• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For First Time, Kremlin Signals It Is Prepared to Annex Crimea [W:153]

Thus, I ask again where Russia's "regional" (notquiteright's term, post #167) or national security interest are concerned (i.e., protecting their oil pipelines that run through Ukraine or their Black Sea ports they leased to Ukraine), have these assets been threatened by Ukrainian military or militia groups? If not, then IMO Russia has no business sending their military into the Ukraine.

I see the logic. However, for the logic to hold, everyone must agree on the definitions of both terms (threat and Ukraine). Crimea was part of Russia for two hundred years before it was tranfered to Ukraine (conveniently by an ethnically Ukrainian soviet premier). With that in mind, Russia concludes that Crimea is not "Ukraine".

I agree it is not perfect, or even close to perfect. And I do have reservations about the fairness of the referendum.
However, with most Crimeans being of Russian descent and the fact that the Ukraine is a political and financial mess...I have a feeling that Russian troops or no Russian troops, the Crimea would rather be part of Russia then the Ukraine. I certainly would were I an ethnic Russian Crimean.

There was a referendum twenty years ago ( a fair one) and most locals went for Ukraine. Likewise, the census data showing Russians in a strong majority is 13 years old - and large numbers of indigenous Tatars (pro Ukrainian) have returned to the area as well as the possibility of ethnic Russians having left. Even the Russian definition of "Russian" might be stretched. A certain number of the Russians are Russian gypsies and might not be inclined to vote along stretched ethnic lines.

If independence is an option (something the Russians dont want on the ballot), then the referendum gets even more cloudy. With all this, one can see why the Russians dont want to take chances with even remotely fair referendum.

I do, however, agree with your point about hypocrisy. Some how I think Obama would have a very different reaction if Puerto Rico tried to leave the USA. Likewise, the feds have announced that Alaska cant leave - even if they want to. Of course, splitting up other countires such as Serbia is a different matter....
 
Last edited:
Martin Armstrong: Obama "Using Same Nonsense As Putin"

'For Obama to claim that a public vote in Crimea would violate the Constitution of Ukraine and International Law is really just as absurd that the same argument put forth by Putin that nothing in Kiev was legal because it was not signed by Yanukovych. There should be a vote, but it should be monitored independently to ensure it is real. To argue that no state may move to secede from a federal government is ridiculous. Obama said:

“Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine. In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”
Texas has the ABSOLUTE right to secede from the United States if it so desired and the Washington has no right to invade Texas to prevent that – although they too would in the blink-of-an-eye.'


Martin Armstrong: Obama "Using Same Nonsense As Putin" | Zero Hedge
 
It all goes back to what I said earlier: If Russia is viewed as an occupying force on top of the so-called "free elections" being viewed as corrupt, then the world (NATO) will hold Russia in contempt. Thus, I ask again where Russia's "regional" (notquiteright's term, post #167) or national security interest are concerned (i.e., protecting their oil pipelines that run through Ukraine or their Black Sea ports they leased to Ukraine), have these assets been threatened by Ukrainian military or militia groups? If not, then IMO Russia has no business sending their military into the Ukraine.

Now the other side of this coin-

What if Russia viewed the agitation in the Ukraine as western instigated and the West pushing for a coup that doesn't change 'corrupt' a bit but now the crooks and goons are not allied to Russia? What if their intel services are convinced the CIA and other clandestine agencies are at work and can lay out a good 'power point' to convince their civilian leadership this is aimed at the Russians using the Ukraine thug element as a proxy force? Combine this with past USofA meddling- the BushII era Star Wars deployments to Poland for instance- and I can see how the Russian leadership feels the Cold War isn't over, it has moved hundreds of kilometers closer.

If the USofA waited until AFTER a blow to our regional security actually caused harm, say Venezuelan based goons attacked Gulf oil platforms or some such would we say our defense dept was doing it's job? I don't think so. Russia waiting until AFTER the Ukrainians sabotaged pipelines or captured the Crimean naval bases is dumb. Putin isn't dumb.

But the Russians have not entered 'traditional' Ukraine have they? They have bolstered their troops in the Crimea, again not a part of the Ukraine historically with little if any cultural ties to the Ukraine. But they are not in the Ukraine so I think the constant referring to the Crimea as 'Ukrainian' is a false.

