Ukraine & Crimea

Vincent · 2014-04-02 14:45:01

As an aside.

America wants some Russian ass It is just what we are.
Oh course you want us to forget....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUkeCTFXj8

Vincent · 2014-04-02 15:47:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUkeCTFXj8

Vincent · 2014-04-02 17:00:07

He has returned or more correctly, he never left....There is no death.....

Vincent · 2014-04-02 17:20:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIqRH1XBw5M

Vincent · 2014-04-02 17:44:54

It is good to hear from the preachers. Many have ask who is Christ? I have the answer. Christ said, "I am the life."

That is all he is, or more correctly, "all we are." We are all Christ and we live in the garden.

If you find what I say, hard to believe, ask yourself this

Do you live in a place that gives you life?

Vincent

How else could I always be with you....

Last edited by Vincent (2014-04-02 17:59:29)

Vincent · 2014-04-02 18:43:52

It would be good if we could accept that which is true. We must however engage in endless battles with King David against idolatry....

Christ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79EEEVPkGlg

Vincent · 2014-04-02 19:22:53

As this holy war begins, a message for our brothers....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ2ixOFkxX8

Last edited by Vincent (2014-04-02 19:25:47)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-02 20:13:54

RobertDyck wrote:

Joe Biden has already announced he's installing a ballistic missile defence system in Poland. And quoting from the New York Times: "an additional 12 F-16 fighter jets for Poland and 10 more American F-15’s, instead of a planned four, assigned to a NATO operation that polices the skies over the Baltic states. He also spoke of rotating more American ground and naval forces through the Baltics for training exercises."
Ukraine membership in NATO? That's what started this whole mess. That would just escalate.

No, Ukraine didn't have membership in NATO! Membership in NATO for Ukraine would be a direct result of Russia's land grab, after it had done that, Russia is Ukraine's enemy! Ukraine can't be neutral about Russia anymore because of that, it can't be "Switzerland", Ukraine can't overlook the fact that Russia took its land and shrug its collective shoulders and make nice with Russia, and to be honest, after what Russia has done, why should it? Russia has shown itself to be a threat to the rest of Europe and will act accordingly, which means get as many members as it can to contain Russia! To do anything else would only encourage more Russian aggression. if it an take Ukraine, it will try to take the Baltic, if it can do that, it will try to take Eastern Europe, we need to discourage Russia from doing this so it doesn't turn into World War III. Russia has made its move, our next move should be to make Western Ukraine a member of NATO. A New Cold War is the price Russia pays for the land it took, we can't allow Russia any freebies, and if Obama won't do it, then Germany needs to step up and become the leader of the Free World at least until we get a better President!

RobertDyck wrote:

Cuba? Devestated third world country. You don't want their economic mess. Besides, Russia abandoned them years ago.

You know Cuba would make an even better place to launch rockets from than Cape Canaveral Florida, Cuba is closer to the equator, and it is large enough to support a rocket launch industry. We could make Cuba the "New Florida" a place for vacationers, retirees, and rocket launches. In fact it would make sense to both build and launch rockets from Cuba, they have a large enough population to do all of that!

RobertDyck wrote:

You realize you're talking about Russia's only navy port that isn't icebound. They won't give it up. It's already gone too far. Joe Biden demanded that Russia comply with the previous agreement, which is Russia keeps their navy port but Crimea remains part of Ukraine. That's ideal, but Russia has already passed a bill to annex Crimea. They've taken it so far, I don't know how to go back.

Then don't go back, that's why I advocate we take Cuba in retaliation, we can topple Cuba's Communist government fairly easily, very few Cubans believe in Communism any more, and you know what post communist governments are like, the transition from Communism to Capitalism is rarely ever easy, so we can follow the example of Germany's absorption of East Germany. Set up a democratic government in Havana, have he Cubans elect a Governor and lieutenant Governor, a legislature and everything else a US State has. the US Government would take over the economic assets the Cuban government has and sell them to private industry. Then we can integrate Cuba with the United States economy, all those Cuban workers can migrate to where ever the jobs are in the United States, their population would probably overwhelm the Mexican immigrants and illegal aliens, they would know what Communism is, unlike the Mexicans who only know the ideal of Communism that Castro puts out, not its reality. The Cubans would probably mostly be Republicans, balancing out the liberal Latinos in America. I think adding Cuba to the United States would be a great thing! And what Putin has done, grants us permission to annex Cuba. Tit for Tat as they say, and Putin asked for it!

