Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'
Options
Comments
-
Don't try to put words in my mouth. FYI I would much prefer to have the USA as "world policeman" than Russia. But at least my position is consistent; if you think Kosovo deserved to be liberated by Nato, then you should also think the Russians were right to help liberate Crimea from Ukraine. The difference in the modus operandi is that the Russians did it without bombing and killing large numbers of people, and they also held a referendum ASAP.Brian Shanahan wrote: »I think recedite's cheerleading for Putin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen has more to do with the variation of "four legs good, two legs bad" current in certain sections of the western left, which posits everything done by the US as bad...
Think about this, if Crimea were to try to leave the Russian Federation in a few years time, would you support their right to do so? Or would you say they had no ethical right to do so without agreement from people/govt. in Moscow?0 -
Tatars are to be forced off the land they've occupied since they returned from Stalin's exile:Tatars are not being forced out.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html
This item comes from RIA(*) and I'm assuming, since the report is politically damaging to Russia, that it's more likely to be true than most of what comes out of RIA/RT.
(*) a state-controlled news outlet, headed up by one of Putin's friends, a guy named Dmitry Kiselyev who rose to prominence recently for reminding everybody that Russia can use nuclear weapons against the USA.0 -
Don't try to put words in my mouth.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was looking at what you were writing and making a logical decuction on the most likely reason for you writing them. Because, to be honest, ever since Robin brought up the whole Ukraine issue, you've been writing on it like you've a topless poster of Vlad on your wall and you like what you see.0 -
Tatars are to be forced off the land they've occupied since they returned from Stalin's exile:
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html
This item comes from RIA(*) and I'm assuming, since the report is politically damaging to Russia, that it's more likely to be true than most of what comes out of RIA/RT.
(*) a state-controlled news outlet, headed up by one of Putin's friends, a guy named Dmitry Kiselyev who rose to prominence recently for reminding everybody that Russia can use nuclear weapons against the USA.
Jesus H.
This isn't going to go away, is it? I'm going sticking my head in the sand for another while - can't take much of watching this one.....:eek:0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »the variation of "four legs good, two legs bad" current in certain sections of the western left, which posits everything done by the US as bad, and everything done which can be spun as being in opposition to the US as good, than any proper reading of the situation at hand.
Did you see Eamonn McCann's article a few days ago in the Irish Times, pathetic, but not one bit surprising.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/if-we-have-to-pick-a-side-over-crimea-let-it-be-russia-1.1731105Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Got a robust response too:Did you see Eamonn McCann's article a few days ago in the Irish Times, pathetic, but not one bit surprising.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/if-we-have-to-pick-a-side-over-crimea-let-it-be-russia-1.1731105
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/crisis-in-ukraine-1.1733825Irish Times wrote:Eamonn McCann’s argument for Ireland supporting Russia over Crimea is a classic instance of half-baked facts and rhetorical tricks being deployed to a bad end (“If we have to pick a side over Crimea, let it be Russia,” Opinion & Analysis, March 20th).
Crimeans should have some say over their political destiny, but the referendum held in Crimea last Sunday fell so far short of even “shifting norms of democratic probity” that it has to be dismissed. The vote was in no sense free or fair. The choice put before Crimea’s citizens was not a choice since it contained no option to remain within Ukraine. The vote was rushed forward so that there could be no campaigning against it, held under the auspices of a Crimean government that lacked any legitimacy and that denied meaningful protest against the referendum, and under conditions of a media blackout of Ukrainian news sources. Not surprisingly, many Crimeans boycotted the poll to deny it any legitimacy. Now that Russia has annexed Crimea and fatally wounded its relations with Ukraine, we will never know what Crimeans actually wanted.
Mr McCann is right to note that Russia has grievances with the post-cold war security architecture in Europe. It is, however, hypocritical of him to argue for the right of Crimeans to make decisions about their political and security futures and deny those rights to east Europeans whose countries joined the EU and Nato after 1989. Nato and EU enlargement may not have been well handled diplomatically, with rash promises that there would be no eastward enlargement of Nato made on several occasions by people who had no right to determine the foreign policy orientations of the new east European democracies. But this does not obviate the right of east Europeans to choose to be part of either Nato or the EU, a right that they exercised.
