I consider Crimea, and really the Ukraine, as part of Russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

I think its a matter of what Ukraine wants.

[Anonymous]

Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

Ukraine.

We will see. US boots will not be on the ground

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

Ukraine.

We will see. US boots will not be on the ground

Unless Lindsey graham or john bolton become president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. The Ukrainian people want one thing. Let's assume the Russians want another thing. Who wins that dispute?

Ukraine.

We will see. US boots will not be on the ground

Unless Lindsey graham or john bolton become president.

watch the r's all try to outdo each other on isis in the primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

Ukraine and Crimea have had their own distinct cultures and languages going back many hundreds of years. The Russian influence only goes back less than 100 years and was strictly an act of overt colonialism, in an era when the rest of the world was trying to reverse colonialism. The only reason there are areas in Ukraine and Crimea that have any Russian language, identity or sympathies at all is because Russians were shipped there by Soviet era regimes, most of them have no roots there, in fact many of them were not even born there. The entire Russian presence there is completely artificial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who agree with the OP's sentiment are ethnic Russian Putin sympathizers who are nostalgic for Soviet military power and influence.

The ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD disagrees.

disagree or not. what are you prepared to do about it?

For Russia, this is a deal point.

Apparently Putin forgot what happened in Afghanistan. The last time they tried something like this, it went bankrupt and caused the Soviet regime to fail. Western sanctions have already started doing a significant amount of damage to the Russian economy. But that said, the US could do much more here, without ever putting a single boot on the ground - fighting a proxy war in Ukraine by funding and arming the Ukrainians - the longer it goes on, the more it damages the Russian economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who agree with the OP's sentiment are ethnic Russian Putin sympathizers who are nostalgic for Soviet military power and influence.

The ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD disagrees.

disagree or not. what are you prepared to do about it?

For Russia, this is a deal point.

Apparently Putin forgot what happened in Afghanistan. The last time they tried something like this, it went bankrupt and caused the Soviet regime to fail. Western sanctions have already started doing a significant amount of damage to the Russian economy. But that said, the US could do much more here, without ever putting a single boot on the ground - fighting a proxy war in Ukraine by funding and arming the Ukrainians - the longer it goes on, the more it damages the Russian economy.

+1 If Putin's economy is in a tailspin and we push him back on Ukraine, he's done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

Ukraine and Crimea have had their own distinct cultures and languages going back many hundreds of years. The Russian influence only goes back less than 100 years and was strictly an act of overt colonialism, in an era when the rest of the world was trying to reverse colonialism. The only reason there are areas in Ukraine and Crimea that have any Russian language, identity or sympathies at all is because Russians were shipped there by Soviet era regimes, most of them have no roots there, in fact many of them were not even born there. The entire Russian presence there is completely artificial.

As if the Ukrainian presence in Crimea is not artificial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

Ukraine and Crimea have had their own distinct cultures and languages going back many hundreds of years. The Russian influence only goes back less than 100 years and was strictly an act of overt colonialism, in an era when the rest of the world was trying to reverse colonialism. The only reason there are areas in Ukraine and Crimea that have any Russian language, identity or sympathies at all is because Russians were shipped there by Soviet era regimes, most of them have no roots there, in fact many of them were not even born there. The entire Russian presence there is completely artificial.

As if the Ukrainian presence in Crimea is not artificial.

Uh, the Soviets voluntarily gave Crimea to Ukraine in the 50s. If there is any artificiality, it is on the part of Russia itself. And let's be clear, this wasn't initiated as a war over the status of crimea. It is about the politics of Ukraine itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this even a question? They declared independence with a 90% yes vote, including 56% of crimea. They are not part of Russia because they formally declared it so.

what does this even mean? If the South voted to secede, do we care?

We certainly cared at one point.

The analogy is flawed. The south was never a separate nation. Ukraine was a distinct nationality from the mid 1700s.

No. Part of the Russian Empire, controlled by the Czar unil 1917, part of the USSR, controlled by Moscow, until 1990something.l

You do not seem to understand the difference between a nation and a state.

Point is, maybe 20 of the last 700 years has the Ukraine been able to make any decisions separate from Russia

That does not mean that they have no national identity. They do. And their lack of success at obtaining independence does not diminish it. This is distinct from the American South. Thus, the analogy does not work.

its a flawed analogy, but the Ukraine has only been independent for a brief instance. They are undeniably within the Russian sphere of influence. I think we need to defer to Russia here. Now we are much more powerful and more rich than Russia, and Russia is trending downwards, but you need to pick your battles.

Ukraine and Crimea have had their own distinct cultures and languages going back many hundreds of years. The Russian influence only goes back less than 100 years and was strictly an act of overt colonialism, in an era when the rest of the world was trying to reverse colonialism. The only reason there are areas in Ukraine and Crimea that have any Russian language, identity or sympathies at all is because Russians were shipped there by Soviet era regimes, most of them have no roots there, in fact many of them were not even born there. The entire Russian presence there is completely artificial.

As if the Ukrainian presence in Crimea is not artificial.

The Tatars who were originally native to Crimea resent the Russian presence there and most certainly did not vote in favor of Crimea joining Russia.

[Anonymous]

Yes, basically the Russians kicked out the Tatars from Crimea. I think 2/3 of them had to flee the country.

[Anonymous]

The other problem today in Russia is that they have returned to Soviet-style mechanisms of manipulating Russian public sentiment via the media - Russia essentially no longer has any independent mainstream media, many formerly independent media sources had their editorial boards forcibly ousted and replaced with Putin sympathizers, it's all basically state-run media once again, so the typical Russian has no idea of what's really going on, instead it's all about "Ukraine fascism" and stoking the old WWII era Nazi fears, "good guys versus bad guys" and a total spin job to get people to buy in. Likewise, they have been suppressing a lot of the significant problems ongoing via Putin's regime. Instead it's all about glorifying the bare-chested bear wrestler. If any significant number of Russians actually knew the truth, they would be calling for Putin's ouster right now.