RobertDyck · 2014-04-02 21:30:02

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Ukraine membership in NATO? That's what started this whole mess. That would just escalate.
No, Ukraine didn't have membership in NATO!

That's not what I said and you know it. Earlier in this discussion thread I said Ukraine introduced a bill to join NATO. The bill was voted down the same day. But Putin panicked. He cannot allow Russia's only navy port that isn't icebound to fall into NATO hands.

Cuba is not far enough from the Cape to be significantly different. Better to keep launching from the Cape. You want an ideal location? How about ESA's launch site in French Guiana?

Cuba was not involved with Crimea. They've been on their own for a very long time. Don't punish them for something they didn't do.

I don't know what the solution is. It's frustrating. I'm waiting to see what Joe Biden does.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-03 06:45:31)

Glandu · 2014-04-03 00:39:23

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

(.../...)Then don't go back, that's why I advocate we take Cuba in retaliation, we can topple Cuba's Communist government fairly easily, very few Cubans believe in Communism any more, and you know what post communist governments are like, the transition from Communism to Capitalism is rarely ever easy, so we can follow the example of Germany's absorption of East Germany. Set up a democratic government in Havana, have he Cubans elect a Governor and lieutenant Governor, a legislature and everything else a US State has. (.../...)

That kind of reasoning is the reason everyone in the world hates the USA. Even more than Ben Laden, Putin, or those pesky frenchmen. Cubans may not like their current government(that's more than likely), yet, if some foreigner arrives & puts its own, the basic reflex will be to unite against him.

Imagine : You want to overthrow Obama for someone more conservative, and then Putin(or Xi, or whoever) arrives from abroad, overthrow Obama, & puts some conservative friendly to him in the White house. Would you like your new overlord? Or would US patriotism kick in? That's the same in Cuba. Or everywhere else.

The reason why France still sees De Gaulle as a hero(despite his numerous flaws) is that he was NOT a puppet of the USA, or the UK(to the despair of Churchill, who saw its creature escaping him). The possible french leaders ready to be appointed by the USA in 1944/1945 were all better than De Gaulle. Yet they were overwhelmingly rejected - because some country abroad was appointing them.

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-03 01:29:34

Glandu- I question your assertion that "everyone in the world hates the USA". Obviously we're not perfect, and we do plenty that's wrong while acting in our own self interest, but we also do a lot of good when it comes to economic development abd the promotion of freedom and democracy through our use of "soft power".

Our role in the world is, like anyone else's, mixed, and the world's opinion of us reflects that. Whether it's more positive or more negative is a matter of opinion and is strongly affected by where you are and what the relationship between your country and our country is.

One thing is for sure: As the world's leading superpower, apathy isn't really an option. This is what makes it so hard to know what the truth really is, because opinions on all sides are so mixed and so strong.

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-03 01:52:40

To be more specific, areas of the world where I think the US is viewed favorably:

-The anglosphere, e.g. the group of countries whose culture is derived from that of England (The UK, Canada, Australia, etc)
-Western Europe, for the most part
-Eastern Europe, for the most part
-Much of Africa
-Israel
-India
-Latin America and the Caribbean, with notable exceptions (Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador)

Even if a country has a generally favorable view of the US they are still prone to criticize us. That is particularly the case with Western Europe: we're the subject of criticism for many things, but at the end if the day the relationship between a given country and the US is strong enough that it is more or less comfortable relying on our military to defend the county in a time of crisis, if necessary.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-03 05:40:13

Glandu wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
(.../...)Then don't go back, that's why I advocate we take Cuba in retaliation, we can topple Cuba's Communist government fairly easily, very few Cubans believe in Communism any more, and you know what post communist governments are like, the transition from Communism to Capitalism is rarely ever easy, so we can follow the example of Germany's absorption of East Germany. Set up a democratic government in Havana, have he Cubans elect a Governor and lieutenant Governor, a legislature and everything else a US State has. (.../...)
That kind of reasoning is the reason everyone in the world hates the USA. Even more than Ben Laden, Putin, or those pesky frenchmen. Cubans may not like their current government(that's more than likely), yet, if some foreigner arrives & puts its own, the basic reflex will be to unite against him.
Imagine : You want to overthrow Obama for someone more conservative, and then Putin(or Xi, or whoever) arrives from abroad, overthrow Obama, & puts some conservative friendly to him in the White house. Would you like your new overlord? Or would US patriotism kick in? That's the same in Cuba. Or everywhere else.

