Ukraine & Crimea

Excelsior · 2014-03-23 14:26:03

JoshNH4H wrote:

I challenge you to find a group of people with at least one hundred members in this country who would like to become part of Mexico. (Hint: If a person came to the US, either legally or illegally, then they don't want to become part of Mexico).

Its no secret that modern day immigration is very different than that of prior eras. When our forefathers crossed the oceans, there was generally no expectation of ever returning, and cultural, economic, and political ties where severed. Today, there is no such requirement, because people can waltz back across the border as easily as they got in, and many are here simply to support family back home. Consequently, there is no reason to sever ones loyalty to ones home country, and we have the "Reconquista" concept floating around, backed by political organizations on both sides of the border.

But back to the Crimean issue. The problem is not so much a question of the Crimean peoples right to associate with either Kiev or Moscow, its Moscow's utter disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty on the issue. Whether Putin likes it or not, Crimea is a part of Ukraine until a free, fair, and occupation free referendum on the matter can be held according to Ukraine's constitution, as opposed to that 97% farce held last weekend. Honestly, I though Putin was smart enough not to take ballot stuffing tips from North Korea, because there is no way that the less than 60% of the ethnically Russian population legitimately scored 97% without massive ballot stuffing and voter intimidation on the part of Russia's occupation forces. And it should be noted that the only reason there is an ethnically Russian majority in Crimea is because Stalin rounded up the Tarters and shipped them off to Siberia in 1944 for allegedly collaborating with the Nazi's. There is no need to try to get the toothpaste back in the tube and round up the Russians and kick them out, but lets not pretend that Russia has any legitimate historical claim on it.

What this is about is nothing more than Russia's longstanding historical fetish for warm water ports. And quite frankly, if Russia is going to blatantly disregard its international agreements and its neighbors sovereignty in order to project power into the Mediterranean and beyond on behalf of rouge states like Syria, then NATO needs to actually fulfill its purpose to counteract such aggression. If we had sane leadership, we would have called up the Turks the moment Russian boots stepped foot on Ukrainian soil, and gotten them to shred the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, declaring the Turkish Straits off limits to non-NATO military vessels, and to Russian commercial vessels so long as they occupy Ukrainian soil, militarily backing up the Turks accordingly. If Putin wishes to contest this, he'll be the aggressor in a war with NATO.

But alas, we don't have sane leadership. Obama plays blocks while Putin plays chess, and Europe too dependent on Russian natural gas and too weak militarily to do anything about it. So Putin feels free to restart the Cold War.

Last edited by Excelsior (2014-03-23 14:29:07)

Terraformer · 2014-03-23 15:23:37

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

One by that same reasoning could wonder why anyone would want to become part of Russia. The advantage of not being part of Russia is you get democracy, being Russian today is a lot like being German in 1938. So lets put yourself in this situation, your an ethnic Russian living in the Ukraine, You live in a city where the majority of people are ethnic Russians, the mayor is ethnic Russian, you get to vote for President of Ukraine and you have contested elections. Now some Russian troops move into your neighborhood and they want you to vote that all away, just so your neighborhood can become part of Russia. Now they mayor you voted for, he's not allowed to run anymore, because Putin doesn't like him, instead Putin substitutes his own candidate.

Until, ya' know, the previous government is overthrown by people in Kiev, who you didn't vote for and who want to impose their will on you.

Crimea would have not become Russian (again, I might add - it was transferred to Ukraine during the Soviet era) if the previous government in Ukraine hadn't been kicked out by "protestors".

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-24 09:51:18

Excelsior wrote:

JoshNH4H wrote:
I challenge you to find a group of people with at least one hundred members in this country who would like to become part of Mexico. (Hint: If a person came to the US, either legally or illegally, then they don't want to become part of Mexico).
Its no secret that modern day immigration is very different than that of prior eras. When our forefathers crossed the oceans, there was generally no expectation of ever returning, and cultural, economic, and political ties where severed. Today, there is no such requirement, because people can waltz back across the border as easily as they got in, and many are here simply to support family back home. Consequently, there is no reason to sever ones loyalty to ones home country, and we have the "Reconquista" concept floating around, backed by political organizations on both sides of the border.
But back to the Crimean issue. The problem is not so much a question of the Crimean peoples right to associate with either Kiev or Moscow, its Moscow's utter disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty on the issue. Whether Putin likes it or not, Crimea is a part of Ukraine until a free, fair, and occupation free referendum on the matter can be held according to Ukraine's constitution, as opposed to that 97% farce held last weekend. Honestly, I though Putin was smart enough not to take ballot stuffing tips from North Korea, because there is no way that the less than 60% of the ethnically Russian population legitimately scored 97% without massive ballot stuffing and voter intimidation on the part of Russia's occupation forces. And it should be noted that the only reason there is an ethnically Russian majority in Crimea is because Stalin rounded up the Tarters and shipped them off to Siberia in 1944 for allegedly collaborating with the Nazi's. There is no need to try to get the toothpaste back in the tube and round up the Russians and kick them out, but lets not pretend that Russia has any legitimate historical claim on it.
What this is about is nothing more than Russia's longstanding historical fetish for warm water ports. And quite frankly, if Russia is going to blatantly disregard its international agreements and its neighbors sovereignty in order to project power into the Mediterranean and beyond on behalf of rouge states like Syria, then NATO needs to actually fulfill its purpose to counteract such aggression. If we had sane leadership, we would have called up the Turks the moment Russian boots stepped foot on Ukrainian soil, and gotten them to shred the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, declaring the Turkish Straits off limits to non-NATO military vessels, and to Russian commercial vessels so long as they occupy Ukrainian soil, militarily backing up the Turks accordingly. If Putin wishes to contest this, he'll be the aggressor in a war with NATO.
But alas, we don't have sane leadership. Obama plays blocks while Putin plays chess, and Europe too dependent on Russian natural gas and too weak militarily to do anything about it. So Putin feels free to restart the Cold War.

Look, I sympathize with Russia's objective, they have a lot of their people in other countries, but Putin could be less confrontational about it! Has he even tried negotiating? Maybe there was something he could have given Ukraine in exchange for getting back Crimea. Those borders were decided by arbitrary Soviet fiat. Instead of being a bully, Putin could have negotiated something with Ukraine. Russia for instance could take on some or all of Ukraine's current government debt in exchange for getting Crimea, instead of sending in the troops and risking another Cold War! Putin is concerned about the growing Muslim minorities that threaten to become a majority in Russia by 2050. Has Putin tried working with the West, or maybe encouraging some immigration of nonmuslims instead of saber-rattling? I think Putin has a "Klingon Mentality".

Terraformer · 2014-03-24 16:35:01

Tom, people in Ukraine don't *want* Russian help, which is why the current regime seized power...

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-25 18:32:34

When the United States bought Alaska, it paid Russia some money. I think Russia should do the same for Ukraine at a minimum. When the United States took the American Southwest from Mexico, they paid Mexico some money, even though we also beat them in a war. I think Russia should pay Ukraine some money to buy some peace. I agree that Crimea shouldn't have been part of Ukraine in the first place, but it hurts Ukraine's pride for Russia to take it by force, essentially steal it. I think if Russia wants to keep Crimea and get the rest of the World to eventually accept that, it should pay Ukraine some money, probably on the order of $100 billion would seem fair, in installments or financed by bond sales if necessary, but it should pay Ukraine some money!

Excelsior · 2014-03-25 20:20:45

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

When the United States bought Alaska, it paid Russia some money. I think Russia should do the same for Ukraine at a minimum. When the United States took the American Southwest from Mexico, they paid Mexico some money, even though we also beat them in a war. I think Russia should pay Ukraine some money to buy some peace. I agree that Crimea shouldn't have been part of Ukraine in the first place, but it hurts Ukraine's pride for Russia to take it by force, essentially steal it. I think if Russia wants to keep Crimea and get the rest of the World to eventually accept that, it should pay Ukraine some money, probably on the order of $100 billion would seem fair, in installments or financed by bond sales if necessary, but it should pay Ukraine some money!

I'm sure there is $100 Billion in Russian assets in US and Western banks that could be frozen and transferred to Ukraine.

Oh, the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that would ensue....

Terraformer · 2014-03-26 16:50:16

So what if it hurts Ukraine's pride?

I'm not saying that Russia has the right to rule Crimea - I'm saying that Ukraine certainly doesn't. Even leaving aside that I don't consider any states to have "rights".