The rhetorical reason that Mr McCann holds east Europeans’ rights in such low regard is to justify Russian fears of further Nato expansion and to link these to Ukraine’s relationship to the EU. But no such relationship exists. Contrary to Mr McCann’s assertion, there is no mention of “Kiev align(ing) forces with Nato” in the agreements that Ukraine was due to sign with the EU last year. There is talk of co-operation in policing, anti-terrorism and other security areas, and of bringing about alignment between Ukrainian policy and the European Common Foreign and Security Policy. This has nothing to do with Nato and, given the state of European foreign and security policy, is not much of a threat to anyone.
The other argument that Mr McCann proposes, that the West is bad so we should ignore the wickedness of others, is so intellectually lazy that I will not dignify it with a response. – Yours, etc.
Prof NEIL ROBINSON, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick, Limerick.0 -
Did you see Eamonn McCann's article a few days ago in the Irish Times, pathetic, but not one bit surprising.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/if-we-have-to-pick-a-side-over-crimea-let-it-be-russia-1.1731105
No I didn't, thanks for pointing it out. I have seen a few similar items in the Grauniad online, though none of them are as open as that one.0 -
Putin to conjure up a motive that is transparently and demonstrably false, have his supporters invade a parliament, appoint their own puppet at gunpoint, have the puppet call a "referendum", invade the province, rig the referendum, then annex the place...Brian Shanahan wrote: »the Tartars being forced out of their own country by Russia ....
Still no evidence for any of this.
No admission that it was Crimean citizens themselves who were out on the streets and forced out their previous PM. Or that they welcomed Russian help.
Still no sign of the UN resolution authorising the Nato bombing of Serbia, allowing the secession of Kosovo.
No admission that Ireland seceded from the UK without a referendum in the UK permitting that.
No admission that the USA trained and financed the Georgian army for an incursion into Ossetia, for the purposes of annexing it against the wishes of the Ossetian people, and that the gamble only went wrong when Russia came to the aid of the Ossetians.
No admission that Nato has been steadily advancing into former Warsaw Pact countries since the 1990's and installing its military equipment there.
No admission that the majority of Crimeans have been seeking independence from Ukraine since the break-up of the USSR in 1991.
No admission that the Crimeans themselves drew up their 1992 Constitution which gave them some sort of Free State status under Ukraine, and that this was subsequently taken away from them by Ukraine which later imposed "direct rule" by Presidential diktat.
And now we have the assertion that
Even though one of the choices on the ballot paper was the "restoration of the 1992 Constitution" with the specific words "under Ukraine" written there plainly.The choice put before Crimea’s citizens was not a choice since it contained no option to remain within Ukraine.
The standard of debate in this thread is disappointing. Just a lot of baseless assertions and ad hominems against Putin, and anyone who is labelled as a supporter of his.0 -
Still no evidence for any of this.
No admission that it was Crimean citizens themselves who were out on the streets and forced out their previous PM. Or that they welcomed Russian help.
Still no sign of the UN resolution authorising the Nato bombing of Serbia, allowing the secession of Kosovo.
No admission that Ireland seceded from the UK without a referendum in the UK permitting that.
No admission that the USA trained and financed the Georgian army for an incursion into Ossetia, for the purposes of annexing it against the wishes of the Ossetian people, and that the gamble only went wrong when Russia came to the aid of the Ossetians.
No admission that Nato has been steadily advancing into former Warsaw Pact countries since the 1990's and installing its military equipment there.
No admission that the majority of Crimeans have been seeking independence from Ukraine since the break-up of the USSR in 1991.
No admission that the Crimeans themselves drew up their 1992 Constitution which gave them some sort of Free State status under Ukraine, and that this was subsequently taken away from them by Ukraine which later imposed "direct rule" by Presidential diktat.
And now we have the assertion that Even though one of the choices on the ballot paper was the "restoration of the 1992 Constitution" with the specific words "under Ukraine" written there plainly.