With the conquest of Amerika, Ethnic Russians would become a minority in their own country, the Russia Empire would tend to become the American Empire over time, leaders after Putin would stand a chance of speaking English as their first language. There are 140 million Russians and 315 million Americans, we outnumber Russians two to one. The Emperors of that super state wouldn't care though, just as Roman Emperors didn't care about the changing ethnic makeup of Roman Citizens. all they cared about was power. A Eurasian-American Empire probably would have a higher level of Defense spending, would probably be Capitalist, and you probably wouldn't like it!

Glandu wrote:

The reason why France still sees De Gaulle as a hero(despite his numerous flaws) is that he was NOT a puppet of the USA, or the UK(to the despair of Churchill, who saw its creature escaping him). The possible french leaders ready to be appointed by the USA in 1944/1945 were all better than De Gaulle. Yet they were overwhelmingly rejected - because some country abroad was appointing them.

Charles De Gaulle was essentially repeating the same mistake that led to France being occupied by the Germans. A divided Europe, a France that wouldn't come to the aid of Poland was what led to Hitler's initial easy victories in Central and Western Europe. In fact Poland probably has Charles De Gaulle to thank for ending up under Russian occupation as a Warsaw pact country for 44 years! France could have attacked Germany from the West when Germany invaded Poland, but it didn't, instead France waited its turn to be conquered by the Germans. And it appears Charles De Gaulle was waiting for his country to be conquered by the Soviets, that day never came much to the disappointment of Parisians everywhere! Parisians never got to see Soviet tanks rolling through their streets, oh what a pity!

So who would suffer if Cuba became the 51st state of the United States and all Cubans gained American Citizenship? Those in a position of power in the former Communist government, that's who. Who else though? If Cubans can't find work in Cuba, they can go to other states as American citizens. You also side step the "Putin problem", that is the effect that post communist governments aren't always stable, they have a tendency to lurch toward tyranny sometimes in the first couple decades, and Cuba doesn't have a history of stable Democracy. I'd say, lets lower the stakes for them and have them fight over state offices like Governor and state assembly instead of President and Parliament or Congress. I believe most Cubans would benefit individually from this just as Cuban-Americans do today. Cuba was granted its independence early in the 20th century, and that experiment failed with the Communist Revolution in 1959, I think Cuba would be better off as a US state, where the Cubans can elect a bad Governor and if he abuses human rights, the Federal Government can rein him in or even arrest him!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-03 06:02:40)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-03 06:05:53

JoshNH4H wrote:

To be more specific, areas of the world where I think the US is viewed favorably:
-The anglosphere, e.g. the group of countries whose culture is derived from that of England (The UK, Canada, Australia, etc)
-Western Europe, for the most part
-Eastern Europe, for the most part
-Much of Africa
-Israel
-India
-Latin America and the Caribbean, with notable exceptions (Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador)
Even if a country has a generally favorable view of the US they are still prone to criticize us. That is particularly the case with Western Europe: we're the subject of criticism for many things, but at the end if the day the relationship between a given country and the US is strong enough that it is more or less comfortable relying on our military to defend the county in a time of crisis, if necessary.

Which is why I would like a stronger Democratic Europe, they can draw some of the slings and arrows away from us and toward them. What do you think, Could Germany assume the mantle of leader of Free Europe? Maybe its time for the Germans to assert themselves once again, and maybe this time for the right reasons!

Glandu · 2014-04-03 08:56:28

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

(.../...)With the conquest of Amerika, Ethnic Russians would become a minority in their own country, the Russia Empire would tend to become the American Empire over time, leaders after Putin would stand a chance of speaking English as their first language. There are 140 million Russians and 315 million Americans, we outnumber Russians two to one. The Emperors of that super state wouldn't care though, just as Roman Emperors didn't care about the changing ethnic makeup of Roman Citizens. all they cared about was power. A Eurasian-American Empire probably would have a higher level of Defense spending, would probably be Capitalist, and you probably wouldn't like it!

I wouldn't like it, you're right, but nobody outside this new empire would like it, and most people inside would neither. That's exactly my point. Conquest of foreing countries is felt very bad by anoyone who is not the conqueror, those days. Putin really appears as a bad boy after its Crimea conquest - and that was not even a conquest by war.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Charles De Gaulle was essentially repeating the same mistake that led to France being occupied by the Germans. A divided Europe, a France that wouldn't come to the aid of Poland was what led to Hitler's initial easy victories in Central and Western Europe. In fact Poland probably has Charles De Gaulle to thank for ending up under Russian occupation as a Warsaw pact country for 44 years! France could have attacked Germany from the West when Germany invaded Poland, but it didn't, instead France waited its turn to be conquered by the Germans. And it appears Charles De Gaulle was waiting for his country to be conquered by the Soviets, that day never came much to the disappointment of Parisians everywhere! Parisians never got to see Soviet tanks rolling through their streets, oh what a pity!

