likely be it. There is nothing in it for us. The ports Russia is mainly interested in have been under their control since the Soviet Union took them around WWII.

5) Garud is still a straw man making moron.
 
Twerk Master Miley said:
It doesn't matter if they voted on it or not. Are you willing to declare WW3 for the Crimea? Because that's what's being proposed. When we pushed NATO right up to the Russian border we made commitments to those countries that an attack on them would be considered as an attack on us. Except when we did so we did under the assumption that Russia would always be weak. Well they're not. So those advocate military response are saying the Crimean people are worth a nuclear war.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're better sticking with "twerking" rather than coherent political debate. NO ONE is arguing for WW III; that is a weak and dimwitted strawman claim.

PS; Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the EU.
 
Truth Detector said:
Apparently you're better sticking with "twerking" rather than coherent political debate. NO ONE is arguing for WW III; that is a weak and dimwitted strawman claim.

PS; Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the EU.
Click to expand...
They were set to join last year, contingent on military standardization.
 
Twerk Master Miley said:
They were set to join last year, contingent on military standardization.
Click to expand...

Once again; they are NOT part of NATO OR the EU. What part of they are NOT do you find difficult.

But let's examine your meaning of claiming they "might" become a member of EITHER; how is that justification for invasion? After all, what threat does NATO or the EU pose towards the Russian Republic?

Answer; it does not unless you are a paranoid former Soviet KGB member who is currently presiding over Russia and think you can advance Russian hegemony at the expense of sovereignty.
 
Truth Detector said:
Gee I don't know Jarod; how would you have felt if NATO sent in troops and annexed Crimea from the Ukraine?

I am amused by your argument that this is about "western interests" versus "Russian" when "western interests" are that Ukrainian territory should not be invaded by a neighboring nation via an illegal invasion.

DUH
Click to expand...

Didn't bother the US when they invaded Iraq illegally.
 
Abraxas said:
Didn't bother the US when they invaded Iraq illegally.
Click to expand...

When Ukraine ousted its democratically elected President in a method that was not provided for in its Constitution, the USA began the process of sending aid and support.

The interesting question I want to know the answer to, is who supported and was behind the overthrow of the original elected Ukrainian government?


Russia was very unhappy when the US invaded Iraq and set up a Government that would be to our liking.
 
Last edited:
Abraxas said:
Didn't bother the US when they invaded Iraq illegally.
Click to expand...

There is another side to the story....

The US government stated that an armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush in 1993 and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US reserved the right to self-defense, even without a UN mandate, as were the cases in the bombing of Iraq in June 1993 in retaliation for Hussein's attempt on former President Bush's life and again in 1996 in retaliation for Hussein's targeting of American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq and the launching of a major offensive against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan in violation of UNSC Resolution 688 prohibiting repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities.

The US and UK governments, along with others, also stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the US and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.
http://tinyurl.com/2hhndy
 
When Obama took office, al Qaida had been routed in Iraq -- from Fallujah, Sadr City and Basra. Muqtada al-Sadr -- the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- had waddled off in retreat to Iran. The Iraqis had a democracy, a miracle on the order of flush toilets in Afghanistan.

By Bush's last year in office, monthly casualties in Iraq were coming in slightly below a weekend with Justin Bieber. In 2008, there were more than three times as many homicides in Chicago as U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq War. (Chicago: 509; Iraq: 155).

On May 30, The Washington Post reported: "CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays (al-Qaida) as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world ..." Even hysterics at The New York Times admitted that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had nearly disappeared from Southeast Asia by 2008.

A few short years into Obama's presidency -- and al-Qaida is back! For purely political reasons, as soon as he became president, Obama removed every last troop from Iraq, despite there being Americans troops deployed in dozens of countries around the world.

In 2004, nearly 100 soldiers, mostly Marines, died in the battle to take Fallujah from al-Qaida. Today, al-Qaida's black flag flies above Fallujah.

Bush won the war, and Obama gave it back.

Obama couldn't be bothered with preserving America's victory in Iraq. He was busy helping to topple a strong American ally in Egypt and a slavish American minion in Libya -- in order to install the Muslim Brotherhood in those countries instead. (That didn't work out so well for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans murdered in Benghazi.)

So now, another Russian leader is playing cat-and-mouse with an American president -- and guess who's the mouse? Putin has taunted Obama in Iran, in Syria and with Edward Snowden. By now, Obama has become such an object for Putin's amusement that the fastest way to get the Russians out of Crimea would be for Obama to call on Putin to invade Ukraine.
Click to expand...
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-03-05.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top