The standard of debate in this thread is disappointing. Just a lot of baseless assertions and ad hominems against Putin, and anyone who is labelled as a supporter of his.
This is just unadulterated whataboutery rubbish ! An sovereign state was invaded by another sovereign state. An invader that had just a few years ago guaranteed the borders of that state.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand ?
The moral of the story ? Never give up your nukes .0 -
As marienbad pointed out in the post above, you've widened the topic from the illegality of the military invasion of Crimea and the questionable motives and means by which this was achieved -- which you haven't really addressed -- to include a range of other topics, most of which while interesting, are not relevant.The standard of debate in this thread is disappointing.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not against military invasions per se. It depends on whether people in the invaded region treat the invaders as liberators or occupiers. In this case, most people in Crimea see the Russians more as liberators, and most people in Kiev and Western Europe see them as occupiers. As Crimea is the invaded land, I give more weight to what people in Crimea think.
IMO law becomes irrelevant after a situation is militarised. War and law are like apples and oranges, two different things. It is possible for military action to be justified, but it will always be illegal from somebody's point of view.
In WWII, the Nazi regime came to an end when the Russians invaded Berlin. The Vichy regime in France ended when Allies invaded Normandy. Mussolini was strung up by Italians when the allies invaded Italy. If the people welcome the invaders by cheering them in the streets, and use the opportunity to rid themselves of a despot, I see nothing wrong with an invasion. Using these examples, and the earlier example of Kosovo, is not "whataboutery".
Whataboutery would be if I said, "yes invasion is wrong, but what about kosovo; Nato are just as bad". Whereas I am saying military action was justified in both Crimea and Kosovo, because both regions wanted independence from a larger entity that refused to allow it. Comparing the modus operandi of the two operations, the Russians did it much more cleanly and with almost no loss of life compared to Kosovo. Crimea was of course easier than any of the recent Nato operations, but that is because the Russians were welcomed, whereas Nato often go where they are not welcome. Trying to say Kosovo was legal, but Crimea is illegal is hypocrisy though.0 -
I'm not against military invasions per se. It depends on whether people in the invaded region treat the invaders as liberators or occupiers. In this case, most people in Crimea see the Russians more as liberators, and most people in Kiev and Western Europe see them as occupiers. As Crimea is the invaded land, I give more weight to what people in Crimea think.
IMO law becomes irrelevant after a situation is militarised. War and law are like apples and oranges, two different things. It is possible for military action to be justified, but it will always be illegal from somebody's point of view.
In WWII, the Nazi regime came to an end when the Russians invaded Berlin. The Vichy regime in France ended when Allies invaded Normandy. Mussolini was strung up by Italians when the allies invaded Italy. If the people welcome the invaders by cheering them in the streets, and use the opportunity to rid themselves of a despot, I see nothing wrong with an invasion. Using these examples, and the earlier example of Kosovo, is not "whataboutery".
Whataboutery would be if I said, "yes invasion is wrong, but what about kosovo; Nato are just as bad". Whereas I am saying military action was justified in both Crimea and Kosovo, because both regions wanted independence from a larger entity that refused to allow it. Comparing the modus operandi of the two operations, the Russians did it much more cleanly and with almost no loss of life compared to Kosovo. Crimea was of course easier than any of the recent Nato operations, but that is because the Russians were welcomed, whereas Nato often go where they are not welcome. Trying to say Kosovo was legal, but Crimea is illegal is hypocrisy though.
This just getting bizarre at this stage , So would you be ok with London seceding from the UK following a plebiscite ?
And this time can you just give an answer instead of another load of whataboutery0 -
The smallest sustainable independent unit is about the size of a province. A city needs its hinterland. The ancient Greeks had independent city-states, and we may see more of them in the future, emerging from within larger countries.
I am OK with N. Ireland, Scotland, Crimea, and Catalonia having the right to self-determination.0 -
The smallest sustainable independent unit is about the size of a province. A city needs its hinterland. The ancient Greeks had independent city-states, and we may see more of them in the future, emerging from within larger countries.
I am OK with N. Ireland, Scotland, Crimea, and Catalonia having the right to self-determination.
