Russia - Ukraine

[Cdr.Keen]

[...]

 

To say it, though, I find it quite ridicoulus to compare Russia to Germany from World War 2. I try to stay as neutral in this matter as possible, but ever since I heard that Ukraine government decided that "talking Russian" in Ukraine is considered a crime, it's becoming more and more hard for me to do so.

 

it's not my personal opinion, it's just a provoking headline to start the discussion.

 

i watched the whole video. at some point i try to belive what he's talking about but most time it is also such provoking and biased. for e.g. the part with the nato missles aiming at russia - they are also there to protect russia in any way they get attackt by someone who isn't nice with the nato.

 

at least, i think we're all educated people wherever we are from. if russia will act like the "nato" and help the ukraine citizen to save their country they just have to talk about it with the EU. i don't know if its good for the ukraine to join the EU or not, but as part of the continent and middle west europe it's not just a situation between russia and ukraine - it regards all countries over there.

[DoctahWong]

I'm not sure about the whole conflict thing, but it's been happening a lot recently. And they weren't pretty...

 

 

Everyone seem to want World Peace, but that'll never happen because of three things: Power, Greed, and Corruption... though since i'm not THAT much of a political person, i may be wrong.

[LeoIvanov]

 

 

Click on the subtitles to read the english version of it. He pretty much explains the whole thing with what is going on over in Ukraine and how it affects Russia (those who live in Ukraine/Europe may find it offensive, be aware. This guy isn't afraid of being brutally straight with his opinions)

 

To say it, though, I find it quite ridicoulus to compare Russia to Germany from World War 2. I try to stay as neutral in this matter as possible, but ever since I heard that Ukraine government decided that "talking Russian" in Ukraine is considered a crime, it's becoming more and more hard for me to do so.

 

He's saying that the new Nazi government in Ukraine will allow NATO to have missiles aiming at Russian cities. Is that a common oppinion in Russia, that NATO is a regarded threat and humiliator of Russia? I'm just curious because it's difficult from where I sit to actually get a sense of what people in Russia thinks about NATO and the west

 

 

All he meant by that was that if we ever posed a threat or if, say, suddenly had a conflict, NATO would have an easy access to destroying the cities in Russia with it's missiles. Let's all be honest here - Whatever the intentions are, we can't disregard the possibility of it being used the other, "evil" way, should the situation allow for it to happen.

 

EDIT :

 

 

 

[...]

 

To say it, though, I find it quite ridicoulus to compare Russia to Germany from World War 2. I try to stay as neutral in this matter as possible, but ever since I heard that Ukraine government decided that "talking Russian" in Ukraine is considered a crime, it's becoming more and more hard for me to do so.

 

it's not my personal opinion, it's just a provoking headline to start the discussion.

 

i watched the whole video. at some point i try to belive what he's talking about but most time it is also such provoking and biased. for e.g. the part with the nato missles aiming at russia - they are also there to protect russia in any way they get attackt by someone who isn't nice with the nato.

 

at least, i think we're all educated people wherever we are from. if russia will act like the "nato" and help the ukraine citizen to save their country they just have to talk about it with the EU. i don't know if its good for the ukraine to join the EU or not, but as part of the continent and middle west europe it's not just a situation between russia and ukraine - it regards all countries over there.

 

 

Europe has a lot of problems of it's own to bring Ukraine out of it's crisis by integrating Ukraine into it.

 

I already gave heads up at the beginning of the video, saying that it might be offensive to some viewers, he isn't afraid of saying the truth brutally, the way it is. As I said it earlier in reply above, we can't disregard the possibility of NATO using those missiles in a bad way, should, god forbid, Russia ever have a conflict arise.

[Aricane]

All he meant by that was that if we ever posed a threat or if, say, suddenly had a conflict, NATO would have an easy access to destroying the cities in Russia with it's missiles. Let's all be honest here - Whatever the intentions are, we can't disregard the possibility of it being used the other, "evil" way, should the situation allow for it to happen.

 

Okay. That's not what I hear. From the subtitles I'm reading "You welcome the destruction of Russia" by accepting missiles near Russian borders. I think that's sounds a little like the people here in Denmark saying I welcome an islamic government because I don't hate muslims.

Anyways thanks for the video. I don't trust the western media very much and it's not covering the Russian perspective on the Crimera crisis very well. I think I saw one out of 100 articles asking "Does Putin have a point?". The current Ukranien government isn't legitimate according to constitution, as far as I know. So I really don't quite get why the western nations are eagerly supporting and recognizing its new government.

[Aricane]

Ahh, this editorial from the international edition of CNN seems to sum things up pretty good http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[Abdool]

Great video link LeoIvanov, thanks for sharing! I found it quite enlightening and rung true for me on many many points.
 
Some kind of controlled war will occur.  Simply because there is LOADS of money to be made on this and everyone in the military industrial complex is looking for a new cash cow.
 
I'm reminded of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell presidential speech where he warned everyone of how the modern military industrial complex will bite us. 

[mikaelkerensky]

As far as nato missiles being pointed at Russia, let's just face the fact that the u.s. Has been able to launch many kinds of missiles at russia since the cold war without any kind of forward base in ukraine. At this point in time with modern tech the u.s. Can hit damn near anyone if they chose to ignore international laws. We don't need ukraine to do that.

[Kirrus]

As far as nato missiles being pointed at Russia, let's just face the fact that the u.s. Has been able to launch many kinds of missiles at russia since the cold war without any kind of forward base in ukraine. At this point in time with modern tech the u.s. Can hit damn near anyone if they chose to ignore international laws. We don't need ukraine to do that.

 

Plus nuclear subs mean that Britain can pretty much hit anywhere with it's nukes. We don't need to site missile bases.

[Aenye Deithven]

Is that a common oppinion in Russia, that NATO is a regarded threat and humiliator of Russia? I'm just curious because it's difficult from where I sit to actually get a sense of what people in Russia thinks about NATO and the west

 

 

To that question there is no easy answer, as many people wiev history differently. Although it may be hard to believe to some, the "older generation" still considers the fall of the USSR the greatest tragedy in Russia's history, as we lost a third of "our" country (that's the effect of years of propaganda and pretty much the reason why some actually wiev the government's actions in a positive light). Fortunately, that sentiment is becoming scarce rather fast, but only because it was replaced by another, namely Yugoslavia.

 

Whereas, we did have our propaganda both in Russia and in the US, EU people got a de facto press blackout on the subject. As a result, it is not very clear who did what, where and how. Most sides, however, do agree that the NATO peacekeeping operation did involve bombing... Now, add the fact, that Serbia has been considered a "little (and quite liked, actually) brother" in Russia and we have propaganda going "NATO destroyed Serbia and will be coming for us soon !". That one intensified even further with the independence of Kosovo - presented in the media as "NATO rips out the heart of Serbia". So, basically, even some of the ordinary people in Russia fear NATO.

 

i watched the whole video. at some point i try to belive what he's talking about but most time it is also such provoking and biased. for e.g. the part with the nato missles aiming at russia - they are also there to protect russia in any way they get attackt by someone who isn't nice with the nato.

 

Hearing that some other country is going to protect Russia can spark a lot of paranoia, particularly in light of what I've written above. Furthermore, it could be understood as an accusation that our national defence system won't protect us - even more paranoia. Add the media and headlines like "Is NATO going to attack us ?" start appearing...

 

 

As far as nato missiles being pointed at Russia, let's just face the fact that the u.s. Has been able to launch many kinds of missiles at russia since the cold war without any kind of forward base in ukraine. At this point in time with modern tech the u.s. Can hit damn near anyone if they chose to ignore international laws. We don't need ukraine to do that.

 

Plus nuclear subs mean that Britain can pretty much hit anywhere with it's nukes. We don't need to site missile bases.

 

 

Well, that one is relative - the larger the distance travelled by the missile, the higher the detection / interception chance. I assume that it is the reason for everyone being so nervous when talking about "unstable" countries getting their own nukes - a home-made, short-ranged missile, bearing a nuclear warhead may actually be unstoppable. This last bit is just my speculation - please do correct me if necessary.

 

Ahh, this editorial from the international edition of CNN seems to sum things up pretty good http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Yup, pretty much the story in a nutshell.

[CylonBookworm]

The "missile bases" that Russia likes to bring up so often are strictly defensive ABM, or Anti-Ballistic Missile facilities. Basically, if Russia decides to nuke Europe, these missiles are supposed to try to knock them out of the sky.

[Kirrus]

Well.. this is shit. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/who-will-protect-the-crimean-tatars.html

 

They're trying a divide-and-conquer.

[Viceroy]

The "missile bases" that Russia likes to bring up so often are strictly defensive ABM, or Anti-Ballistic Missile facilities. Basically, if Russia decides to nuke Europe, these missiles are supposed to try to knock them out of the sky.

 

And this destroys the balance of power and leaves Russia open to being attacked whenever American governance decides. It makes for more instability from my point of view to have all the cards in American hands.

 

Remember that noone wants to 'nuke' anyone, the point of strategic arms like those are to balance power out and keep your rival from being able to take the chance, without this mutually assured destruction, world war three would have been fought already. Take for example South Africa during apartheid, our government had to arm itself with strategic NBC arms to keep from being invaded. It is the only way to safeguard your own sovereignity when out-numbered.

[mikaelkerensky]

Look guys, this is still all the same rhetoric that's been going on since the cold war. All the people "in charge" are still the cold war generatiin. We need to get past that cycle and start a new dialog. We're still at MAD (mutually assured destruction). I pray to the gods that no one ever drops a nuke again. We (the u.s.) should never have dropped the first one. Conventional wars are bad enough.

[CylonBookworm]

Look guys, this is still all the same rhetoric that's been going on since the cold war. All the people "in charge" are still the cold war generatiin. We need to get past that cycle and start a new dialog. We're still at MAD (mutually assured destruction). I pray to the gods that no one ever drops a nuke again. We (the u.s.) should never have dropped the first one. Conventional wars are bad enough.

I disagree. Predictions for Olympic (the Allied invasion of Japan, that never happened, thank god) were one million allied casualties, and pretty much the entire japanese populace wiped out. The Japanese were training their civilians to fight american soldiers with spears/sharpened sticks for crying out loud. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a amazingly light on casualties alternative. Yes, many died horrible deaths, but it was either that, or continuing the war for 20 years until an entire people were wiped out of existence.

[KingNoodle]

There will not be a west v east war over this.

 

So yeah having gotten that out there, you can ignore the rest. This is just what i've been thinking. Most western media is happy to compare Putin to Hitler becasue the name Hitler generates instant headlines and publicity (and the whole olympics thing is just pure analogy gold right there).

Even the supposed free press loves to print money and any sensationalist buzzword-generating hyperbole that can be rehashed, retweeted and resold is profit. No matter what happens, those in the west love making Big News about trivial matters at the best of times and any conflict like this is just gold dust to them.

 

Now I don't live in russia or eastern europe but I will bet a substantial amount of money that their media works in exactly the same way. Everyone has an angle, everyone wants to make money and noone is afraid of relying on old stereotypes and scaremongering to publish their story.

 

Anyways, this situation is of course a hugely serious matter if you live in the Ukraine or the Crimea. Whatever led to the Ukrainian President Yanukovych to be ousted by his own people or what crimes he commited in his term in office is up for debate; he is still technically the President and so the current govenrment is technically illegal but I think calling them Nazis is a bit over the top. Calling someone on a different side of the political spectrum a Nazi is the youtube school of political thought. I mean, Yanukovych was of course corrupt and based on the riots people did not feel he represented them very well. I worked with Ukrainians 3 years ago and they hated him then and it seems that he hasnt been doing a great job of winning supporters since. Look at it this way: If a democratically elected President is forced into exile by an angry populous, said President is obviously not being supported by a democracy anymore. When they are burnign effigys of you in the streets, then it is time to step down. Not flee to Russia and call your opponent a nazi. Thats a little bit childish.

 

So he is hiding in Russia. Good for him. He seems to have friends there. Fancy that, considering how utterly corrupt the russian kleptocracy is. Sorry, I mean democracy. And russia sends in troops into the Crimea to secure the peninsula in the chaos? Thats a bit crazy but not as crazy as TO FLATLY DENY THAT IT IS RUSSIAN TROOPS THERE. Oh no, not russian troops Putin claims. Allegedly it is a local defense militia.

 

Yeah, local militia my arse. So 15,000 local boys went to the army surplus stores in their villages and said, 'yes, please give me a russian uniform without insignia. This is important so the locals know that i am on their side. Also, give me that russian armored personel carrier over there, the one with the russian flag on it, yeah. Good. I think my pocket money should cover it.' Anyways, for me thats the crazy bit. That could well be the reason why the west is a bit nonplussed at the situation. Invading a state with a shadowy army not bearing any colours is pretty much Bond Villainy level of madness right there. 

 

I mean, fair enough, the peninsula was Russian until 1946: it's always been a strategic point and Russia is a lot more qualified to intervene in local politics than the west. America for one does not have any rights what so ever to go in there. Let the Russians meddle with the eastern bloc. It might not be favourable to the Ukrainians or the europeans or the americans or even the bloody africans, but they are going to be a hell of a lot more welcome in Crimea than the Americans will ever be.

 

I have no idea if the people in Crimea wants to be Russian: Reports indicate that they would prefer to be independant from either, but Crimean politicians will be voting whatever aforementioned 15,000 armed foreign combatants will be telling them to vote. Noone wants to have their families shot and buried in the garden over something as silly as free speech and democracy. So they will probably vote to distance themselves from Kiev if this referendum comers to pass. The story will be over and Russia will be in control over a piece of land where they've had strong influence over since... Oh I don't know. They wrestled it off the Turks? My black sea history is a bit hazy.

 

So why is the American media so obsessed about it? The liberal media is of course humanitarian. They want us to see the horrors that is going on in the shadow of armed insurrection and possible civil war. Good on them. The humantiarian angle sells newspapers. And the right wing media? Well they just want a good old fashioned Obama bash. "Oh look, Obama is so weak compared to mighty bear Putin. He can't even stand up to one single superpower with Nuclear weapons. I bet he pees sitting down like a girly girl" Yeah, becasue Obama is the only american president that has been reluctant to fight russia in the past 100 years. Muppets.

 

If the Republicans were in power then they would also treat this situation very carefully becasue they do not want a military confrontation with Russia. Noone wants a military confrontation with Russia. And the Russians are scared of Europe? Rubbish. The german export market alone is so utterly dependant on the russian market that they wouldn't even impose trade sanctions, let alone threaten military action. And Putin knows this. So if the russian media is saying that NATO in europe is a threat to Russia, then they are incredibly misinformed or probably just rabblerousing. I imagine they have their reasons though, and they will not tell us normal plebs.

 

For that is what politics is and that is what is happening now. Russia has their own agenda which they will hide behind lies and propaganda. The Americans have their own agenda which they will hide behind lies and propaganda. Europe has its own agenda which, surprise surprse, they will hide behind lies and propaganda. The people of the Ukraine will suffer but they are only people. People are not as important as money or power.

 

So thats the most I will ever write. I didnt research the issue. Ive just had a lot of time thinking about it whilst holed up in a cabin waiting for the apocalypse to end.

[mikaelkerensky]

I know the statistics, that 1 million allied soldiers would have died. Hiroshima may have been necessary. But with the way communications were back then we gave the japanese essentially zero time to resppnd. Nagasaki at least was probably necessary. But the U.S. remains the only nation on earth to deploy nukes against any human targets... A distinction i do not relish. Hopefully they will never be used again.

[CylonBookworm]

@KingNoodle - He is no longer the president. He was impeached by the Ukrainian parliament and he fled to Russia screaming bloody murder.

[Aenye Deithven]

I mean, fair enough, the peninsula was Russian until 1946: it's always been a strategic point and Russia is a lot more qualified to intervene

 

Just to clarify, Хрущев (Khrushchev) gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

[KingNoodle]

 

I mean, fair enough, the peninsula was Russian until 1946: it's always been a strategic point and Russia is a lot more qualified to intervene

 

Just to clarify, Хрущев (Khrushchev) gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

 

As I said, I didnt research anything I wrote. I also found out that there are neo-fascist elements amongst those who seized power in Kiev so calling them Nazis isn't as ridiculous as I thought it was. Still, its all a bit of a mess, eh?

[LeoIvanov]

 

 

I mean, fair enough, the peninsula was Russian until 1946: it's always been a strategic point and Russia is a lot more qualified to intervene

 

Just to clarify, Хрущев (Khrushchev) gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

 

As I said, I didnt research anything I wrote. I also found out that there are neo-fascist elements amongst those who seized power in Kiev so calling them Nazis isn't as ridiculous as I thought it was. Still, its all a bit of a mess, eh?

 

 

Maybe next time It would be a bit smarter to research the topic throughout before jumping in the conversation with a long post and start throwing accusations

 

People in Crimea aren't afraid of "their families getting shot and buried over freedom of speech and democracy". They were the ones to call Russia for help, frightened by things that happen over in Kiev. People there were going from house to house, causing mess and brutally torturing/killing people that were a part of a police defense group, "Berkut", defending Yanukovitch and attempting to keep the damn peace. I don't protect or in any way try to justify what Yanukovitch did - but Berkut did not deserve getting themselves burnt to death or killed by a bunch of neo-nazis who killed people left and right, opposition or police.

 

I've seen various pictures on the internet (I do research my stuff before saying it ) And people there are hugging the Russian army, taking pictures with it, NOBODY is conquering anyone's land. Ukrainian and Russian people have had a "brotherhood" relationship with each other for a long time, if there's ever a reason for armed forces in Crimea, it's because people in it asked for the help.

