Jump to content

Russia invades The Ukraine


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

In other news, fuck Russia. But in all seriousness, what in the world is, well, THE WORLD going to do about this? Crimea has always been pro-Russian. Sure, the ruse under which Russia overtook Crimea is weak as shit...but whom are we (the US) to judge? The biggest concern to me is the gas pipelines that feed Europe that originate largely from Russia and the Ukraine. What will sanctions do to that energy relationship? Who the fuck knows? 

 

One thing is for Certes, ANY US military action is completely off the table...we know it, they know it, and it's good that it isn't even an option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaR1YBR5g6U[/media]

 

 

 

I am about to head to work. But I promise I will take the time to watch this 

over the weekend and get back to you. I am not as closed minded as 

some might think. 

 

Hope everyone has a great day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We went to war with one Country and they had conditions to their surrender that

they never abidded by in over 10 years. And had another harbor terrorists that perpetrated

the worst attack on our soil in our history. We didn't just invade them because we

wanted shit. Or wanted land, or bases or whatever. In my opinion, both wars were

justified. Just poorly executed. And other than the fact we invaded them, what

we did and what Russia is doing has no other comparisons. 

 

 

I would suggest that we wanted that 1st Gulf War and allowed Sadam to believe we would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crimea has always been pro-Russian.  


Wrong. The Tartar majority was ethnically cleansed by Stalin post-WW2. Other non-Russian ethnicities suffered the same fate, and not just in Crimea for that matter. The only reason they are now pro-Russian is because of genocide.

Sorry, but if you think Russia's activity in Ukraine is "no different" from US military interventions then you are painfully ignorant of Soviet/Russian history, or the current situation for that matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. The Tartar majority was ethnically cleansed by Stalin post-WW2. Other non-Russian ethnicities suffered the same fate, and not just in Crimea for that matter. The only reason they are now pro-Russian is because of genocide.

Sorry, but if you think Russia's activity in Ukraine is "no different" from US military interventions then you are painfully ignorant of Soviet/Russian history, or the current situation for that matter.

 

First a side note:  I am not sure who gave you negative rep for your post.  I find your post challenging and thought provoking.  Anything engaging these days is a mild form of entertainment while waiting for the season to commence.  In short, thanks.

 

Crimea has suffered in one form or another since the beginning of time.  ...or so it seems.  the Tatars also did some of the same stuff that was done to them in more recent times.  Not sure at what point someone calls someone a native person.  I am trying not to get into a discussion of Native Americans, importation of slaves, etc...  Who does Crimea actually belong to would be a difficult answer IMHO.

 

Scythians and Cimmerians, Romans, Samaritans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, Mongols, Genoans, Venetians, Turkic people (which became what is known as Crimean Tatars).  Portions have also been conquered by France, Britain, and the Ottoman Empire.  Others by Nazi Germany for a short periods of time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#History

 

Taurica was the name of Crimea in antiquity. Taurica was inhabited by a variety of peoples.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

 

The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate.

 

1441 to 1783.

 

In other words, Crimean Tatars are not native to the area and are relative newcomers.  Doesn't give another country the right to dictate where and what happens to them.  It also didn't help that Russians bear a long grudge that existed from earlier times when the Crimean Khanate enslaved over 3 million people ( most of which would have been considered Russians at one time or another ).  The Crimean Khanate also burned Moscow to the ground.  The Tatars ( not all ) did collaborate with the Nazis also. 

 

A history lesson of just the Crimean area would be a long lesson.  It is nearly impossible to compile a list of grievances both sides have in this matter.  In short, how much balance does someone need to understand what constitutes a native people and does in the end it really matter because its an issue of humanity in the here and now...  not ancient history ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

 

( paraphrased from the above link ) Scythians and Cimmerians, Romans, Samaritans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, Mongols, Genoans, Venetians, Turkic people (which became what is known as Crimean Tatars).  Portions have also been conquered by France, Britain, and the Ottoman Empire.  Others by Nazi Germany for a short periods of time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#History

 

Taurica was the name of Crimea in antiquity. Taurica was inhabited by a variety of peoples.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

 

The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate.

 

Some researchers estimate that altogether more than 3 million people, predominantly Ukrainians but also Russians, Belarusians and Poles, were captured and enslaved during the time of the Crimean Khanate in what was called "the harvest of the steppe".

 

The Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) resulted in the defeat of the Ottomans by the Russians, and according to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774) signed after the war, Crimea became independent and Ottomans renounced their political right to protect the Crimean Khanate. After a period of political unrest in Crimea, Russia violated the treaty and annexed the Crimean Khanate in 1783. After the annexation, many Crimean Tatars were massacred and exiled into Siberia and under pressure of Slavic colonization...

 

Soviet policies on the peninsula led to widespread starvation in 1921.[citation needed] Food was confiscated for shipment to central Russia, while more than 100,000 Tatars starved to death, and tens of thousands fled to Turkey or Romania.[28] Thousands more were deported or slaughtered during the collectivization in 1928–29.[28] The government campaign led to another famine in 1931–33. No other Soviet nationality suffered the decline imposed on the Crimean Tatars; between 1917 and 1933 half the Crimean Tatar population had been killed or deported.[28]

 

During World War II, the entire Crimean Tatar population in Crimea fell victim to Soviet policies. Although a great number of Crimean Tatar men served in the Red Army and took part in the partisan movement in Crimea during the war, the existence of the Tatar Legion in the Nazi army and the collaboration of Crimean Tatar religious and political leaders with Hitler during the German occupation of Crimea provided the Soviets with a pretext for accusing the whole Crimean Tatar population of being Nazi collaborators.

 

Following news of Crimea's planned referendum on March 16, 2014, the Tatar population has voiced concerns of renewed persecution and threats of deportation similar to that of 1944.[35]

On March 18, It was announced that Crimean Tatars will be required to relinquish land that they hold and be given land elsewhere in Crimea. Crimea stated it needed the relinquished land for "Social purposes", since part of this land is occupied by the Crimean Tatars without legal documents of ownership.[36] The situation was caused by the inability of the USSR (and later Ukraine) to give back to the Tatars the land owned before deportation, once they or their descendants returned from Siberia. As a consequence, Crimean Tatars settled in squatters, occupying land that was and is still not legally registered

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate#History

 

1441 to 1783.

 

Established by Mongol Empire.

 

Later by the Ottoman Empire.

 

For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland-Lithuania over the period 1500–1700.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_of_Moscow_(1571)

 

The Fire of Moscow (1571) occurred in May of that year when the forces of the Crimean khan Devlet I Giray raided the city Moscow during the Russo–Crimean Wars. The khan set the suburbs on fire on May 24 and a sudden wind blew the flames into Moscow and the city went up in a conflagration...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. The Tartar majority was ethnically cleansed by Stalin post-WW2. Other non-Russian ethnicities suffered the same fate, and not just in Crimea for that matter. The only reason they are now pro-Russian is because of genocide.

Sorry, but if you think Russia's activity in Ukraine is "no different" from US military interventions then you are painfully ignorant of Soviet/Russian history, or the current situation for that matter.

Well, I know that, but the Russian majority has been in place "forever" within the scope of recent history, is what I meant. And I didn't say that the Ukrainian and US situations are the same, what I was implying is that we don't have any moral high ground here from which to condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaR1YBR5g6U[/media]

 

 

So the incubators wasn't true? There was a million other reasons to go.

Saddam's actions after this War said as much. Thanks for posting though. 

 

 

 

 

 

I would suggest that we wanted that 1st Gulf War and allowed Sadam to believe we would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

 

 

So Saddam had no hand in anything? Innocent victim? Couldn't have stopped any of it?

Didn't shoot at our pilots? Didn't screw with Weapons inspectors? Didn't want the World

to believe he had WMDs? Didn't gas the Kurds? Didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his 

own people? 

 

 

 

You know what? Reply if you must. I can't believe I am even debating this shit again. lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn't invade any of them and take part of their Country and make it part of the U.S.  

 

 

The only comparisons are we invaded. He asked what's the "difference". 

I don't feel like getting into a was the wars justified debate. Been there.

Done that. 

 

 

We went to war with one Country and they had conditions to their surrender that

they never abidded by in over 10 years. And had another harbor terrorists that perpetrated

the worst attack on our soil in our history. We didn't just invade them because we

wanted shit. Or wanted land, or bases or whatever. In my opinion, both wars were

justified. Just poorly executed. And other than the fact we invaded them, what

we did and what Russia is doing has no other comparisons. 

 

 

I don't think we went there for oil. We gave a shit in the first place because they have oil,

no doubt. But we went there in 1991 for a reason. Saddam had terms to his surrender.

He never abidded by them for over 10 years. He shot at our pilots that were patrolling 

"No Fly Zones", he used chemicals on his own people, he thumbed his nose at weapons

inspectors. He wanted the World to think he had WMDs. And after 9/11, we couldn't let

him do that shit anymore. He could have stopped the invasion. He chose not to. 

Anyway, that's old news. Like I said, I have debated it here numerous times. 

 

Anyway I totally agree with you about Putin and letting groups of Nations try and be World Police. 

Just touching on the differences. 

 

 

I am about to head to work. But I promise I will take the time to watch this 

over the weekend and get back to you. I am not as closed minded as 

some might think. 

 

Hope everyone has a great day. 

 

 

So the incubators wasn't true? There was a million other reasons to go.

Saddam's actions after this War said as much. Thanks for posting though. 

 

So Saddam had no hand in anything? Innocent victim? Couldn't have stopped any of it?

Didn't shoot at our pilots? Didn't screw with Weapons inspectors? Didn't want the World

to believe he had WMDs? Didn't gas the Kurds? Didn't kill hundreds of thousands of his 

own people? 

 

You know what? Reply if you must. I can't believe I am even debating this shit again. lol 

T-Dub PatternMaster asserted that there is a kind of geopolitical equivalency in behavior, or at least a comparative one, between US actions in recent decades and more recent Russian strategic moves. And he is right as far as he goes. What amazes me is that you have had almost 25 years (in the case of Gulf War I) to refine your understanding as to what happened and why it happened and yet you persist in playing the same old broken record. That's your choice, we're all busy doing stuff.

 

I merely wanted to point out the role of propaganda related to the case you cited. You claimed not to be closed minded earlier, but your subsequent responses demonstrate that you didn't really mean that. The CBC documentary/show certainly deserves a more precise response that that which you have provided--which is a rehash of all the stuff you have said before over the years. That's fine, but don't expect people to be persuaded by your p.o.v if that is all you are bringing to the dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 You claimed not to be closed minded earlier, but your subsequent responses demonstrate that you didn't really mean that. 

 

 

 

Sure I did. I watched it. I weighed it. I came to the same conclusion that I held previously.

It's that simple. If you think the only way to display that you're not close minded is to

change your mind, well then my friend, you're exactly what you're labeling me as ...no?

 

Anyway, enough of this. Good day to you all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The situation in Iraq is a dilemna to some people as evidenced by posters on both sides of this discussion.  We are geared towards the belief that we must accept one or the other in terms of right and wrong.  I'm guessing it has alot to do with the belief of accepting the lesser of two evils.  Believe it or not, choosing between the lesser of two evils appears to have been a doctrine of many countries throughout time.  Even Winston Churchill has been quoted during WW2 "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

 

  Remember that when choosing between the lesser of two evils, one is still choosing evil.  Let there be another option available and choose C instead of A or B.  However, sometimes when choosing C instead of A or B, you are possibly ensuring that you get A or B.  (see Nixon, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, Gore, Nader, Perot, etc...)

 

  I am checking out of the black and white zone and moving back to my gray area.  Peace and happiness to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iraq foolishness (of both 91 and 03) is not a dilemma for me, Numbers. Unlike Mr Bush, I am pretty certain how history will judge those events.

 

But I get what you are driving at. It is true that acts of omission have a moral quality. It's also true that most Americans (and most people in the world) have at best a superficial understanding of foreign policy and an even lesser understanding of the Great Game. I include myself in this group and I'm a pretty well-read person. That's why the role of propaganda is so important (and nefarious) in persuading people to climb aboard the "issue de jour" wagon. Propaganda, combined with a general mood of apathy among the regular citizenry, is a deadly brew and is functionally the means by which the elite manages the population.

 

I've been curious about this for some years, off and on. Currently is an "on" moment for me. Our recent stupid exercises in imperialism on the foreign front and the wholesale takeover of our economic orientation by the FIRE sector has happened in a virtual vacuum--i.e. there has been no effective push-back from the common citizenry to moderate these dynamics. The Tea Party folks and the Occupy folks are pretty equally whack-a-doo extremists now because all the regular, moderate folks have been marginalized. Likewise any viable anti-war movement in this country. Whack-a-doo Central there, too. If I go to another event where dipshits are banging on fucking drums I think I just might walk over and dropkick a bongo.

 

Anyhow, not too long ago I asked myself, "Just when in our history are there examples of genuine, widespread and potentially viable citizen movements?" In the last century there was the Civil Rights movement and in the 19th century there was the Populist --> Progressive tendency. I've been reading up a bit. When Lawrence Goodwyn died recently I put his book "Democratic Promise" on my reading list. It's a big, thick book so I have settled for his lesser version, "The Populist Moment." It's a fine bit of history and this nugget stood out for me. (The context is the blossoming of the Alliance movement in Texas during the 1880s and how it transformed from a bunch of farmers bitching at circumstances into a full-blown political movement):

 

pp 45-46.

 

As the Alliance came to envelop whole regions of the state, its leaders reacted in new ways to the new facts of organizational maturity. The top leadership--the president, state secretary and state treasurer--acquired the coloration of centrists. ... But the order's county and local leaders changed, too. Closest of all to the economic anguish at the bottom of Texas society, they became increasingly activist. ... They were, in effect, seeing too much. Hierarchical human societies organize themselves in ways that render their victims less visible; for a variety of reasons, including pride, the poor cooperate in this process. ... slowly, one by one--and in many instances unknown as yet to each other--local lecturers came to form a nucleus of radicalism inside the movement. As one new rebel defined matters, "we have an overproduction of poverty, barefooted women, political thieves and many liars. ... If you listen to other classes, you have only three rights...to work, to starve, and to die."

The emphasis above is mine.

 

What disturbs me very much is the cooperation in the process aspect. What was true then is true now. Except at this time, there doesn't seem to be anything approaching a movement in this country to redress the imbalances under which we suffer. The propaganda + apathy duo makes it even more difficult to build a movement now than it was then.

 

Another bit of evidence which suggests the dysfunctional of modern culture/society. Are you a Legion member? If so, you probably just got the recent month's magazine. Read the article, "Heavy Duty." Fully 25% of optimal-aged adults for potential recruiting are disqualified from serving due to weight issues.

 

The bottom line for me is a bit disjointed. There is a part of me that wants to tell the abundance of fools in this land that they get what they deserve. The descent from The Learning Channel to "Honey-Boo-Boo Turtleman Dynasty" is a just reward for willful ignorance and an obstinacy for self-improvement. On the other hand, I want to believe that it really isn't over until the fat-lady sings; so, maybe some meliorating factors are percolating which will eventually lead towards a political movement which is not insane in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how far deep down the rabbit hole we have to go? How many have to drop below the poverty line before they realize that they are the very people they hated and blamed our ills on? I want to believe the course is reversible but I fear its going to take ALOT of suffering until people wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well, I know that, but the Russian majority has been in place "forever" within the scope of recent history, is what I meant. And I didn't say that the Ukrainian and US situations are the same, what I was implying is that we don't have any moral high ground here from which to condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

 

I would suggest that we don't need any moral high ground.  Everyone's a hypocrite; failing to live up to our own standards 100% of the time doesn't excuse anything.  The false-flag scenario Russia is trying to instigate is wrong, even if North Korea says so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ukraine reporting two of their Mi-24 Hinds shot down with shoulder-launched SAM's.  Anyone still think these are just independent "concerned citizens"?

 

For reference, an Mi-24:

 

mi24-2.jpg

 

 

 

 

This is not a case of Boris Sixpack out exercising the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in other words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I stopped reading at this nonsense.

I thought that remark was a bit generous myself. Still, Whitney has been a reliable commentator on the financial side of things since 2007/8.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is the Great Game distilled to it's essence. It's strategery on the same level as what gave us WWI. So I'd suggest dropping the checkers mentality because this is definitely a chess match. The outcome of this will go a long way towards determining a lot of the rest of this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...