Again more deflection , what about Andorra, Monaco, Singapore? But lets rephrase the question .
Are you Ok with London and the south east of England having a vote and decide to secede ? Or Leinster ?0 -
Whoa! - so that’s what it feels like to read whole thread.
I know this will get me in trouble with Robin (must have a pint soon btw!) but I can't really agree with the mainline opinion here for a number of reasons. Before I start a little confession - my wife is Russian and I’ve been there many times (although probably not as many times as Robin) my wife’s parents (her mother was a history teacher, now retired, her Father a Russian Language teacher (who was born in the Ukraine) visited recently so this subject has been truly been exhausted here which is why I was delighted to see a thread on boards about it!
Firstly, lest it be horribly misconstrued through this post, Putin is an evil bastard and modern Russia is pretty twisted place - of that there can be little doubt. Secondly Russia’s “invasion” is no doubt illegal under international law.
Thirdly the Referendum was questionable in many ways and its outcome, although similar to 1991 vote
Results
Choice Votes %
For 1,343,825 94.30
Against 81,254 5.70
Invalid/blank votes 15,910 –
Total 1,441,019 100
Registered voters/turnout 1,770,841 81.37
Source: KIA News
seems to have been, at the very least, exaggerated.
However (here it comes, watch out) it’s not exactly clear-cut from either side. I haven’t seen it mentioned (apologies if I have missed it) here that Crimea used to be a part of Russia only 50 years ago; there may be good reason for this – perhaps the debaters here find it irrelevant now, and that it may well be, nonetheless it remains one of the factors that I believe adds complication to this whole process. Some still question Khrushchev’s (having been strongly linked to Ukraine his whole life from Birth - some even consider him Ukrainian) right to give Crimea away. He claimed technically it was so that Ukraine would manage Crimea administratively and that it made more sense geographically.
Secondly Crimea is made up of about 60% Russian people with Russian as their main language (something threatened by recent Ukrainian laws). So this invasion differs drastically to the classic invasion scenario we may well be used to; Americans in Iraq for example. These caveats make the situation vastly more complex – something I think poor Recedite has gone to great pains to establish and rather unsuccessfully too it appears.
Thirdly, the intellectually lazy objection as highlighted by the professor Neil Robinson – just because America and the UK have committed similar breaches of international law doesn't mean that Vlad is off the hook. Well, I don’t think anyone’s is so lazy as to actually infer that this objection is an excuse for Putin to do what he does; I think this objection has been purposefully misconstrued so that commentators firmly perched on the Western side of things don’t have to strain their collective consciences too hard. The point of the objection is that America and Europe are using an international body (NATO) as a platform to threaten Russia with sanctions when both of these nations have committed, are presently committing, acts in violation of international law; Guantanamo bay, use of drones, invasion of Iraq etc. Yes these points are painfully relevant here because international law is the law we are using to judge Russia. It goes beyond hypocrisy to hold others accountable to laws that we ourselves ignore and because most people are ignorant of the history American and European media, suffering from further short term memory loss, are getting a free pass at fish in a barrel type propaganda against Russia.
The history of the region, the complexity of its relationship with Ukraine and Ukraine’s current political upheaval have all conspired to make the situation endlessly complex. I’m not sure all contributors here fully appreciate that - particularly if they can only see one side. The speculation of US involvement in the Ukrainian revolution may not be crazy either.
Putin has overplayed his position in retaliation for losing with Yankukovych. Obviously though Russia aren’t afraid of US and European backlash that would’ve been predicted and analysed in advance of landing troops in Crimea.
By the way it’s just come over the wireless the IMF want to give Ukraine a bailout as Tymoshneko (now decriminalized under recent Ukrainian constitutional overhauls – makes the illegal referendum look less dodgy that:)) So yeah, further US involvement here – although a bailout was always on the cards through joining with Europe. It’s certainly not an open and shut case of Russia bad, West less so. More a recurrence of the recent problem of Russia too bold, West not happy.0 -
Did Russia along with the USA and others guarantee by treaty Ukraine's borders as a condition of them giving up their nukes ?0
-
Did Russia along with the USA and others guarantee by treaty Ukraine's borders as a condition of them giving up their nukes ?
They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.
There is no such danger. The invasion of Iraq Afghanistan were also wrong ,but that is also irrelevant - just because I give Bob a punch in the face doesn't mean you can give Jack a kick in the nuts .
Why is that so hard to understand ?0 -
There is no such danger. The invasion of Iraq Afghanistan were also wrong ,but that is also irrelevant - just because I give Bob a punch in the face doesn't mean you can give Jack a kick in the nuts .
Why is that so hard to understand ?
I covered this point in detail above
One doesn't justify the other - absolutely not, of course not; that's a given. No one here has argued this. The repetition of this painfully obvious strawman strikes me as somewhat desperate.
Its when you forget about punching Bob and start criticising me over kicking Jack in the nuts and not only that you're now telling the whole neighbourhood that I'm the violent one when this whole silly metaphor was your idea to begin with:). Hope you see the distinction.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »I covered this point in detail above
One doesn't justify the other - absolutely not, of course not; that's a given. No one here has argued this. The repetition of this painfully obvious strawman strikes me as somewhat desperate.
Its when you forget about punching Bob and start criticising me over kicking Jack in the nuts and not only that you're now telling the whole neighbourhood that I'm the violent one when this whole silly metaphor was your idea to begin with:). Hope you see the distinction.
No I don't sorry.
This invasion taken was wrong . Do you agree with that ?
The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
No I don't sorry.
This invasion taken was wrong . Do you agree with that ?
The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.
Yes of course I agree it is illegal - with opinions as highlighted above.
Of course other invasions are relevant when those trying to mitigate and referee are themselves involved in similar breaches of international law. An invasion by one country into another is not an easy affair to isolate; politically, morally, historically etc etc. You need to understand this or else accept a double standard.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »Yes of course I agree it is illegal - with opinions as highlighted above.
Of course other invasions are relevant when those trying mitigate and referee are involved. An invasion by one country into another is not an easy affair to isolate; politically, morally, historically etc etc. You need to understand this or else accept a double standard.
Why do I need to understand anything ? This is just more whataboutery.
Russia guaranteed by Treaty Ukraine's borders a couple of decades ago. It makes no difference what the population percentages are, If Russia wants to renegotiate that treaty , then do so.0 -
The relevance is that Obama and Cameron are the ones shouting loudest about the "illegality" of this invasion.The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.
You can argue that both Kosovo and Crimea were wrong, or that both were right, but it is inconsistent to argue one was right and one was wrong.0 -
The relevance is that Obama and Cameron are the ones shouting loudest about the "illegality" of this invasion.
You can argue that both Kosovo and Crimea were wrong, or that both were right, but it is inconsistent to argue one was right and one was wrong.
Is there no end to your whataboutery. !! I have never mentioned Obama Cameron .
The invasion of Crimea was wrong - do you accept that ? yes or no ?
It was wrong in and of itself, no mitigating factors elsewhere.
If others say it was wrong while having done the same themselves that doesn't make it right,it makes them hypocrites .That's how it works.0 -
This just getting bizarre at this stage , So would you be ok with London seceding from the UK following a plebiscite ?
Just to go off topic within a thread which was created because of off-topic musings, under UK law the City of London is essentially a state within a state, allowing it to ignore most of the legislation coming out of Westminster, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of being within the UK. So why would London ever try to secede, without the UK government first killing off the anomolies which allow it to be the worlds premier offshore tax haven.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.
Given that the current dictatorship* in Crimea is wanting to carry out a mass eviction of the Crimean Tartars and repossession of all their land in the province, I cannot see how Russia can legitimately play the "but the land was ours first" card. The Crimean Tartars in that case would have a claim far more valid than Russia's.
*Well what else do you call a "government" imposed at the point of a Kalashnikov, literally?0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Given that the current dictatorship* in Crimea is wanting to carry out a mass eviction of the Crimean Tartars and repossession of all their land in the province, I cannot see how Russia can legitimately play the "but the land was ours first" card. The Crimean Tartars in that case would have a claim far more valid than Russia's.
*Well what else do you call a "government" imposed at the point of a Kalashnikov, literally?
Hi Brian,
I think the paragraph above suffers from a lack of context.article with link below wrote:
The Tatars make up 12% of Crimea.
Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.
LINK
They are not being asked to vacate all their land - only part and are being offered land elsewhere. Leaders from Tatarstan met recently with Tatar leaders in Crimeaarticle with link below wrote:
Earlier this week, Rustam Minnikhanov, President of Russia’s Republic Tatarstan and emissary of the Kremlin, arrived in Crimea to meet with Tatar leaders, likely reiterating restraint following recent clashes with the local Russian population over Russian intervention in Ukraine. The visit culminated in the signing of a cooperation agreement with the recently installed, pro-Russian Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksionov. Both leaders promised to pursue closer economic and cultural ties between the two autonomous republics in the coming weeks.
Significantly, Minnikhanov declared that the new partnership not only aims to promote increased collaboration on investment, tourism, sports, education, and health care but also moral support, “The Crimean Tatars are our brothers. They lived through a great tragedy; we cannot be indifferent to their fate. Most important today is to ensure calm, interethnic and interreligious harmony in Crimea. This is the problem that now confronts us all.”
LINK
The above may just be platitudes admittedly but the situation is a far cry from what the propagandists are claiming - lets see what happens in the coming months.
Regarding the land itself - it's very difficult accept a standard idea of occupation when significantly most of Crimea favor reunification with Russia with Crimea itself being made up of 60% of essentially ethnic Russians.
Russia's excuse for relocating the Crimean Tatars was their cooperation with Nazis in world war two - something which has its own complexities depending on what you believe. Crimean Tatar accounts of the mass deportation that resulted after the war are indeed horrendous. If Russia handles this new episode just as badly the whole world will be watching and I genuinely hope that Russia and Putin suffer as result if that is the case.
In 1991 94% of Crimeans, including roughly 40% Tatars voted to reestablish themselves as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. No real dispute of the land existed prior to Kruschevs handing over of the land to the Ukraine - then very much under the rule of Moscow - so to claim Crimea as Tatar land is a little disingenuous.
By the way here is another article of recent land grabs for even greater context.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »Hi Brian,
I think the paragraph above suffers from a lack of context.
So because the Tartars are a minority the Kremlin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen now ok?
Oh, no wait, it wasn't ok back in the original Nazi conception of the plan when they were clearing Jewish minorities off the land.
Seriously, how can you condone genocide?0 -
As someone who has spent the time to navigate through the arguments of the last 120 posts, and who hitherto had a very vague idea of what exactly was going on in the Crimea, I can clearly see a trend amongst the posters.
There is the factual and objective (relatively speaking) side who put forth facts and coherent arguments (most prominently from Robin) and then there is the RT echochamber who will do anything to condone, or water down, Putin's behaviour.
The latter group, almost verbatim, quote RT and its presenters (particularly the grotesque Peter Lavelle and his diabolical talk show) and come up with excuses or possibilities to justify Russian aggression in the Crimea.
Another consistent theme also reared its ugly head, and regularly this theme appears: comparing Russian foreign policy with that of the US. These irrelevant red herrings, at maximum, expose the US as hypocritical. However, exposing the US as hypocritical does in no way whitewash the actions of the Putinites. A more extreme version I regularly encounter with Putinites is when you criticise Russian foreign policy and get accused of being a "Zionist". These red herrings serve no function in the merits or otherwise of Russian policy.
As somebody who came into this discussion slightly ambivalent about the situation, it's absolutely crystal clear how the full weight of condemnation falls hard onto the shoulders of Vladimir Putin. Any other version is skewed by RT propaganda or some other such nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »So because the Tartars are a minority the Kremlin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen now ok?
Oh, no wait, it wasn't ok back in the original Nazi conception of the plan when they were clearing Jewish minorities off the land.
Seriously, how can you condone genocide?
Condone genocide?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Truly amazed, if a little disturbed.
Steve0
Advertisement