[Aricane]

 

 

 

I mean, fair enough, the peninsula was Russian until 1946: it's always been a strategic point and Russia is a lot more qualified to intervene

 

Just to clarify, Хрущев (Khrushchev) gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

 

As I said, I didnt research anything I wrote. I also found out that there are neo-fascist elements amongst those who seized power in Kiev so calling them Nazis isn't as ridiculous as I thought it was. Still, its all a bit of a mess, eh?

 

 

Maybe next time It would be a bit smarter to research the topic throughout before jumping in the conversation with a long post and start throwing accusations

 

People in Crimea aren't afraid of "their families getting shot and buried over freedom of speech and democracy". They were the ones to call Russia for help, frightened by things that happen over in Kiev. People there were going from house to house, causing mess and brutally torturing/killing people that were a part of a police defense group, "Berkut", defending Yanukovitch and attempting to keep the damn peace. I don't protect or in any way try to justify what Yanukovitch did - but Berkut did not deserve getting themselves burnt to death or killed by a bunch of neo-nazis who killed people left and right, opposition or police.

 

I've seen various pictures on the internet (I do research my stuff before saying it ) And people there are hugging the Russian army, taking pictures with it, NOBODY is conquering anyone's land. Ukrainian and Russian people have had a "brotherhood" relationship with each other for a long time, if there's ever a reason for armed forces in Crimea, it's because people in it asked for the help.

 

 

If this is really true, it's insane how different the east/west perspectives on it is. In western media Crimea has been invaded by Russia. According to the press and several quoted western experts Crimera is lost to Russia and Ukraine will never get it back. Putin wants Crimera because he and all Russians believe that if people speak Russian, then it's Russian territory. Indeed some western politician compares Putins rethoric with Hitlers, when Hitler started condemning Jews as Putin condemns homosexuals.

 

I think the west needs to accept, that they have no clue on how Russians see things, and just believe that Russia has friendly and peaceful intentions.

 

Here's a sum-up of things that doesn't make sense

• The west acknowledges the new Ukranian government despite it is technically illegimate. The west holds constitutions very dear, yet apparently not. When the egyptian military couped the Muslim Brotherhood despite they were elected by the people, the west didn't condemn the coup.
• Putin denies having sent troops to Crimera. The soldiers country marks have been removed. Why is that?
• Why is the estimated 30.000 troops necessary to maintain peace in Crimera?
• Why does the EU think it can just send military observators into Crimera, as if EU is elevated beyond the conflict.
• Why does demonstrators attempting to breach police barricades near the government building in Donetsk wave Russian flags when they should be waving Ukranian flags? This makes the so-called brotherhood between Russia and Ukraine look a bit assumed. It does look a little orchestrated to me.

I'm glad the US has such a "weak" president. Things could escalate very quickly and badly if the previous president was still in office.

 

I think there's a massive canyon between the perspective of things. In our age of technology it would astound me if such a canyon can even exists. Then again. I've sometimes wondered why I never really hear much about what is going on in Russia. I often hear about events and trends from EU and USA, even the Middle East, Afrika and some parts of Asia.

 

Russia I know nothing about. It's a huge country, many people. Yet it is as if nothing ever really happens there.

[mikaelkerensky]

My biggest problem with the situation are soldiers with no insignia. It bothers me.

[LeoIvanov]

 

If this is really true, it's insane how different the east/west perspectives on it is. In western media Crimea has been invaded by Russia. According to the press and several quoted western experts Crimera is lost to Russia and Ukraine will never get it back. Putin wants Crimera because he and all Russians believe that if people speak Russian, then it's Russian territory. Indeed some western politician compares Putins rethoric with Hitlers, when Hitler started condemning Jews as Putin condemns homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

 

Damn, look at those Russian invaders, they must be really evil to conquer and "rip off" Crimea from citizen's hands, probably also executing them and burying them into the ground if they ever speak about freedom of speech or democracy.

 

 

EDIT : Putin has stated this many times before that he does not "condemn" homosexuals in any way : They can easily work there, they don't get any additional taxes for living in Russia, they can live the same life as any other individual. The only thing he disallows is a homosexual propaganda to kids in schools and gay marriage. 

[Pixel Bombs]

The only thing he disallows is a homosexual propaganda to kids in schools and gay marriage. 

 

What the fuck is homosexual propaganda?

[Kirrus]

 

The only thing he disallows is a homosexual propaganda to kids in schools and gay marriage. 

 

What the fuck is homosexual propaganda?

 

 

Talking about being homosexual.

 

It's worth noting, hate crime towards lesbian and gay people is increasing in russia, as are reported attacks.