Disgusting behavior from the US President and the UK PM.

Agree totally!

That's exactly the case also with Crimea, which Russia occupied only 230 years ago. The Tatars were still the largest nationality in their own country 100 years ago, even after the following purges of Tatars and their mass escape to Turkey.

Only after Stalin's purges, deportations and after war (Russian) settlement did the Russians became the majority, which prior to annexation by Russia was only little over 50 % and diminishing.

That the (short) story of "Russian" Crimea...

 

Since your version of the event seems to be quite factually flawed it isn't surprising that you don't understand.

In what numbers doing what? Were they not also there under the previous government. As is this statement may be accurate but doesn't have much relevance.

Credible sources please.

Some of the people are but of course a good deal of the armed revolt is actually Russian troops attacking Ukrainian government forces.

The West didn't really start helping until Russia broke it's treaty with the Ukraine and siezed parts of it. Indeed the West has been arguably defficient in supporting the Ukraine in this matter.

Russia is helping it's neighbor???? Are you trying for a carreer as a comedian? Since when did siezing parts of a neighbor count as "helping"? That's just the sort of help Hitler gave his neighbors you realize?

 

Too much wrong here.

Russians always feel so misunderstood.
The Norwegian and Swedish languages are very similar.
Sweden gave Norway its freedom dissolving the Union in 1905.

By comparison:
The Grand Duchy of Finland never was culturally part of Russia. It had its own laws, and a very different language. Finnish peasants remained free, unlike the serfs in Russia. It had its own army until 1901, for goodness sake.
Finland fought a hard legal battle against creeping Russification (attempts to change laws, requiring Russian as administrative language, etc) during the late 19th Century, but if it occurred later, I'm sure you'd be labelling those nationalists as neo-nazis as well.

After the Russian Revolution, well, others have already explained that...

Putin labels any Ukrainian that wants the Ukraine to be free to choose its own path neo-nazis. It just isn't credible.

Through a series of intimidation and threats, Russia has created its own problems. So many people wanted Russia to move forward into the 21st century, so many hoped for a better brighter future together, but so many Russians are still stuck in the Cold War.

All hail Putin, saviour of the USSR! :flag_USSR:

 

Just feel I have to adjust a couple of details in your excellent post:

The Grand Duchy of Finland was never part of Russia, period. Finland belonged to the (Russian) Empire - not the same as Russia - because the Emperor was the Czar of Russia and the Grand Duke of Finland - among other titels. The Russification periods were 1899-1905 and 1908-1917. Until 1908 the Finnish Government, the Senate, answered only to the Emperor.

Finland also had own stamps, own money, own religion and customs border with Russia.

 

You realize this may be a first Karjala, Green Slime, and me all on the same side of a "discussion". Certainly rare in any case.

 

I've run out of salutes, lwd...

 

Have to love the bad guys (Putin), they can get the most uncooperative people working together, such as ISIS/ISIL with the US and Iran.

 

Way too much to quote and too little time...

This clearly isn't the best or only source but worth listening to IMO

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ki5alr1vzwM

Then there is this on the snipers... Again this isn't an open and close case but simply the side not reported in the West mainstream too often...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573923/Estonian-Foreign-Ministry-confirms-authenticity-leaked-phone-call-discussing-Kiev-snipers-shot-protesters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html

Finally, our friends from England should be familiar with this chap.

http://www.atominfo.ru/en/news3/c0960.htm

 

He's called "Red Ken" for a reason.

 

Well, there is altogether a lot to disagree with Ken's statements.

Starting with "...will not bring nuclear weapons onto its soil threatening Russia."

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to remove nuclear weapons in Ukraine. They all signed six agreements for Ukraine, the agreements are:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

By integrating Crimea into Russia, Putin broke the memorandum. That's all there is to it.

The Ukraine was not "...put together hurriedly after the collapse of the Soviet Union,”

The Ukraine had a seat in the UN, indeed as the Ukrainian SSR was one of the founding members. So that statement alone puts old Ken as a fantasist that doesn't have an idea what the hell he is talking about.

What the Ukraine had to put up with after WWII was a concerted effort at "Russification", as occured with all Soviet Republics. That's the real reason for this division, as well as a historic desire amongst some (whether a minority or not) to be free from Russian influence, and to have a truly separate state.

 

So, instead of answering the critics properly you move on... I suppose that's sensible from your point of you. After all - for the Russians an attack has always been the best defence...

Numbering mine.

1. That't from Russia Today. Never believe anything they say, because that's only a propaganda arm of Putin.

2. Two politicians speculating before they know anything for sure, so what? We know now, that the snipers were ex-government's.

3. You have already been advised about the "Red Ken" and his credibility. We also have in Finland an academic guy called Johan Bäckman, who is more Putin-stalinist than Putin himself. Maybe that's why he is often (=five time more than e.g. the Finnish PM or the President) interviewed by Russian media (RT included) as a representative of the Finnish views... In reality his ideas are supported by 754 Finns in total. That's how many votes "his" "political party" (12 candidates) got votes in the last Parliamentary elections.

 

Awful fashionable to treat Putin's Russia as a current bogeyman, with assorted reasons and justifications (some good, some bad, some worthy, some suspicious), but I can't help the feeling that an elephant in the room is that here is a state that has a strong interest in the Islamists that press on it's borders more than most, and has shown the will necessary to deal with them forcefully.

Apropos of comparatively little directly pertinent to this debate, but one suspects 'we' will be fighting alongside them sometime soonish. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

FDR's realpolitik 'he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch' being put aside for the sake of certain ethical/democratic concerns has arguably caused more grief in recent years than many other mis-steps.

 

Putin has been one of the bogeymen all his time in the offfice - not just now. It just has been ignored for the most of the time. The Islamists pressing on "his" borders is the direct result of mass murdering 200.000 Chechens in two wars. Before that there wasn't any Islamist threat.

One reaps what one sows...

Forgetting/ignoring/choosing ethical/democratic concerns have caused the most grief IMO.

 

I once learnt from a highly entertaining political theory lecturer, that democracy is in many ways 'the least worst compromise' as a system.
I like it, but I also don't see it as some magic bullet that automatically improves every society it's applied to. It isn't always the best 'fit'.
E.g.. The Arab spring was a peculiar and interesting time, but in retrospect many stability babies were thrown out with excited short-term bathwater.


I don't really have a dog in the fight, being more of the 'let's finally use up these nukes we've paid for' persuasion when it comes to all the trickier foreign policy issues, but I do hope beyond that gut instinct I try not to view things too dogmatically, and speculate on longer term and wider possibilities beyond what Stephen Fry or the lazy commentariat in general tells me to think.
I hope.

I find our own politicos dithering response more alarming than Putin's bit of c19th gunboat diplomacy in the Crimea.
He's laughing, and our chaps had no serious response to his local government rearrangement, pro or against.
He made 'em look like kids - I almost admire that.

 

IMO for democracy to work there has to be a sense of comunity with in the political body it encompasses and a willingness to sacrafice to at least some extent for the good of the whole. If a nation is a democracy but the primary loyalty is to the tribe or city or province then there can be signficant problems. When the primary loyalty is to oneself and ones family it can be a disaster. Functional democracies do seem to maximize both freedome and wealth for the over all population but getting to the "functional" part can be nontrivial.

 

Now I beg to differ... the Islamic Republic of Iran had been fermenting trouble in states with strong Islamic ties, especially where there were Shias, for many, many years. For instance it is is well known that Iranian Republican Guards participated in the war in Yugoslavia. In short, the Iranians were involved very early when the Soviet empire disintegrated. I'd not belittle the threat from Iran's brand of fundamentalist, expansionist Islam, nor doubt their ability to organise and fund islamists, and that quickly.

That said, the Red Army's tactics left something to be desired. Not a lot of Hearts and Minds going on.

 

Was talking about the Islamists in Russia. Agree that the Islamists have been trying to expand their influence to Russia already before the Chechen wars. However IMO there was not that much room or demand for them then. Muslims in Russia were quite moderate and found Iranian style fundamentalism alien.

Of course now, after so much Chechen blood, the situation is much different in the South.

 

There are many who consider "independence" in Ukraine a farce... Since it has now had 2 govt. Overthrows in less then 10 years. Was the Orange revolution also Russia's fault???

Ukraine is currently going through a civil war. The country is split in half. There are those who want to be with the West and those that want to be with Russia. I understand that some here might find that difficult to believe that anyone would voluntarily want to be closer to Russia but that is in fact the case. These people number in the millions.....

 

What does the independence of a country have to do with the failure of successive government?

Those people may number in millions, but they are still a minority. Were they a majority, the popular vote would've gone the other way, and Putin would've remained a happy chappy, and the Crimea would still be Ukrainian.

 

If you are unhappy with an elected official an impeachment process is in order.

The people in the East are revolting just like the people in the West were,

Crimea was an autonomous region because it didn't want to be part of Ukraine to begin with. Once a military coupe occurred the region was given a referendum and chose to join Russia.