Duh. In 1940, De Gaulle was an obscure General having barely won 2 tank skirmishes. A few weeks before the defeat, he was named subsecretary of state. He was only Churchill's third(and last) choice to lead Free France, but Reynaud(who felt he was too weak, and was probably true) and Mandel(who felt he was too jew, and that his judeity would hinder Free France's Capacity. He died as a resistance hero, btw). De Gaulle had power only a few months in 1945, then 1958-1969.

But you're right, France could have reacted otherwise(not sure we had the army to do the job, we were backwards in terms of doctrines, but at least a little raid in Rhenania could have been a diversion). Guilty leaders are Pétain and Daladier, Not De Gaulle(he's got a few other crimes on his belt, though).

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So who would suffer if Cuba became the 51st state of the United States and all Cubans gained American Citizenship? Those in a position of power in the former Communist government, that's who. Who else though? If Cubans can't find work in Cuba, they can go to other states as American citizens. You also side step the "Putin problem", that is the effect that post communist governments aren't always stable, they have a tendency to lurch toward tyranny sometimes in the first couple decades, and Cuba doesn't have a history of stable Democracy. I'd say, lets lower the stakes for them and have them fight over state offices like Governor and state assembly instead of President and Parliament or Congress. I believe most Cubans would benefit individually from this just as Cuban-Americans do today. Cuba was granted its independence early in the 20th century, and that experiment failed with the Communist Revolution in 1959, I think Cuba would be better off as a US state, where the Cubans can elect a bad Governor and if he abuses human rights, the Federal Government can rein him in or even arrest him!

You don't get how psychology works. USA is already the most powerful country in the world. Even China does not match(yet?). If it goes on war unprovoked, the rest of the world will shit in its pants, and try to plot USA's power. As a defensive, preemptive measure. If they invade Cuba, they can invade anyone. Let's unite to survive.

Glandu · 2014-04-03 09:04:18

JoshNH4H wrote:

To be more specific, areas of the world where I think the US is viewed favorably:
-The anglosphere, e.g. the group of countries whose culture is derived from that of England (The UK, Canada, Australia, etc)
-Western Europe, for the most part
-Eastern Europe, for the most part
-Much of Africa
-Israel
-India
-Latin America and the Caribbean, with notable exceptions (Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador)
Even if a country has a generally favorable view of the US they are still prone to criticize us. That is particularly the case with Western Europe: we're the subject of criticism for many things, but at the end if the day the relationship between a given country and the US is strong enough that it is more or less comfortable relying on our military to defend the county in a time of crisis, if necessary.

What you don't get is people are full of contradictions. In most countries in the world, if you offer someone a good job in the USA, he will be over-happy. At the same time, if you ask him about the USA, the answer will be "those warmongerer bastards who speak about liberty & bring chaos everywhere they see fit?". Yes, in Western Europe, Eastern Europe(where Russia is even more loathed, but still), Much of Africa(where USA is interested only in petrol, & nowhere to be seen in other cases - that's true for France, too), and Latin America(where the Gringo is usually seen as deceptive). I have no clue for India and Israël.

You Americans need to realize how broken is the image of your country. the 11th of september 2001, you were seen as a brilliant, freedom-loving, peaceful empire unjustly struck. That's finished. Whatever thoses reasons, the wars in Afghanistan, and, worse, in Irak, did throw you in the same bag as Russia. Noone outside America & maybe Israël believes you are the good guys. Many still hope for your protection, but are not naive enough to believe they'll get it if it is not in your interest.

GW Johnson · 2014-04-03 09:44:54

Glandu is quite correct in his assessment that the US's reputation as "the good guys" is no more. The reason was those misadventures in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, he is correct about that. I'm not sure we're as bad a "bad boy" as Putin's Russia, but perception is reality when speaking of reputation.

I would point out that in each country, including the US, individual opinions vary quite strongly, as can be seen in this conversation above. A nation is a collection of individuals, who generally do not deserve to be tarred (one-and-all) by their nation's reputation. Just because the US is no longer highly thought of, is no reason to dislike Americans. Etc.

There are good people in Russia, always have been. But the nature of the governments they have had exaggerates the effects of bad guys who rise to be dictators. Stalin is quite the egregious example, and as near as I can tell, Putin is emulating him. In Germany, it was Hitler. Stalin, Hitler, can't hardly tell them apart in terms of methods and effects.

The main problem with tarred reputations is how it takes to repair them. They can be destroyed so quickly, but it takes generations to repair.

As for Crimea, there's plenty of blame to go around. That area was so majority Russian in population that logic would indicate it should have been Russian when the old Soviet Union broke up. Accidents of history and whims of powerful dictators are why things ended up the way they did. The real question is where do we go from here, realizing that we are of different minds about this? The problem child here is Putin.

I think the suggestion that Putin is trying to trick the US into overspending itself to death might be correct. He does seem to be motivated by regret and revenge for how the Soviet Union broke up. That being said, then the smart thing to do is not take the bait. He's spending a bunch on the troop movements, and will spend more if he continues invading. Let him repeat his predecessors' mistakes instead. Our strategy should be to do those things that make his strategy too expensive.

A strategy like that will make no one on either side happy. That's how I know it's the "right" one.

GW

RobertDyck · 2014-04-03 11:10:34

Could we convince the US government to invest in new technology? Develop a photovoltaic cell for solar panels for houses. So they could be sold to Europe. I have long talked about environmentally friendly technology. Years ago I pointed out that no one technology is the solution; we need a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal. A single home could use photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, and geothermal heat pump (technically known as ground source heat pump). Together with a well sealed home and good insulation, but no better than new homes have today, and batteries in the basement. This would allow houses to be completely energy independent. We only need one new technology to make this work: a better photovoltaic cell. It has to provide more electricity per unit area, and lower cost per watt.

I read a paper published in late year 2000. The Los Alamos Government Laboratory noticed a new photovoltaic chemistry that theoretically had almost a perfect match to the Sun's spectrum. This should produce an extremely efficient cell. So they looked for someone who could make one. The materials lab at University of California in Berkley built it, and did materials characterization. It worked. Two junctions produce 56% conversion of sunlight, three junctions 64%, and 36 junctions 72%. A couple years later another scientists published a paper showing optimized combinations of junctions, he found 8 junctions would have 70.2%. Great! So 8 junctions is optimal for this chemistry. This is gallium-indium-nitride. UC Berkley had a problem getting nitrogen to penetrate deeply enough, but a Japanese researcher published a paper how to do that. One interesting feature is every junction has the same chemistry, just different concentration of nitrogen. High efficiency cells today are triple junction, but every junction has a completely different chemistry. Using the same chemistry makes manufacturing easier. Just the same process 8 times. Easier means cheaper. This should reduce the cost.

The problem is no one is working on it. Manufacturers of terrestrial photovoltaics want those who make solar panels for satellites to pay for it. And manufacturers for satellites have a multi-decade plan to slowly increase efficiency from 30% to 45%. Charging their customers a premium with every tiny improvement. They have no intention to jump directly to 70%. So no one is working on this. The way to cut through the "Gorgon Knot" is have a government lab complete research. It can be patented and licensed to manufacturers. Charge commercial companies royalties until all government research cost is recovered. This makes it an investment, not an expense.

Providing Europe with technology to completely free them of Russian natural gas?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-03 14:18:03

GW Johnson wrote:

Glandu is quite correct in his assessment that the US's reputation as "the good guys" is no more. The reason was those misadventures in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, he is correct about that. I'm not sure we're as bad a "bad boy" as Putin's Russia, but perception is reality when speaking of reputation.

No, reality is reality! Nothing we do will make Pravda say anything nice about us, that is a fools errand! We do something nice, and they don't like us, we do something not nice and they don't like us, seems that what we do nears no relation to how were perceived, so whats the point, its just prejudice. Howmany blacks go out of their way to prove to white people that they aren't criminals? If there is prejudice against us, I say it should not affect our actions since those opinions are biased and invalid.

GW Johnson wrote:

I would point out that in each country, including the US, individual opinions vary quite strongly, as can be seen in this conversation above. A nation is a collection of individuals, who generally do not deserve to be tarred (one-and-all) by their nation's reputation. Just because the US is no longer highly thought of, is no reason to dislike Americans. Etc.

We're a Democracy, not a tyranny, I think we have a lot to do with who our government is. our government represents us, that's more than can be said for Cuba. Much of this propaganda against us was created by dictators anyway, starting with Stalin! A bunch of liars who make things up, so what we do has no effect on what they lie about, they'll just tell lies about Imperialist America, the only thing we can do is be a mortal threat to them and build nuclear missiles until they start feeling scared about what we may do to them. If they tell enough lies about us of how bad we are, and we build enough nuclear missiles, and if they believe those lies, then somebody someday may just push a button and people will get vaporized, perhaps they deserve it for believing those lies in the first place! There is no prospect for peace with a people that tells themselves lies about us, we can only deal with people who are honest and forthright, without that, peace doesn't stand a chance!

GW Johnson wrote:

There are good people in Russia, always have been. But the nature of the governments they have had exaggerates the effects of bad guys who rise to be dictators. Stalin is quite the egregious example, and as near as I can tell, Putin is emulating him. In Germany, it was Hitler. Stalin, Hitler, can't hardly tell them apart in terms of methods and effects.

Do good people vote in Russia, and I they do, why do they vote for evil men? Or are they in the minority? in a democracy the people are responsible for the results of an election assuming the election was conducted honestly.

GW Johnson wrote:

The main problem with tarred reputations is how it takes to repair them. They can be destroyed so quickly, but it takes generations to repair.

Our enemies tarred us, and the problem for them is that we can still kill them, so it might be in their interest to make peace with us otherwise a misunderstanding may lead to nuclear war.

GW Johnson wrote:

As for Crimea, there's plenty of blame to go around. That area was so majority Russian in population that logic would indicate it should have been Russian when the old Soviet Union broke up. Accidents of history and whims of powerful dictators are why things ended up the way they did. The real question is where do we go from here, realizing that we are of different minds about this? The problem child here is Putin.
I think the suggestion that Putin is trying to trick the US into overspending itself to death might be correct. He does seem to be motivated by regret and revenge for how the Soviet Union broke up. That being said, then the smart thing to do is not take the bait. He's spending a bunch on the troop movements, and will spend more if he continues invading. Let him repeat his predecessors' mistakes instead. Our strategy should be to do those things that make his strategy too expensive.
A strategy like that will make no one on either side happy. That's how I know it's the "right" one.
GW

Why would Putin care about that? What Putin wants to do is reassemble the Russian Empire. Putin perceives Obama as a weak leader, and he can treat him as such as he doesn't have to deal with a liberal media, while conservatives hide in shadows afraid of being tarred and feathered by that same media. Basically the Left-wing Media is running the country through their biased coverage, so any Republican that makes a courageous stand against Obama gets vilified and called a racist, but Putin is not running for election in the United States, he has his own media that supports him and which keeps him in power in Russia. In one respect Putin is a better leader than Obama as Putin wants to make Russia bigger and Obama wants to make the United States smaller, so in a way Putin and Obama are working towards the same goal. As Obama shrinks the United States, economically, Russia tries to expand to fill that void Obama is leaving. the thing is Russia is a majority white country run by whites, if the United States shrinks and Russia takes over, were going to end up with a World Empire dominated by white people, and where minorities are kept on the fringes of society, that is basically what Russia is now. An old style white European Empire, bring down the United States, and Russia would just march right in and make us a part of his Empire, I'm sure he wouldn't mind, because including the United States would just make him more powerful as leader of the whole thing, I doubt there would be anyone in the world who could challenge him after that, not even China! Bring the UA down and all the liberal values that grew up in that country will go down with it! For Russia, Liberalism was just a mask it wore when it pretended to be the Soviet Union.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-03 17:08:53)

Glandu · 2014-04-04 03:45:52

GW Johnson wrote:

(.../...)
As for Crimea, there's plenty of blame to go around. (.../...)

That's the point. USA did push Ukraine in EU's arms while EU was reluctant. EU was reluctant but faked interest. Ukraine was fool enough to think they were free to do whatever pleased them without taking reality in account(reality : Putin could help them far much than EU could, and they need that kind of help desperaltely). Russia...well, let's hear Tom - he's right on this point.

Everyone is to blame, & everyone's reputation is very low.

But Tom, there is apoint you wompletely miss. The rest of the world does not care a shit whether the USA is a democracy. They judge USA from its acts outside the USA. And there, USA is no better than Putin. The annexion of Crimea, seen from far, is probably more legitimate than the invasion of Iraq. As Crimeans did ask for Russia. Someone living in Madagascar, or VietNam, or Bolivia, is bound to think that USA is no better than Russia.

Putin has lost a lot in terms of reputation by annexing Crimea, but for those folks, he's just as low as Obama. Legend says in 2008, when Putin was in war against Georgia, and was about to transfom Tbilissi into an omlet, Sarkozy told him to stop :
"_You can't do that, Vladimir.
_I will. I will hang Saakachvili with its bowels.
_No, you won't, it's not civilized, it's a war crime you are planning.
_I will, he did attack Russian-protected regions! He's the agressor! I've got the right with me this time!
_And you will look like some kind of George W Bush? The whole worls will compare the both of you, and find no difference!
_You've got a point, Nicolas."
And the war did stop 70 kms from Tbilissi.

I have no clue wether the legend is true, half-true, or completely false. (Sure thing is, Sarkozy spoke to Putin, and Putin stopped the war - yet noone knows if both facts are linked). But it is credible in most parts of the world, that's the point. Reputation and soft power don't come from democracy, they come from proper behaviour outside borders. If tomorrow you invade Cuba, whatever the Cuban thinks, your world reputation will, once again, plummet. Like Russia's reputation after Crimea's events.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-04 04:58:46

Glandu wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
(.../...)
As for Crimea, there's plenty of blame to go around. (.../...)
That's the point. USA did push Ukraine in EU's arms while EU was reluctant. EU was reluctant but faked interest. Ukraine was fool enough to think they were free to do whatever pleased them without taking reality in account(reality : Putin could help them far much than EU could, and they need that kind of help desperaltely). Russia...well, let's hear Tom - he's right on this point.
Everyone is to blame, & everyone's reputation is very low.
But Tom, there is apoint you wompletely miss. The rest of the world does not care a shit whether the USA is a democracy.

If the United States wasn't a Democracy then France would now be a part of it after American troops liberated France from German occupation and added France to their own territories. You see Empires either grow or they shrink, and we passed up some marvelous opportunities for territorial expansion that the Russians did not! Do you think if the Soviets liberated France that they would let Charles De Gaulle run it? And during Stalin's time, how long do you think Charles De Gaulle would have lasted before ending up in a Siberian labor camp or with a bullet in his head due to one of Stalin's purges?

Glandu wrote:

They judge USA from its acts outside the USA. And there, USA is no better than Putin. The annexion of Crimea, seen from far, is probably more legitimate than the invasion of Iraq. As Crimeans did ask for Russia. Someone living in Madagascar, or VietNam, or Bolivia, is bound to think that USA is no better than Russia.

What about the invasion of Normandy, was that Legitimate? I don't remember any elections in France asking the French people whether they wanted the British and the Americans to invade their country in 1944. do you recall such?

I seem to remember the Iraqi Kurds asking for American help, doesn't that count? Remember the Refugee crisis with kurds piled up high in the mountain passes leading to Turkey. How is Kurdistan different from Crimea? They didn't want to be part of Iraq, much as the Crimeans didn't want to be part of Ukraine. Did you forget about the Kurds?

Glandu wrote:

Putin has lost a lot in terms of reputation by annexing Crimea, but for those folks, he's just as low as Obama. Legend says in 2008, when Putin was in war against Georgia, and was about to transfom Tbilissi into an omlet, Sarkozy told him to stop :
"_You can't do that, Vladimir.
_I will. I will hang Saakachvili with its bowels.
_No, you won't, it's not civilized, it's a war crime you are planning.
_I will, he did attack Russian-protected regions! He's the agressor! I've got the right with me this time!
_And you will look like some kind of George W Bush? The whole worls will compare the both of you, and find no difference!
_You've got a point, Nicolas."
And the war did stop 70 kms from Tbilissi.
I have no clue wether the legend is true, half-true, or completely false. (Sure thing is, Sarkozy spoke to Putin, and Putin stopped the war - yet noone knows if both facts are linked). But it is credible in most parts of the world, that's the point. Reputation and soft power don't come from democracy, they come from proper behaviour outside borders. If tomorrow you invade Cuba, whatever the Cuban thinks, your world reputation will, once again, plummet. Like Russia's reputation after Crimea's events.

Seems to me if the World don't like us, no matter what we do, that's just another reason for me not to like the World. I think the World would be quick to forgive Putin after taking Crimea, just as it was quick to forgive them after then invaded Georgia. I wonder what would happen if we invaded and toppled Cuba's communist government, I mean Putin is getting rid of countries that he doesn't like and all the left wing liberals say "attaboy", maybe we should learn a lesson from this and follow his example. I mean really why should we tolerate Cuba with all its subversion of our Western Hemisphere if Russia doesn't tolerate Ukraine? Do you have a good answer for me, if you say we are just the same as Putin anyway, why shouldn't we do something that Putin would do if he was an American President? I'll bet if Putin was the President of the United States, he would try to take Cuba, he would find some excuse and then send in American troops. Do you doubt me on this?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-04 06:18:49)

RobertDyck · 2014-04-06 17:15:28

Today's news from CBC website
Ukraine says Putin behind seizure of state buildings

Ukraine accused Russia's President Vladimir Putin of orchestrating the seizure of state buildings in two eastern Ukrainian cities by pro-Russia protesters on Sunday, in a further escalation of tension between Kiev and Moscow.
Protesters waving Russian flags seized the regional administrative building in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, the third state premises in eastern Ukraine to be occupied by pro-Russian demonstrators on Sunday, Interfax reported.
Earlier in the day, similar groups had seized the regional administrative building in Donetsk and the offices of the state security services in Luhansk, demanding that regional lawmakers carry out a referendum on joining Russia.

Ok, this is getting bad. This is incremental seizure of the entire eastern half of Ukraine. I was willing to accept Crimea, but this is going too far. When the Soviet Union broke up, America argued for Ukraine to surrender their nuclear missiles. America didn't want nuclear proliferation. This wasn't spreading nuclear weapons, but breaking up the Soviet Union increased the number of nations that had nuclear weapons. Ukraine didn't want to give them up because they were afraid Russia would do exactly what they're doing now. Bill Clinton promised to defend Ukraine's borders from Russia in exchange for Ukraine surrendering their weapons. The missiles weren't given back, they were crushed with a bulldozer. That was shown on TV news. But the only way to destroy fissile material is a nuclear bomb or nuclear reactor, so it had to be given back to Russia. I don't know if the bombs were dismantled and nuclear material given back, or if the bombs were given back intact. I suspect they were dismantled. In any case, America signed a treaty committing to defend Ukrainian borders if Russia did exactly what they're doing now.

Again, this is bad.

GW Johnson · 2014-04-07 09:45:03

The invasion excuse is wannabee-Russians living in Ukraine. That suggests deporting the wannabee-Russians to Russia. But with troops massed on the border to invade, it's already too late to head off the invasion with such deportations.

This is real rock-and-a-hard-place stuff. It's a cold war with a potential to go hot that is higher than I have seen since the Cuban missile crisis.

GW

RobertDyck · 2014-04-07 10:44:54

And this morning...
East Ukrainian region declared independent by pro-Russian activists

Pro-Russian separatists who seized a provincial administration building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Monday proclaimed the region an independent republic in a move echoing the run-up to Russia's annexation of Crimea.
The Interfax news agency said the activists demanded that a referendum be held no later than May 11 on the breaking away of the Donetsk region, which borders Russia.
In footage uploaded to the internet, an unidentified pro-Russia activist in the provincial government headquarters in Donetsk asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to send peacekeeping troops to the region.

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-07 12:10:16

GW Johnson wrote:

This is real rock-and-a-hard-place stuff. It's a cold war with a potential to go hot that is higher than I have seen since the Cuban missile crisis.

Surely you exaggerate? This seems no more likely to cause a war with Russia than Czechoslovakia in 1968, Vietnam, or the [Soviet] Invasion of Afghanistan, to name a few. I wasn't alive for any of those, so I can't really say for certain, but especially the fact that the Crimeans did want to be Russian suggests that there is no reason for the conflict to escalate significantly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2014-04-02 14:45:01

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#177 2014-04-02 15:47:51

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#178 2014-04-02 17:00:07

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#179 2014-04-02 17:20:06

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#180 2014-04-02 17:44:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#181 2014-04-02 18:43:52

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#182 2014-04-02 19:22:53

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#183 2014-04-02 20:13:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#184 2014-04-02 21:30:02

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#185 2014-04-03 00:39:23

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#186 2014-04-03 01:29:34

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#187 2014-04-03 01:52:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#188 2014-04-03 05:40:13

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#189 2014-04-03 06:05:53

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#190 2014-04-03 08:56:28

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#191 2014-04-03 09:04:18

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#192 2014-04-03 09:44:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#193 2014-04-03 11:10:34

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#194 2014-04-03 14:18:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#195 2014-04-04 03:45:52

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#196 2014-04-04 04:58:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#197 2014-04-06 17:15:28

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#198 2014-04-07 09:45:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#199 2014-04-07 10:44:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#200 2014-04-07 12:10:16

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer