War with Russia
Discussion
isee said:
skyrover said:
Russia was going to seize Crimea whether the Yanukovych regime remained in power or not.
The Kremlin had drawn up plans as far back as the early 2000's.
Oh wow, reminds me of that old Soviet Russia joke:The Kremlin had drawn up plans as far back as the early 2000's.
Whilst searching a citizen's house, a cop finds some moonshine making equipment in the attic.
"Aha!" exclaims the cop, "we shall try you for making moonshine!"
"but I didn't make any moonshine" protests the citizen
"No, but you have the equipment!" retorts the copper.
citizen replies "In that case, try me for rape also"
"Did you rape someone?" enquires the policeman
"No, but I have the equipment"
countries make contingency plans, USA had drawn up a false flag operation as a pretext to invade Cuba for shooting down a civilian US plane, which they would have shot down themselves.
I would be surprised if UK didn't have various plans drawn up with regard to the numerous colonies past and present and will likely action some of them should the political events change in a way that justifies them.
I am also sure that Russia has plans drawn up that involve nuking the world 5 times over, should a certain chain of events take place, can I apply your logic and say that Russia was going to nuke the world regardless?
A murdered only becomes a murderer once they have committed the act.
If it was planned it becomes pre-meditated.
scherzkeks said:
Liokault said:
is that why we invaded than annexed them.......
I love this soundbyte. From the land that invented modern propaganda, and the tie-in to Mr. Bernays' biggest German fan makes it even greater. It just works on so many levels.
BTW, only three dots are required by most style guides.
It would be funny if Russia wasn't so screwed on so many levels.
skyrover said:
The difference being... they carried their plans out.
A murdered only becomes a murderer once they have committed the act.
If it was planned it becomes pre-meditated.
Well I certainly hope they have planned it. Would be quite a feat accidentally merging another territory to yours A murdered only becomes a murderer once they have committed the act.
If it was planned it becomes pre-meditated.
Liokault said:
Normally, comrade, you have the election, then you get the army. If you get the army first, it indicates that it's probably not really an election.
The thing I find really funny is that if Russia had done diplomacy better, I have zero doubt that they could have peacefully taken/been given Crimea, no tanks, no stages election, no invasion by fully armed squads of Russian apparent day trippers, no massive death toll required.
I already have stated that I do not support the way it was done, but explained that despite the "army first, referendum later approach", I have the least doubt over any other division of land in history with regard to it reflecting the will of the people. but i guess you would rather go in circles, just rephrasing your accusations, but ultimately repeating them... The thing I find really funny is that if Russia had done diplomacy better, I have zero doubt that they could have peacefully taken/been given Crimea, no tanks, no stages election, no invasion by fully armed squads of Russian apparent day trippers, no massive death toll required.
I have also appreciated your use of "comrade". It is clear to me that debating with you is not only tedious, but pointless as you would rather resort to "your mum" retorts and change the subject than take note of your opponent's view.
My remark was in response to skyrover's "Apparently nobody cares about Ukrainian people's opinion" remark, sarcastically implying that it's ultimately what matters the most. Tell me, do you doubt that an overwhelming majority of Crimean were in favour of joining Russia and remain in favour over a year later?
isee said:
(SNIP) but i guess you would rather go in circles, just rephrasing your accusations, but ultimately repeating them...
I have also appreciated your use of "comrade". It is clear to me that debating with you is not only tedious, but pointless as you would rather resort to "your mum" retorts and change the subject than take note of your opponent's view.
Its not going round in circles, my position is stating what actually happened. There was a scuffle, then Russia suddenly owned a huge chunk of Ukraine, then they made moves to legitimize their annexation. I have also appreciated your use of "comrade". It is clear to me that debating with you is not only tedious, but pointless as you would rather resort to "your mum" retorts and change the subject than take note of your opponent's view.
This isnt a rephrasing or an accusation, its what happend.
isee said:
Tell me, do you doubt that an overwhelming majority of Crimean were in favour of joining Russia and remain in favour over a year later?
If an overwhelming majority of people in Crimea wanted to join Russia, they wouldn't have needed men with guns to help them make the correct decision at or near the ballot box would they?isee said:
skyrover said:
The difference being... they carried their plans out.
A murdered only becomes a murderer once they have committed the act.
If it was planned it becomes pre-meditated.
Well I certainly hope they have planned it. Would be quite a feat accidentally merging another territory to yours A murdered only becomes a murderer once they have committed the act.
If it was planned it becomes pre-meditated.
Just out of interest do we know what the demographics of Crimea are/were.
Most census figures suggest a decline in ethnic Russians from 1960 to 2001 however the data seems to stop there.
Of course if the recently formed Crimean Statistics Department is too be believed the population has exploded by some 280k people in just 6 months last year.
Most census figures suggest a decline in ethnic Russians from 1960 to 2001 however the data seems to stop there.
Of course if the recently formed Crimean Statistics Department is too be believed the population has exploded by some 280k people in just 6 months last year.
isee said:
skyrover said:
so we are agreed then
We are agreed that Russia did not do it randomly and without prior consideration or against its will. I think where we differ is that having planned it has any bearing on anything.Whether the majority of those who live there want to be Russian or not, that is a decision to be made via the correct legal channels.
What was Russia's pretext for invasion... suppression of the Russian language and culture?
http://info-news.eu/russia-bans-ukrainian-language...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/tatars...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-bans-crimean-tatar...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukrai...
Russia masses heavy firepower on border with Ukraine - witness
Russia masses heavy firepower on border with Ukraine - witness
superkartracer said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-ukrai...
Russia masses heavy firepower on border with Ukraine - witness
Tsk tsk blatantly defensive moves to prevent those aggressive Ukrainians staging another Operation Barbarossa obviously....Russia masses heavy firepower on border with Ukraine - witness
Mojocvh said:
Tsk tsk blatantly defensive moves to prevent those aggressive Ukrainians staging another Operation Barbarossa obviously....
The irony is, of course, that the Ukrainian government actually have mobilized Neo-Nazis on the battlefield. This is the thread that keeps on giving.
scherzkeks said:
skyrover said:
that is a decision to be made via the correct legal channels.
indeed. The reason that there is so much emphasis on 'process' vis-à-vis Crimea in the anti-Russian press, is that admitting that the majority of people who live in Crimea are Russian, think of themselves as Russian, and are happy to now be Russian, sticks in their throats.Self-determination of peoples as Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations puts it . .
As per my question on the last page.
I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
barryrs said:
As per my question on the last page.
I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
Would this help?I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-06/o...
bloomberg said:
Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets.
2001 census shows Russians as the majority (60.4%), and those that have Russian as their native language as higher still (77%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crim...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crim...
isee said:
barryrs said:
As per my question on the last page.
I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
Would this help?I dont suppose there is any data that supports the assertion that ethnic Russians were in the majority?
Census data shows a decline in ethnic Russians between the 60's and 2001; what happened in the following 13 years as that assertion seems to be based on historical data rather than current.
Im not sure i can take the 2014 data without a massive pinch of salt.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-06/o...
bloomberg said:
Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets.
That poll would be as expected now because reports suggest that circa 280k ethnic Ukrainians have left Crimea and the Russian population has exploded so im not sure any data produced in the last 12 months will be representative.
The entire Crimean population has been consistently decreasing at a rate of 0.4% a year and the Russian population fell from 65% in 1989 to 58% in 2001.
Had those trends continued the ethnic Russian population would have been well below the figures being used to justify the intervention.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff