Anonymous wrote:
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.

Uh, in the 50s they were ALL Soviets. Remember? Soviet Russia. Soviet Ukraine. You've made a mistake when you replaced "Russians" with "Soviets".

Yes, it is about the politics of Ukraine itself, and about the fact that eastern Ukraine feels closer to Russia in language and identity than to the rest of Ukraine. National borders weren't always drawn along identity borders, and for whatever reason, Ukraine proper didn't court these populations enough to breed alliance toward Kiev rather than toward Russia.

And here lies the rub, which the Western media, so accustomed to packaging things in black and white, bad guy-good guy dichotomy, prefers not to say. It's not about brutal Russia putting its iron-toed shoes on the tender neck of small but freedom-loving nation state - although that's the story being sold here. It's about two nations that are both hypocritical, oppressive and corrupt to the core - yes, my dear, Ukraine, like Georgia before it, has absolutely nothing to its name to break the champagne over - no vibrant economy, no accountable government, no freedom of press. It's another banana republic ruled as a plantation by its band of minister thieves. There are no good guys there. Oh well, the IMF has announced a $17 billion dollar bailout package for Ukraine. All that means is that a few more golden toilets and Cote d'Azur villas will be bought. And everyone will know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia has a long proud and wonderful history.

What happens when your handlers back at the Kremlin find out that nobody here is buying your line of BS?

Indeed. This year when the hapless Russian foreign minister spoke at usually buttoned-up Munich Security Congress, delegates laughed at him derisively. He didn't help himself when he suggested in an aside that German unification (which Gorbachev's Kremlin had blessed) was illegal under international law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia has a long proud and wonderful history.

What happens when your handlers back at the Kremlin find out that nobody here is buying your line of BS?

Given that the average lifespan of a Russian male is 59 years, I'd say that anything wonderful is being flushed down the drain as we speak.

Anonymous wrote:Russia has a long proud and wonderful history.

What happens when your handlers back at the Kremlin find out that nobody here is buying your line of BS?

Anonymous wrote:Russia has a long proud and wonderful history.

wonderful?

Russia has a long proud and wonderful history.

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.

Here's what we're going to do about it. Unless of course you are hoping we will just cut to the chase and nuke your friends back in the Kremlin...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

That's what's basically happened in Crimea - and now Ukraine. It's the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around, trying to take whatever it can. There's zero illusion of legitimacy about it anywhere outside of Russian media.

again, for the 100th time, what are you prepared to do about it?

I'm not the poster you are sparring with, but we will arm Ukraine to stall the Russians militarily, until the combination of the oil shock and sanctions bring the domestic situation to a boil. Putin's only out will be to back off.

Anonymous wrote:historically, culturally, you name it. At the very least, those areas are 100% within an appropriate sphere of influence that should be respected. Yes, Russia is a screwed up state with a bad economy and horrible demographics. But it also is the largest country in the world, an ex superpower, and has 140 million people and lots of nukes. We need to respect them if possible.

Definitely not worth picking a battle over Ukraine.

Finland or the Baltic States - different issues 100%. So the only reason I would change my mind would be if caving on the Ukraine meant more issues down the road.

The excerpt below is from last week's Economist. Could OP be one of the Kremlin's network of paid bloggers?

"The Kremlin is also a sophisticated user of the internet and social media. It employs hundreds of “trolls” to garrison the comment sections and Twitter feeds of the West. The point is not so much to promote the Kremlin’s views, but to denigrate opposition figures, and foreign governments and institutions, and to sow fear and confusion. Vast sums have been thrown at public-relations and lobbying firms to improve Russia’s image abroad—among them Ketchum, based in New York, which helped place an op-ed by Mr Putin in the New York Times. And it can rely on some of its corporate partners to lobby against policies that would hurt Russian business."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

That's what's basically happened in Crimea - and now Ukraine. It's the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around, trying to take whatever it can. There's zero illusion of legitimacy about it anywhere outside of Russian media.

again, for the 100th time, what are you prepared to do about it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

That's what's basically happened in Crimea - and now Ukraine. It's the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around, trying to take whatever it can. There's zero illusion of legitimacy about it anywhere outside of Russian media.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Did the Normans have a legitimate claim to Britian? The conquistadors to Mexico and Peru? So naive.

We are talking about war. Brute force.

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

The Tatars have a far longer and more legitimate claim to Crimea than the johnny-come-lately Russians do. And they made it clear that they did not approve of Crimean annexation by Russia.

Anonymous wrote:Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.

oh come on, the Crimean khanate dates back to 1449. That predates Columbus discovering the new world.

Tatars are not originally native to Crimea. All of mankind is tribal, from other areas.