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-27 10:53:36

Is what Putin did any less than grand larceny of land. Does any nation have a right to steal from another? Russia did accept Khrushchev as its leader and Khrushchev did transfer the land to Ukraine, the time for protest should have been then, but nobody protested. I think when you give something away, you don't have an automatic right to take it back. Also why did Putin say the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy if he couldn't accept one of its decisions?

Terraformer · 2014-03-27 12:02:47

Does any group of people have the right to claim ownership of land they have never worked? No. Then why must you persist in claiming that there is such thing as right and wrong in the relations between such groups?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-27 23:01:49

If Russia thought the land transfer by Khrushchev was illegitimate then why didn't they file a legal claim instead of sending in the troops? That's kind of like O. J. Simpson breaking into a place to reclaim some property he says belonged to him. So does Russia have the right to simply steal back whatever it feels its due? Maybe we can simply take back Cuba with military force, that is the precedent Russia is setting by this action it took!

Terraformer · 2014-03-28 03:32:52

Crimea *wasn't* part of Ukraine at the time, having declared independence. This is more like, oh, if the government of the UK was toppled and Gibraltar declared independence, then asked Spain for help.

Or alternatively, if the American government gave Texas to Mexico, and then a few decades down the line Texas declared independence again and asked to rejoin America (with a different government, obviously). Would you consider the US to be stealing Mexico's territory in such a case?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-28 09:53:22

You go out of your way to find excuses for Imperialism. You know those Putin elections aren't any more legitimate than the Cuban ones. Do you really believe that the largest land empire in the world, Russia, needs yet more land, and without doing anything land just happens to fall into their lap, and that countries just line up to join the Russian Empire? Oh by the way, if your so hot on rebuilding the Russian Empire, what about restoring the Czar to power? Which one of these do you prefer? Hey, if you got a Russian Empire, you need an Emperor, don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_su … ian_throne

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-03-28 12:06:21)

martienne · 2014-03-30 06:09:38

CONGRATULATIONS CRIMEA!

(Americans and Brits, please, please don't believe everything you read in English speaking media. I can't even believe some of the stuff in this thread and I can't even be bothered to comment on it. That's not what I joined for, and I am not going to fight windmills. Time will tell what's propganda and what's true, just like it has in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Kosovo and Vietnam to mention but a few. Maybe one day intelligent people will put 2 and 2 together about the nonsense you are being told.)

Here is some celebration in Sevastopol on Crimea after the referendum results were proclaimed.

Russian (Soviet) Space Program anthem from the 1980s, sung by people on Crimea on the night of the referendum. Crimea has returned home from outer space, lol! Not a day too early.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGIdVFvPw

Oh, but wait, it's all Putin propaganda! They are just faking it. They will go home and cry afterwards. What they really want is to be 3rd class probationary EU citizens, led by a US approved "leader", kept in poverty and forced to speak Ukrainian against their will...

There is plenty of concern in European media for the very small minority of Crimean Tatars. But note; they usually speak Russian as well as anybody else on Crimea, although they have their own language, they are usually better at Russian for practical reasons.
The Tatar and Moslem leaders from Russia are in Crimea and talking with them right now and will make sure they are not short changed in any way. Russian Tatars are influential, strong and well-to-do as a group in Russia and have expressed that they will do everything they can for their cousins in Crimea. Everyone in Russia wants to help Crimeans right now. The area has been seriously neglected and there are some dire needs. Russia has the means to make a difference. The lives of the Crimean Tatars can only change for the better at this point. The reason some of the Crimean Tatar leaders were against the change was NOT because they think they are Ukrainians, but because of a bad decision of Stalin (ethnic Georgian!) in the 1940s, which affected them.They are not a homogenous group, they are mixed up with Russians, Uzbeks and others. However the majority on Crimea are Russians or Russian-speaking people from the ex Soviet area who have settled in, not tatars. The Tatar reservation was due to a historical grievance and not about modern Russia at all.

Crimea has returned home, and Crimeans can look forward to zero language discrimination, significanly better economic prospects (and truthfully, that is a big part of this..), stability - not a foreign backed coup d'etat or colour revolution every 5-10 year.
The area should never have gone to Ukraine in the first place. It has been Russian longer than the USA has been American.

Finally - anyone in Crimea who wants to keep their Ukrainian nationality for whatever reason can do so, and this will not affect them negatively in any way whilst living in Crimea.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-30 07:01:11

martienne wrote:

CONGRATULATIONS CRIMEA!
(Americans and Brits, please, please don't believe everything you read in English speaking media. I can't even believe some of the stuff in this thread and I can't even be bothered to comment on it. That's not what I joined for, and I am not going to fight windmills. Time will tell what's propganda and what's true, just like it has in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Kosovo and Vietnam to mention but a few. Maybe one day intelligent people will put 2 and 2 together about the nonsense you are being told.)
Here is some celebration in Sevastopol on Crimea after the referendum results were proclaimed.
Russian (Soviet) Space Program anthem from the 1980s, sung by people on Crimea on the night of the referendum. Crimea has returned home from outer space, lol! Not a day too early.

It was a Soviet, Khrushchev, who gave Crimea to Ukraine in the first place, I don't know why they are singing the anthem of a country that gave their territory away in the first place, seems to me if they don't like being part of the Ukraine, they shouldn't be singing the anthem of the country that transferred their territory, after all the Soviet Union was not a democracy and never did anything with he people's consent, why don't they attack it from that angle? Seems to me to be bad practice to give something away and then steal it back. Would you like someone to do that to you? Also do you want a return of the Russian Czar, there are a number of contenders who could qualify to be Czar under terms of Russia rules of Imperial succession. I don't think Putin is in the royal line to inherit the Imperial Throne. It is my impression that Monarchs that have inherited the throne, are less likely to start a war than someone who has risen to power by his own means. As you recall, Czar Nicolas Romanov II didn't start World War I, and he came from a long line of Emperors, people born into power are much less likely to rock the boat and start a war than some dictator like Putin or Hitler who rose to power by his own means.

martienne wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGIdVFvPw
Oh, but wait, it's all Putin propaganda! They are just faking it. They will go home and cry afterwards. What they really want is to be 3rd class probationary EU citizens, led by a US approved "leader", kept in poverty and forced to speak Ukrainian against their will...

Chances are, it is, one has to consider, which country is gaining the land and which is losing the land, and apply some common sense. If Russia was only concerned about the rights of its Russian expatriates, it would be looking for ways to get them out of that country rather than seeking material gains in land from that situation, just as it did by its involvement in World War II for example. While most of the Allies during World War II, were concerned with stopping Hitler, Russia was concerned with growing is Empire, stopping Hitler was a distant second. While most countries were concerned with not being conquered by the Germans, the Russians were looking for ways to realize gains in territory, while giving lip service to stopping fascism as an excuse for those territorial gains. The United States' activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Korea gained them no land, land acquisition was not our goals in those wars, the United States' land acquisition goals mainly ended during the 19th century, after that US foreign policy has been directed to maintaining the status quo. Russia, by contrast is acting the way the United States did during the 19th Century, when it was in the process o expanding its borders and acquiring new territory to make states out of. The main thing is that there were no nuclear weapons in the 19th century, and whenever Russia tries to act like 19th century America, and treating Ukrainians like Indians, it risks starting a nuclear war, because at some point Russia will try to tae territory that NATO won't let them have without a fight. Also other countries that may seem themselves as next may try to acquire nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine did, or Poland. The more Putin conquers with no cost to himself, the more he'll try to conquer, just as Hitler did, at some point, the rest of the World will just say no and mean it, at that point World War III begins.

martienne wrote:

There is plenty of concern in European media for the very small minority of Crimean Tatars. But note; they usually speak Russian as well as anybody else on Crimea, although they have their own language, they are usually better at Russian for practical reasons.
The Tatar and Moslem leaders from Russia are in Crimea and talking with them right now and will make sure they are not short changed in any way. Russian Tatars are influential, strong and well-to-do as a group in Russia and have expressed that they will do everything they can for their cousins in Crimea. Everyone in Russia wants to help Crimeans right now. The area has been seriously neglected and there are some dire needs. Russia has the means to make a difference. The lives of the Crimean Tatars can only change for the better at this point. The reason some of the Crimean Tatar leaders were against the change was NOT because they think they are Ukrainians, but because of a bad decision of Stalin (ethnic Georgian!) in the 1940s, which affected them.They are not a homogenous group, they are mixed up with Russians, Uzbeks and others. However the majority on Crimea are Russians or Russian-speaking people from the ex Soviet area who have settled in, not tatars. The Tatar reservation was due to a historical grievance and not about modern Russia at all.