The Crimean Penn should never have been attached to the Ukraine- this is a simple rectification of an earlier mistake.
 
I see the logic. However, for the logic to hold, everyone must agree on the definitions of both terms (threat and Ukraine). Crimea was part of Russia for two hundred years before it was tranfered to Ukraine (conveniently by an ethnically Ukrainian soviet premier). With that in mind, Russia concludes that Crimea is not "Ukraine".



There was a referendum twenty years ago ( a fair one) and most locals went for Ukraine. Likewise, the census data showing Russians in a strong majority is 13 years old - and large numbers of indigenous Tatars (pro Ukrainian) have returned to the area as well as the possibility of ethnic Russians having left. Even the Russian definition of "Russian" might be stretched. A certain number of the Russians are Russian gypsies and might not be inclined to vote along stretched ethnic lines.

If independence is an option (something the Russians dont want on the ballot), then the referendum gets even more cloudy. With all this, one can see why the Russians dont want to take chances with even remotely fair referendum.

I do, however, agree with your point about hypocrisy. Some how I think Obama would have a very different reaction if Puerto Rico tried to leave the USA. Likewise, the feds have announced that Alaska cant leave - even if they want to. Of course, splitting up other countires such as Serbia is a different matter....

Not so sure the recent elections bolster your argument that the Crimea wouldn't vote for Russia. the semi-autonomous parliament voted that way. The Crimea has voted for the Russian leaning now ousted President.
 
Please do read the article that Dave just linked. I agree somewhat with all you said, especially about this being for oil while humanitarian concerns are typical US smoke and mirrors.
Are the Russians there for humanitarian purposes but have no interest in oil?

You appear to give to much credit to Barrack Obama's smoke and mirrors abilities, especially in international politics..
 
Not so sure the recent elections bolster your argument that the Crimea wouldn't vote for Russia. the semi-autonomous parliament voted that way. The Crimea has voted for the Russian leaning now ousted President.

"The semi-autonomous parliament voted that way" sounds like the Russian version of democracy at work.
 
'We' are not a nation of global interests. Multinational corporations have global interests.

Who do you think makes up multinational corporations? Who do you think engages in the economy?

'We' pay the taxes that fund military involvement around the world.

Sure. We reap the benefits when they exist, too.

'We' send our sons and daughters into 'harm's way' to bolster 'dear friends and allies' who more often than not share little interest in freedom, democracy, of human rights.

Or we go ourselves. I didn't got because of freedom, democracy, or human rights. I'm not an idealist.

Howsomever using your definition 'we' don't have a global interest in the Crimean. Our old world order focus on continuing the containment theory of a by gone era is destructive not constructive.

Why must it be about containment?

We bristled at South American countries voting to have a socialist president and helped coups overthrow legitimate governments. Now we bristle at Russia acting to protect it's REGIONAL interest in the Black Sea?

Right. Because the US is about promoting American interests. It's not about playing fair. Why would any nation want to engage in such a strategy?

We sacrificed thousands of men to attempt and maintain artificial constructs such as South Korea and Vietnam but now demand the Crimea, never part of the Ukraine until 1955 and even then a semi-autonomous region attached like an afterthought, be considered sacred Ukrainian soil and indivisible?

lol yes? It's about American interests. That's it.

All farce and folly... we lack any true 'global interest' in the Crimea. The recent trend of attempting to pull the former Warsaw Pact into a Western circle of influence rather than allow them to be a buffer and trade as they see fit is creating turmoil and global unrest.

You should alert them of that, then.
 
Not so sure the recent elections bolster your argument that the Crimea wouldn't vote for Russia. the semi-autonomous parliament voted that way. The Crimea has voted for the Russian leaning now ousted President.

Yes, its true, the parliament voted for Russia 78-0.

Of course, this was after armed Russian militia members booted out Ukrainian and Tatar members and gave their "vacated" seats to ethnic Russians. With such "results", its easy to see why the Russians dont want to take chances with a fair election....
 
Are the Russians there for humanitarian purposes but have no interest in oil?

You appear to give to much credit to Barrack Obama's smoke and mirrors abilities, especially in international politics..

Russia has three bases, a lot of assets to secure and protect. A majority of the people there share Russian culture, language and loyalties. The condemnation of Putin, who performed his task without killing anybody or destroying property is really pathetic. Accusations of nazi tactics and comparisons to Hitler are hogwash and uttered by the pro-war crowd, and meant to demonize Obama while your at it, which is stupid anyway sense he supported and facilitated the protests, has applied sanctions, is moving naval ships, and planes into the region, all of which should make the chicken hawks proud.
 
Who do you think makes up multinational corporations? Who do you think engages in the economy? Sure. We reap the benefits when they exist, too. Or we go ourselves. I didn't got because of freedom, democracy, or human rights. I'm not an idealist. Why must it be about containment? Right. Because the US is about promoting American interests. It's not about playing fair. Why would any nation want to engage in such a strategy? lol yes? It's about American interests. That's it. You should alert them of that, then.

A very few of 'we' make up the multinationals, and multi-nationals are quick to abandon us, like Halliburton. A lot of 'we' just pay taxes, which we note multinationals play games to avoid a great deal themselves. The economy isn't a sacred place, the economy is as fed by consumers as multinationals. name the benefits? The 'opportunity' to pay whatever a multinational says they should get? Would we have the huge tax burden to support a world wide navy, AF and Army if we didn't constantly go it alone when it comes to 'safeguarding' resources in far flung places?

Funny a guy who's handle is old world order asks why must it be about containment... that is trying to flip the script. It shouldn't be about CONtainment but for some perverse reason USofA policy has been just that, from attempting to organize the herd of cats that are on Russian's southern Border to pushing missiles and radars into Poland. Russia has told us it isn't about to tolerate this sort of meddling along it's borders. (We damn sure wouldn't tolerate it being reversed as the Cuban missile crisis showed us how upsetting having nukes so close- we had them in Turkey back then)

We can promote Coke and blue jeans, but fomenting rebellion in other nations is a perversion of the 'shining city on the hill' beacon of democracy. It is head scratching to hear talk about why play fair when we demand others do just that, from trade to human rights.
 
Yes, its true, the parliament voted for Russia 78-0. Of course, this was after armed Russian militia members booted out Ukrainian and Tatar members and gave their "vacated" seats to ethnic Russians. With such "results", its easy to see why the Russians dont want to take chances with a fair election....

So what was the number of vacated seats? But once again that doesn't explain the previous presidential elections being so far in the Russian leaning president's favor. Using only one pin point of data is how false premises are built and how huge blunders are made.
 
Not worth what, though, that's the question. There's literally dozens of various options.

The problem is that there has been far too much talk in the United States about bringing Russia into NATO. The problem with that is that it increases the probability that an armed conflict could break out between Russia and the United States. There is nothing in the Ukraine that is worth a war between the United States and Russia.
 
Yes, its true, the parliament voted for Russia 78-0.

Of course, this was after armed Russian militia members booted out Ukrainian and Tatar members and gave their "vacated" seats to ethnic Russians. With such "results", its easy to see why the Russians dont want to take chances with a fair election....
Is that any different than what happened in Kiev? Armed fascist demonstrators (trained and equipped by U.S. NGO's supposedly doing charitable work) overpowered police and security; the elected government resigned, the President fled because of growing lack of cooperation from leaders of his own security forces (indicating either a possible military coup in the works, or that they would allow him to fall to the mob like happened to one of the governors; the new parliament declares it has established a "legitimate" government (with no representation from Crimea or the eastern provinces, and even drafts a law as its first order of business making Ukrainian the ONLY language...ensuring a further divide; the U.S. and E.U. rush to recognize the new government...bearing their fingerprints; and yet, for some reason, it's a big deal when Russia does some arm-twisting to secure their hold on Crimea....read some history folks! The whole point of Russia since it was first created as an empire centuries ago was to first - drive out the Tatars who ruled most of the Russian territories, and drive south to establish a year-round sea port on the Mediterranean.

The only reason why Ukraine has possession of Crimea right now is because of border-shifting by a Soviet Government (Kruschev) in the 1950's...at a time when the Soviet state was all-powerful, and republics of the Soviet Union were republics in name only! How the Neocons and financial oligarchs, and the tagalong gang in the Whitehouse and European capitals, were stupid enough to think they could just wedge Ukraine in its entirety from Russia is the only mystery left to solve! If they didn't realize this one would be a fight that Putin would wage war over, then they haven't learned anything from all of the other invasions and failed states they have created in recent years! Then again, these are people who don't put their own lives at risk, or even their own money at risk. Instead, they raid federal treasuries for their warmaking aspirations and profit from them through money-lending and the corporations they own which provide services for warmaking.

The American people signaled that too many of them would not stand for the same bull**** song&dance when Kerry trotted it out for a Syrian Invasion last year; and I hope more and more people ignore the Neocon propaganda spewed out on MSM on this issue also. If you want a simple breakdown it goes like this: Russia, one of the few, smaller hegemons that is largely independent of U.S. globalized capitalism, has drawn a line in the sand and will threaten all out war to keep parts of the Ukraine by force, if they lose the nation to a western-led "Orange Revolution" government. The U.S. & E.U., acting on behalf of the BORG that runs international banking and business interests, is trying to accomplish what they failed to do 10 years ago, by installing a western-friendly, E.U. and NATO member government in the Ukraine.

The only question left to be answered is: are they psychopathic enough to roll the dice and risk a full out nuclear war with Russia? Considering what disaster capitalists have been capable of so far...I'd say the question is still out there waiting to be answered!
 
A very few of 'we' make up the multinationals, and multi-nationals are quick to abandon us, like Halliburton.

Don't they have employees? Employees who buy things? Buy things from companies that have employees? Don't they have shareholders?

A lot of 'we' just pay taxes, which we note multinationals play games to avoid a great deal themselves. The economy isn't a sacred place, the economy is as fed by consumers as multinationals. name the benefits? The 'opportunity' to pay whatever a multinational says they should get? Would we have the huge tax burden to support a world wide navy, AF and Army if we didn't constantly go it alone when it comes to 'safeguarding' resources in far flung places?

What did you have for dinner last night? How much did it cost?

Funny a guy who's handle is old world order asks why must it be about containment... that is trying to flip the script.

You're the one that brought it up.

It shouldn't be about CONtainment but for some perverse reason USofA policy has been just that, from attempting to organize the herd of cats that are on Russian's southern Border to pushing missiles and radars into Poland. Russia has told us it isn't about to tolerate this sort of meddling along it's borders. (We damn sure wouldn't tolerate it being reversed as the Cuban missile crisis showed us how upsetting having nukes so close- we had them in Turkey back then)

No, we wouldn't. But it's about American interests, not playing fair.

We can promote Coke and blue jeans, but fomenting rebellion in other nations is a perversion of the 'shining city on the hill' beacon of democracy. It is head scratching to hear talk about why play fair when we demand others do just that, from trade to human rights.

Because it's in the pursuit of American interests. That's the point. All's fair in love and war, means something. Not "all's fair in love and war except for like when you talk about trade and human rights"- everything. All.
 
The problem is that there has been far too much talk in the United States about bringing Russia into NATO. The problem with that is that it increases the probability that an armed conflict could break out between Russia and the United States. There is nothing in the Ukraine that is worth a war between the United States and Russia.

Who has ever talked about bringing Russia into NATO? The whole point of NATO was to block the former Soviet Union, and they made a deal with the Russian Government after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that they would not expand into the former Warsaw Pact nations in an agreement with Yeltsin to allow East Germany to quietly fall to the West, and remove their troops and bases. As soon as Clinton got elected, that deal was broken! And it has been violated ever since by both Republican and Democratic presidents (further indication that what really counts is the Deep State that operates away from public scrutiny in the halls of government and business).

The U.S. has no intentions of bringing Russia into NATO, or the E.U. inviting Russia in...even though it would be to their obvious economic advantage, as Russia is their main supplier of gas and oil. And they are not inviting China into this TPP secret "trade" agreement they are concocting today. The whole point of NATO and these trade agreements is to encircle and cut off Russia and China, both militarily and economically, until or unless they are no longer centers of oppositional economic power to the establishment that runs the WTO and controls international finance.

To me, this is one of those issues where you get to root for the bad guy! Because the alternative is the full consolidation of globalization. Whatever Putin does or doesn't do (just a thought, why is Russia referred to as an oligarchy, while the U.S. is not?), he is at least a source of opposition to the greatest evil on the planet...which happens to control our money, our communications, our media, our laws, and needless to say - our political systems!
 
So what was the number of vacated seats? But once again that doesn't explain the previous presidential elections being so far in the Russian leaning president's favor. Using only one pin point of data is how false premises are built and how huge blunders are made.

I dont know. Using the 2000 census, and if the number of seats mirrored the ethnic make up, the number of "vacated" seats could have been 30 so so - maybe even more if the number of indigenous Tatars has gone up.

In either case, look at the pictures of Crimean streets. Though there are thousands of Russian security contractors and militiamen present, the Ukrainians are locked up in their barracks, the Russians contractors have not exactly been greeted with ticker tape parades and the "parliament's" referendum and following announcement by the Russian parliament was not greeted with wild adulation. Rather, there has been some support from some ethnic Russians for annexation by Russia.
 
Who has ever talked about bringing Russia into NATO?

WOW!!!

MY BAD BIG TIME!!!!

Meant to say bringing Ukraine into NATO!!!!!

Typo
 
Is that any different than what happened in Kiev? Armed fascist demonstrators (trained and equipped by U.S. NGO's supposedly doing charitable work) overpowered police and security; the elected government resigned, the President fled because of growing lack of cooperation from leaders of his own security forces (indicating either a possible military coup in the works, or that they would allow him to fall to the mob like happened to one of the governors; the new parliament declares it has established a "legitimate" government (with no representation from Crimea or the eastern provinces, and even drafts a law as its first order of business making Ukrainian the ONLY language...ensuring a further divide;
I dont think the parliamentary represenatives have lost their seats. Likewise, the "Ukrainian only" laws for Russian areas have been rescinded. That aside, I think you have some good points. At some point, legitimate protesters in Kiev did turn into rioting right wing "Pushters".

If the Russians want Crimea and are so sure the Crimeans want them, then give a fair referendum on it with no loaded ballot options, no booted parliametarians, Crimean indepedence as an option on the ballot -it is about the Crimeans right? And...no Russian militia men supervising the "voting".
The only question left to be answered is: are they psychopathic enough to roll the dice and risk a full out nuclear war with Russia?
That question needs to be asked to the Russians as well. My guess is that the answer to both questions is "no".
 
Last edited:
Don't they have employees? Employees who buy things? Buy things from companies that have employees? Don't they have shareholders? What did you have for dinner last night? How much did it cost? You're the one that brought it up. No, we wouldn't. But it's about American interests, not playing fair. Because it's in the pursuit of American interests. That's the point. All's fair in love and war, means something. Not "all's fair in love and war except for like when you talk about trade and human rights"- everything. All.

Multinationals have employees all around the world... they are a tiny % of our population and as a whole not keeping us our economy floating. It is like saying don't drug dealers have employees and don't they buy things? The shareholder thing is a CON dodge... most shares are held by a very tiny few.

But you dodge the issue, spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives so a multinational can reap the reward and 'trickle down' some hard to measure 'benefit' is poor use of tax money. The same mulitnational who were very quick to partner with Russian gas companies. They don't have a stake in any one nation, they measure their 'loyalty ties' more on profit and comps than where they once sprang from.

You keep using the term 'American' when it is multinational. Its takes not one dime out of our trade if the Crimea goes Russian. Trade with the former Warsaw pact is more one sided as we pour money in and little if anything trickles back.

If all was fair in love and war the world would be a smoking cinder. trite silly sayings are not good foreign policy.
 
I dont know. Using the 2000 census, and if the number of seats mirrored the ethnic make up, the number of "vacated" seats could have been 30 so so - maybe even more if the number of indigenous Tatars has gone up. In either case, look at the pictures of Crimean streets. Though there are thousands of Russian security contractors and militiamen present, the Ukrainians are locked up in their barracks, the Russians contractors have not exactly been greeted with ticker tape parades and the "parliament's" referendum and following announcement by the Russian parliament was not greeted with wild adulation. Rather, there has been some support from some ethnic Russians for annexation by Russia.

The bottom line here is you don't know.

The very best you can claim and with NO facts to back it up is the vote wouldn't have been so lopsided but it still would have been for joining back to Russia. (course it could also go totally independent with strong ties to Russia to survive economically the facts seem to suggest there is little love for staying Ukrainian as the Crimea was never Ukrainian until 1955.)

Now as far as pictures go... some have already been proven to be false, the line of Russian armored vehicles another CON tried to say was in country. The Ukrainians have been outside their barracks but again, try and get this one idea, for many Crimeans, the Ukraines are as much an invader as anyone else.

Spin it as you will, still the bottom line is a dominate population that never was part of the Ukraine, was a semi autonomous region for a REASON, now doesn't want to be part of the region they were tacked onto. As I said, the Crimea has gone 'russian' in past elections, had a russian dominated parliament, but somehow was actually Ukrainian????
 
Nothing is over, in fact its going to get more intense. Obama has already threatened to "isolate" Russia, but this does not appear to be sufficient to stop Russia. This conflict is about get worse.

In the mean time, the flag of the Russian Empire (end of XIX c) hangs on Russian BTR in Crimea.


attachment.php

òðàññà Êðàñíîäàð-Íîâîðîññèéñê, êîëîííà âîéñê ÐÔ â Êðûì | VK


Obama needs to ignore all those Washington scaliwags acting all butt-hurt over Russia and the Ukraine and want to start making threats and sword rattling.

100% of the elected Crimean officials, as I understand it, voted to go over to Russia. Over 60% of the population wants to be Russian. Who the **** does Obama think he is making demands on these people? If they want to go, he needs to keep our nose out of it. I don't care. They are all commies to me. Not worth one drop of American blood or one single taxpayer dime. But that's just me.

Screw all that bravado, bad-ass posing, Obama. You got nukes. You don't have to puff out your chest and beat it like a gorilla. That's for neocons. Don't get sucked into the bull**** the war dogs are throwing at you. I am very disappointed in the President over this. He has more important things to do.

View attachment 67163121
 
WOW!!!

MY BAD BIG TIME!!!!

Meant to say bringing Ukraine into NATO!!!!!

Typo
Okay, I'll rephrase my response then: Russia is never going to allow more than a western rump state Ukraine to join NATO.

What I find has been most ignored and overlooked by all of the western observers, is that Putin's rise to power came largely because he was the kind of leader that most Russians were looking for after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The feeling of collective humiliation...having to go make deals to privatize their economy to get loans from western banks, and pull their troops home and allow NATO expansion, led directly to Putin's rise to power. Attempts to personalize the conflict as just a result of a megalomaniac in Moscow, ignores the trend towards nationalism of Russian people. The attempt to flip Ukraine to the west, and threaten Russia with sanctions is not going to reduce Putin's popularity or prestige in Russia. So, if it keeps up, a full scale war could be the eventual result.
 
What we have here is a sort of a "Bay of Pigs," scenario, in reverse.

Instead of Russia supporting a communist country in our back yard, we have the US supporting a Western leaning country in Russia's back yard.

The irony is, (or hypocracy if you prefer,) when Russia did it, they were wrong but when we do it, we're right?

Hmmmmmmm................

Not saying it's apples for apples, just kinda similar.
 
Okay, I'll rephrase my response then: Russia is never going to allow more than a western rump state Ukraine to join NATO.

What I find has been most ignored and overlooked by all of the western observers, is that Putin's rise to power came largely because he was the kind of leader that most Russians were looking for after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The feeling of collective humiliation...having to go make deals to privatize their economy to get loans from western banks, and pull their troops home and allow NATO expansion, led directly to Putin's rise to power. Attempts to personalize the conflict as just a result of a megalomaniac in Moscow, ignores the trend towards nationalism of Russian people. The attempt to flip Ukraine to the west, and threaten Russia with sanctions is not going to reduce Putin's popularity or prestige in Russia. So, if it keeps up, a full scale war could be the eventual result.

I agree with what you have said here. There has been way to much emphasis placed on demonizing Putin in this crisis. It's counterproductive and it needs to stop.
 
Back
Top Bottom