So you are saying the Russian Empire only expands for Altruistic reasons? Should we then have added Germany to the United States in order to protect its Jewish population? I mean if Russia expands for Altrusitic reasons, maybe the United States should too, what do you think? The Cuban government is oppressing its people, should we then add Cuba to the United States in order to protect its people? Also there are many Cuban exiles in Miami, some of those Cubans had their property expropriated by Castro, so to protect their property rights, should we invade Cuba and make it part of the United States, not to expand US territory of course, but only to protect those Cuban exile's property rights? Adding territory to the United States is only a side affect, just like adding Crimea to Russia is

martienne wrote:

Crimea has returned home, and Crimeans can look forward to zero language discrimination, significanly better economic prospects (and truthfully, that is a big part of this..), stability - not a foreign backed coup d'etat or colour revolution every 5-10 year.
The area should never have gone to Ukraine in the first place. It has been Russian longer than the USA has been American.

What if Putin doesn't stop there, what if he annexes Western Ukraine too? it is very dangerous to encourage Putin to acquire territory by this means, he doesn't know when to stop, then it will be Ukrainians that are suffering. Stealing land by force of arms is never a good thing for international peace!

martienne wrote:

Finally - anyone in Crimea who wants to keep their Ukrainian nationality for whatever reason can do so, and this will not affect them negatively in any way whilst living in Crimea.

So name a territory the US should annex for their own good, can you name one? If the principle applies to Russia, it should also apply to the United States!

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-30 09:46:58

Hey Martienne, Welcome to Newmars!

I am an American, and while I don't feel it's worth my while to respond to Excelsior or Tom (By American standards, they are both very conservative; particularly Tom, who will, without fail, say things that would make George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, even Rick Santorum squirm (Earlier in the thread he claimed that Russia's social conservatism would be a good model for the US, specifically referencing the "gay propaganda" law. It's a claim that's ridiculous and wrong, but it is in no way representative of the American public; This holds true for most of his opinions).

Having said that, Russia did invade the independent country of Ukraine. He did force an election on independence that the Crimeans did not necessarily want, and certainly were not pursuing for themselves.

I have no doubt that the Western media is biased. But you know what is a real, established, fact?

The Russian media has no independence whatsoever in its content. It will say anything that makes Putin look good and follow the party line to a T.

Have you ever heard of a fair election where just 2.7% of people disagreed with the issue at stake? At the very least it raises questions. I don't think anyone really doubts that Crimea, as a whole, does want to be part of Russia. The issues that the West has with this situation are:

Putin invaded Ukraine
That was not a fair election
The movement for independence was a Russian one and not a Crimean one

I don't consider myself an alarmist, and this is not the beginning of a new cold war. But Russia's actions in Ukraine cannot be considered a good thing.

martienne · 2014-03-30 10:32:36

I am not going to get into any debate about this. It would be a huge waste of time, and I am in a minority here. I would only end up making enemies. I simply want to present the reality from the Eastern perspective. Take it or leave it.

The Crimeans are happy and Crimea is back where it belongs. I've friends and family who lived there and I speak Russian - there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. There is nothing surprising about the figures if you take all factors into considerations, including the fact that at least half of the only group against it refrained from voting. Observers from EU countries were there and vouched for the legitimacy and the counting of the votes were broadcast on TV.

This has got nothing to do with the USA or the EU. Ukraine was the victim of a partly foreign backed coup d'etat and this was one of the (for the West unexpected) outcome of that. Ukraine was aware of the risk. Crimeans might have reluctantly stayed put in Ukraine given status quo, but the coup d'etat was the last straw.

Currently Ukraine is in a state of total chaos with some extremely questionable individuals "in charge" and the economy in tatters. The constitution is overthrown and the referendum may not have been perfect but adequate under the circumstances.

For the USA to complain about any aspect of this, is like the pot calling the kettle black, or even worse. Unfortunately, the USA has lost any moral high ground. It has decades of history of double standards and fiascos and has proven that it cannot be trusted to stand up for anything other than the interests of its big corporations.
I do not recognize any criticism of this coming from the USA as legitimate or relevant in the least. The EU in regards to foreign policy is nothing but the knee dog of the USA, so ditto that for the EU.

Sanctions against Russia for this will only backfire and not change anything and the EU is not really in a position to join any sanctions anyway.

The answers to any further comments about this are in my previous post or in this one. I really don't want to get drawn into this - but I couldn't just leave the thread be, when it was bursting with incorrect info, propaganda and self righteousness.

Please understand that if you are only following English speaking media, all you have is propaganda and poor translations. If you don't mind swallowing propaganda, and you secretly miss the Cold War, then by all means, go ahead and believe the lies and misinformation that you are being served.

Sure there are many faults with Russia and with Putin. But in this case Russia did not do anything wrong.

RobertDyck · 2014-03-30 10:46:53

Martienne, Welcome to Newmars!

I'm Canadian. The largest ethnic group in my city is Ukrainian; not English or French. They're descendants of those who left under Stalin. I'm very concerned about all this. But, yea, I can see there is more than one side to this. America did influence the Ukrainian protesters who kicked out their president. One issue here is frustration by Putin: he worked hard to get the Ukrainian government to side with Russia, and won. But just as he won, protesters encouraged by the US rose to kick out that government. But US agents just encouraged the protesters, what Russia did was send it's military to surround Ukrainian military in Crimea, and the Russian general actually told the Ukrainian soldiers their options were: defect to Russia, surrender, or die. Very alpha-male, very military. Ukraine is a pawn in a geopolitical game by Russia and America, but Russia used military, America did not.

During the so called "referendum", there was no option to remain part of Ukraine. That alone is enough to invalidate the referendum. And Russian military raided a Ukrainian oil field outside Crimea the day before the referendum. And Russian para-troops practices just outside the Ukrainian border, again the day before the referendum. And pro-Russian militia armed with Russian weapons patrolled the streets of Crimea during referendum day. At least Russian troops themselves didn't patrol. And no Ukrainian officials or representatives were allowed into Crimea prior or during the referendum. Any one of these are enough to invalidate the referendum. But they did all of them.

Yes, the new Ukrainian government did some stupid things to taunt Russia. They tabled a bill to outlaw the Russian language in all of Ukraine, including Crimea. And they tabled a bill to join NATO. Both bills were defeated the same day they were brought forward, but that was enough to scare Putin. I'm sure the proposal to join NATO was the big thing. That's the military alliance against Russia. Putin can't allow Russia's only navy port that isn't icebound to fall into NATO hands.

But still, sending in the military!?! Annexing!?! Really!?!

RobertDyck · 2014-03-30 10:49:18

martienne wrote:

I am not going to get into any debate about this. It would be a huge waste of time, and I am in a minority here. I would only end up making enemies. I simply want to present the reality from the Eastern perspective. Take it or leave it.

Aww! But we want to debate. We like debate. And you're the only one on the other side, the only one we can debate with.

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-30 11:01:34

RobertDyck wrote:

martienne wrote:
I am not going to get into any debate about this. It would be a huge waste of time, and I am in a minority here. I would only end up making enemies. I simply want to present the reality from the Eastern perspective. Take it or leave it.
Aww! But we want to debate. We like debate. And you're the only one on the other side, the only one we can debate with.

I second this! Argument for its own sake, especially because the existence of Western bias is something very much worth examining.

martienne · 2014-03-30 12:33:07

JoshNH4H wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
martienne wrote:
I am not going to get into any debate about this. It would be a huge waste of time, and I am in a minority here. I would only end up making enemies. I simply want to present the reality from the Eastern perspective. Take it or leave it.
Aww! But we want to debate. We like debate. And you're the only one on the other side, the only one we can debate with.

I second this! Argument for its own sake, especially because the existence of Western bias is something very much worth examining.

Lol! No, you'd end up hating me, and I'd be angry and frustrated, not to mention waste time.
The anti-Russian bias goes SO deep in the English speaking world, and some parts of Europe. How many films have you seen with "evil" Russians? You practically grew up watching it, didn't you?
Have you ever seen a news story about anything good or positive in Russia? And did you know that the Soviet cinema featured next to no "evil Americans"!

I cannot undo all that. Hollywood and corporate news stations in the USA actually does a much better job on the propaganda front, than any red banners or lapel pins ever did in the USSR. And it still goes on!

I cannot fight such consistent and deep running prejudice.
I cannot teach people about Russian history, culture, or give you a more balanced view of the USSR.

The RT TV station presents this to English speakers with a more Russian angle.
I think they stream online. I know somebody would say, "but it's Russian state propaganda!" (note, this line of reasoning would make the BBC British state propaganda. Is that somehow more credible, if so, why?
You already have the propaganda angle from the other side, if you watch for example BBC or CNN. So even if its true that RT is Russian state propganda, all you'd do is balancing the scales and get both sides of the story instead of just one. I am sure nobody here is so stupid as to think that there is no propaganda on TV where you live. It's just from a different angle, that's all. So do that, if you really care.

However, my interest here is Mars!

JoshNH4H · 2014-03-30 12:50:59

Regarding Russian RT news, how do you feel about this reporter's statement that the RT news outlet existed solely to promote Putin's agenda?

There's a primary difference between American and Russian news media: American news media is independent of the government and their content does not have to reflect the views of the ruling party. In fact it most often does not (Outlets like Fox, for example, spend much of their time opposing the President).

I think that Americans and Russians have a different view of the purpose of news media. It's a high ideal for us that our news outlets should attempt to showcase all sides of a story and come to a nonpartisan conclusion. In recognition that it is hard for any person to do this, we have many news outlets which provide a variety of interpretations onto any one action. I'm not claiming that we are perfect, but if each of five major news outlets is saying something very different about events, how can you argue that they are propaganda outlets?

I was born after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and have never been farther east than Paris, so I won't deign to tell you about Russia or the Cold War. But I will tell you that American media takes our freedoms of speech and the press very seriously and tries to use them to their fullest extent by providing a breadth of opinions and (at least attempting to provide) a depth of facts on any given matter.

Edit: I want to make clear that I don't think that they are perfect. When it comes to foreign affairs, in particular, American news outlets are limited in the scope of their reporting by their sources of information. Because these sources are typically pretty heavily weighted towards Americans, and especially Americans associated with the government and the establishment, they have a tendency to retell things from an American standpoint. The Israel-Palestine conflict, for example (I suppose I'm going there) is subject to an underreporting of Israeli human rights abuses in Palestine. But they are not completely ignored and some news sources are better than others. And of course thanks to the freedom of speech and the press, and the internet, there are easily accessible information sources that will give any given viewpoint; If they present a factual and logical argument they will get a following.

GW Johnson · 2014-03-30 13:26:50

Well, from the experiences over the long life required to start turning black hair white, my assessment of geopolitics is this: nation-states tend to behave about like 5 year old children. Some have better upbringing, others do not. But, all that upbringing evaporates when the playground competition (which is quite natural) gets intense.

5 year old children tend to misbehave on the playground, quite frequently, and often very egregiously. The Ukraine thing is just another such episode in a long litany of such things stretching back to before the stone age.

Other than that, my opinion is not overly strong about it. (Ha ha ha, what a liar I seem to be!) Welcome to NewMars, Martienne. You'll find quite a few really good technical discussions on these forums. Just maybe not in this thread.

GW

RobertDyck · 2014-03-30 14:22:51

I realize American TV does have propaganda. A lot of it. Canadian TV less so, but coverage of Crimea has been distinctly biased. I'm disappointed by CBC and CTV, they're usually far more impartial. But still, what happened in Crimea is major.

Martienne, when I joined the Mars Society, I learned about the Energia rocket. Back then there was major interest in using Energia to send humans to Mars. When I asked if anyone actually talked to Russia to ask if it's available, I didn't get an answer. So I did. I contacted RSC Energia, and got an answer from the Direct of the international division. It was available at that time, although he wouldn't confirm cost. But I also found out that NASA had contacted them in 1994, and they gave NASA a price at that time. If the price today were simply adjusted for inflation, it would still be the most cost effective launch vehicle. US Congress hasn't been interested since Putin became President of Russia, so recently I've argued for an international mission using Energia. Led by Canada, including Russia, EU, Australia, I expect others would want to joint, but US Congress would not. However, that was before Crimea. This issue is so grave, I don't see how it can be done now.

However, do you have any news about Russian space shuttle Ptichka ("Птичка")? Orbiter designation OK-1.02? The last image I found on the internet is dated 2005. It was in the orbiter processing building at Baikonur (MZK, building #240) for maintenance. I don't know if the images were before maintenance, but it shows heat shield tiles in really bad shape. The latest images of Baikonur from Google Maps appear to show the roof of the vehicle assembly building (MIK, building #112) has still not been repaired.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-03-30 14:41:29

martienne wrote:

I am not going to get into any debate about this. It would be a huge waste of time, and I am in a minority here. I would only end up making enemies. I simply want to present the reality from the Eastern perspective. Take it or leave it.
The Crimeans are happy and Crimea is back where it belongs. I've friends and family who lived there and I speak Russian - there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. There is nothing surprising about the figures if you take all factors into considerations, including the fact that at least half of the only group against it refrained from voting. Observers from EU countries were there and vouched for the legitimacy and the counting of the votes were broadcast on TV.

Do the ends justify these means? An invasion?

martienne wrote:

This has got nothing to do with the USA or the EU. Ukraine was the victim of a partly foreign backed coup d'etat and this was one of the (for the West unexpected) outcome of that. Ukraine was aware of the risk. Crimeans might have reluctantly stayed put in Ukraine given status quo, but the coup d'etat was the last straw.

Your assuming Obama is up to this, now it doesn't seem to me that Obama uses the CIA very much, look how Benghazi took him by surprise, I don't think Obama is competent enough to order this up!

martienne wrote:

Currently Ukraine is in a state of total chaos with some extremely questionable individuals "in charge" and the economy in tatters. The constitution is overthrown and the referendum may not have been perfect but adequate under the circumstances.
For the USA to complain about any aspect of this, is like the pot calling the kettle black, or even worse. Unfortunately, the USA has lost any moral high ground. It has decades of history of double standards and fiascos and has proven that it cannot be trusted to stand up for anything other than the interests of its big corporations.
I do not recognize any criticism of this coming from the USA as legitimate or relevant in the least. The EU in regards to foreign policy is nothing but the knee dog of the USA, so ditto that for the EU.
Sanctions against Russia for this will only backfire and not change anything and the EU is not really in a position to join any sanctions anyway.
The answers to any further comments about this are in my previous post or in this one. I really don't want to get drawn into this - but I couldn't just leave the thread be, when it was bursting with incorrect info, propaganda and self righteousness.
Please understand that if you are only following English speaking media, all you have is propaganda and poor translations. If you don't mind swallowing propaganda, and you secretly miss the Cold War, then by all means, go ahead and believe the lies and misinformation that you are being served.
Sure there are many faults with Russia and with Putin. But in this case Russia did not do anything wrong.

RobertDyck · 2014-03-30 15:16:44

Images of Ptichka taken August 2011
http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-bu … erieur.php

And interior shows furniture and controls still not installed. Configured for autopilot only. Disappointing; I had hoped they would have finished it.

But it does have at leat one ejection seat on the flight deck.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-03-30 16:13:16)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2014-03-23 14:26:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#77 2014-03-23 15:23:37

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#78 2014-03-24 09:51:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#79 2014-03-24 16:35:01

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#80 2014-03-25 18:32:34

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#81 2014-03-25 20:20:45

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#82 2014-03-26 16:50:16

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#83 2014-03-27 10:53:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#84 2014-03-27 12:02:47

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#85 2014-03-27 23:01:49

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#86 2014-03-28 03:32:52

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#87 2014-03-28 09:53:22

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#88 2014-03-30 06:09:38

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#89 2014-03-30 07:01:11

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#90 2014-03-30 09:46:58

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#91 2014-03-30 10:32:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#92 2014-03-30 10:46:53

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#93 2014-03-30 10:49:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#94 2014-03-30 11:01:34

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#95 2014-03-30 12:33:07

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#96 2014-03-30 12:50:59

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#97 2014-03-30 13:26:50

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#98 2014-03-30 14:22:51

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#99 2014-03-30 14:41:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#100 2014-03-30 15:16:44

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer