Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[aldiboronti]

@CarnalK

So they implemented independence by joining the Russian federation. Does that make sense even to you?

The key question is whether it makes sense to the Crimeans and I guess they’ve answered that one.

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

They didn’t lose control. The leadership changed.
Under Russian occupation of the government buildings.

You have nothing to confirm your assertion that Russian occupation preceded the vote to separate Crimea from Ukraine.

Ukrainian security forces at the legislative building left their posts. The security forces that replaced central government forces were according to one high ranking parliament official there by invite - not by force or occupation.

The central authorities in Kiev were not in control of Crimes prior to the massing of what looked like unmarked Russian troops days later. By then it was not an invasion of troops it was an invitation to troops to intervene in the secession attempt.

Was it illegal for Russia to back a separation movement with military force? It most likely is. So slap their hand and moan a bit. And that is what has transpired.

[jayjay]

@NotfooledbyW

You have nothing to confirm your assertion that Russian occupation preceded the vote to separate Crimea from Ukraine.

Ukrainian security forces at the legislative building left their posts. The security forces that replaced central government forces were according to one high ranking parliament official there by invite - not by force or occupation.

The central authorities in Kiev were not in control of Crimes prior to the massing of what looked like unmarked Russian troops days later. By then it was not an invasion of troops it was an invitation to troops to intervene in the secession attempt.

Was it illegal for Russia to back a separation movement with military force? It most likely is. So slap their hand and moan a bit. And that is what has transpired.

Do you answer Nigerian funds transfer requests with so much enthusiasm for the honesty of the requester?

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

In that case, this should settle the matter for you:

Bolding mine.

I look forward to your next post, which will surely switch your moral backing from Crimean separatists to supporters of a unified Ukraine.

No need to switch. I like your link for several moral reasons.

*“… urged the parties involved in the conflict to engage in dialogue.”

*CHECK I agree. I prefer dialogue too.

*“While I hope that all sectors of the country will endeavor to overcome misunderstandings and build the future of the nation together,” *…

CHECK, I agree. Sure. Build Crimea and Russia and the EU together. That is a fine idea.

*“Ukraine, unfortunately, has been pulled into a military conflict. So far no one is shooting, so far people are not dying, but it is obvious that military intervention has already begun.”

… Check , I agree. Let’s not shoot and bomb people as was done in Iraq.

“Our people and our country are currently in danger,” the archbishop said. "We must stand up for our country, to be ready --** if necessary *– to sacrifice our lives in order to protect the sovereign, free, independent, and unified state," he said in the statement distributed by the Catholic magazine Credo

… Check, we now see that “IF NECESSARY” does not appear “to be NECESSARY” to sacrifice lives.

I am quite happy in this case that this Archbishop has been proven to be wrong. In Iraq is was not ‘necessary’ to sacrifice lives because the UN inspectors were inside Iraq verifying Iraq’s disarmament peacefully. Perhaps we have learned not to use force unless it is absolutely necessary. I hope so.

Months of protests sparked by a government decision to reverse a process of closer cooperation with Europe erupted in bloodshed in late February and led to the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych. After an interim leader was appointed in Ukraine, the Russian government began what it called military exercises along the countries’ shared border and sent troops into Crimea.

…Check, they admit that the Violence erupted in Kiev in late February that sparked the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. We need to hear more about this chain of events.

In their Lenten letter, Archbishop Shevchuk and members of his synod called on Catholics to use the 40 days of Lent as a time of prayer, fasting and almsgiving to grow closer to God and to one’s neighbors. Lent, they said, is a time to convert from sin, suspicion and hatred and take responsibility together for the future of the country.

… Check! I’m sure that applies both to Crimeans and Ukrainians and remaining Eussian speaking residents of eastern parts of Ukraine.

Religious perspectives are always good to try to understand aren’t they?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/ukraine-crimean-war-history.html?start=2

an excerpt:

Tsarist power is long gone, and the Soviet regime that succeeded it had no time for mystical visions. Yet, as that Soviet idea perished in its turn, Russians have turned once more to the religious roots of national ideology. Post-Soviet regimes have worked intimately with the Orthodox Church, which has been happy to support strong government and to consecrate national occasions. In return, the state has helped the church rebuild Orthodox cathedrals and monasteries aplenty. For 20 years now, both state and church have even labored to reconstruct the once potent Russian presence in the holy places themselves, now of course under Israeli political control.

and summary:

Why are we surprised to see this new holy Russia extend its protecting arm over the Christian-backed Ba’athist regime in Syria? Russian regimes have been staking a claim to guard that region’s Christians for 250 years.

It would be pleasant to think that the U.S. and Europe are taking these religious factors into full account as they calculate their response to the present crisis in Crimea and Ukraine. Pleasant, but unlikely.

Philip Jenkins is distinguished professor of history at Baylor University

POPE-UKRAINE Mar-3-2014 (420 words) With photos. xxxi

Pope asks prayers for Ukraine; archbishop says country in danger

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – As uncertainty reigned in Ukraine and Russian troops appeared to have control of the Crimean peninsula, Pope Francis again asked the world’s Christians to pray for Ukraine and urged the parties involved in the conflict to engage in dialogue.

“I ask you again to pray for Ukraine, which is in a very delicate situation,” Pope Francis told tens of thousands of people gathered in St. Peter’s Square for the midday recitation of the Angelus March 2.

“While I hope that all sectors of the country will endeavor to overcome misunderstandings and build the future of the nation together,” the pope said, “I make a heartfelt appeal to the international community to support every initiative in favor of dialogue and harmony.”

After Russian troops entered Crimea, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kiev-Halych, head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, issued a statement March 1 saying, “Ukraine, unfortunately, has been pulled into a military conflict. So far no one is shooting, so far people are not dying, but it is obvious that military intervention has already begun.”

“Our people and our country are currently in danger,” the archbishop said. “We must stand up for our country, to be ready – if necessary – to sacrifice our lives in order to protect the sovereign, free, independent, and unified state,” he said in the statement distributed by the Catholic magazine Credo.

In Ukraine, March 2 was “Forgiveness Sunday” for Eastern Catholics and members of the Orthodox churches; Lent began March 3 for Catholics and Orthodox who follow the Byzantine tradition.

Addressing members of the church in a pastoral letter for Lent, Archbishop Shevchuk and members of the church’s permanent synod said Ukrainians “enter into the great fast this year with feelings of pain, fear, suffering and trembling hope.”

Months of protests sparked by a government decision to reverse a process of closer cooperation with Europe erupted in bloodshed in late February and led to the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych. After an interim leader was appointed in Ukraine, the Russian government began what it called military exercises along the countries’ shared border and sent troops into Crimea.

In their Lenten letter, Archbishop Shevchuk and members of his synod called on Catholics to use the 40 days of Lent as a time of prayer, fasting and almsgiving to grow closer to God and to one’s neighbors. Lent, they said, is a time to convert from sin, suspicion and hatred and take responsibility together for the future of the country.

END

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400877.htm
Good Link from Human Action Finally.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BrainGlutton

But that ended well enough.

True, sort of like the Holocaust.

[NotfooledbyW]

@jayjay

Do you answer Nigerian funds transfer requests with so much enthusiasm for the honesty of the requester?

Do you have an argument or challenge to mine or is insult the extent of what you can argue?

[Falesh]

@aldiboronti

The key question is whether it makes sense to the Crimeans and I guess they’ve answered that one.

In the same way that the people of Zimbabwe keep answering the question of whether they want Robert Mugabe to continue being their leader… A vote has to be free and fair to be worthwhile, sort of like this.

[NotfooledbyW]

@aldiboronti

The key question is whether it makes sense to the Crimeans and I guess they’ve answered that one.

That is what seems to be repressed around here.

Crimean independence was a two step process. The announcement of separation was not a matter of ‘going back’ as far as those legislators were concerned. It was suicide or imprisonment for sure if the Russia Federation did not respond to their requests as transpired.

The referendum to be autonomous versus joining the Russian Federation was step two. The people decided a preference ‘following the declared independence from Ukraine’ to join the Russian Federation. Once Moscow paved the legal was to welcome Crimea back… the choice was most likely not too difficult to make.

The world can’t **not **recognize all of Russia, but they could cease to recognize Crimea as the world does not recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Falesh

But there wasn’t much of a vacuum in Kiev. After the old government fell an interim one sprang up with a promise of elections in May. At the end of this process Ukraine would have a government elected by it’s people again. Besides, Crimea would still be fine even if there was a temporary vacuum in Kiev due to the overwhelming presence of Russian troops throughout Crimea.

What you seem to be suggesting is that certain people in Crimea saw this as an excuse to join Russia. If this is the case then they are completely in the wrong because they didn’t give the Crimean people a fair say about their future as the questions on the referendum did not include staying with Ukraine, it was set up and conducted in too short a time for a proper debate to be had, it was conducted while the country was occupied by Russian troops and there was a massive one sided propaganda war taking place. Finally polls prior to this showed that the Crimean people did not want to join Russia.

If security wasn’t an issue and the annexation did not give the Crimean people a free and fair say on their future, and by recent previous polls actually went against what the people wished, why do you think it was an acceptable thing to do?

The referendum did allow staying with Ukraine under the 1992 Crimean Constitution. The Crijean constitution that Ukraine forced ended in 1995. There was no choice to go back to the 1995 status quo.

[CarnalK]

@aldiboronti

The key question is whether it makes sense to the Crimeans and I guess they’ve answered that one.

You guess so, huh? Awesome.

[John_Mace]

Has anyone introduced a new argument in the last ~10 pages of this thread?

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

You guess so, huh? Awesome.

You asked today at 01:43 PM:

So they implemented independence by joining the Russian federation. Does that make sense even to you?

You were responding to what I wrote at 01:01 PM today which was this:

((Once that rebellious anti-Ukraine act (the declaration of separation from Ukraine) was committed there was no turning back. The only way to implement independence at that time was to seek military backing from Russia.

And they got it. And Crimea has joined the Russian Federation and the world will learn how to deal with it.))
The precise answer to your question is not a guess. It makes all the sense in the world to me. The people in Crimea have “implemented independence” from Ukraine by joining the Russian Federation. Do you doubt that this transfer has taken place? And the orderly way the change is being conducted it is quite safe to say that it makes sense that a majority of the people in Crimea accept if not welcome the change.

[CarnalK]

I wasn’t responding to you in that post.

@John_Mace

Has anyone introduced a new argument in the last ~10 pages of this thread?

If that’s a problem for you then don’t read any of the marijuana legalization threads. lol.

[NotfooledbyW]

[quote=“CarnalK, post:2073, topic:682513”]

I wasn’t responding to you in that post.
Who is this comment addressed to?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Has anyone introduced a new argument in the last ~10 pages of this thread?

Do you have any arguments with anyone on this thread that you would liked to discuss in a reasoned and fact-based manner?

[CarnalK]

@NotfooledbyW

@CarnalK

I wasn’t responding to you in that post.

Who is this comment addressed to?

You.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Has anyone introduced a new argument in the last ~10 pages of this thread?

Yes. You did. You argue that that the Crimea’s popular uprising, declaration of independence and subsequent return to the Russian Federation was not peaceful.
Hopefully you won’t mind if we use the Iraq invasion and occupation as the standard for a determining a **non-peaceful ** action that was in violations of international law.

And I will assume that you agree that using civilian deaths as an indicator that the military operation and occupation launched there was not peaceful at all. In fact not even close.

There was one fatality during about three weeks of popular uprising and peaceful re-unification of Crimea to Russia all backed up by the threat of Russian Military Force.

So with that criteria in mind and in context, I contend that your claim that the Crimean popular uprising **was not peaceful ** is inaccurate and without merit.
Today at 03:55 AM I posted excerpts from the following link and headline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/wo...aine.html?_r=0

Putin Calls Obama to Discuss Ukraine, White House Says By PETER BAKER, MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN MARCH 28, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia reached out to President Obama on Friday to discuss ideas about how to **peacefully resolve **the international standoff over Ukraine, …

Today at 03:55 AM I wrote “Look at Obama’s key word (further) in the following paragraph:” and I cited this excerpt from the same link as above:

“President Obama underscored to President Putin that the United States continues to support a diplomatic path in close consultation with the government of Ukraine and in support of the Ukrainian people with the aim of de-escalation of the crisis,” the White House said in a statement. “President Obama made clear that this remains possible only if Russia pulls back its troops and does not take any steps to further violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

Today at 03:55 AM I wrote, "There we are - the USA will “support a diplomatic path … with the aim of de-escalation of the crisis” and “that this remains possible only if Russia pulls back its troops and does not take any steps to further violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
And I asked this question regarding all that, *“So is Obama ‘dealing’ with Putins actions to the satisfaction of all?” *
To which John Mace answer today at 07:48 AM with a snarky,

And by “peacefully resolve” he means: Accept the fait accompli of my non-peaceful actions. Sure, Vlad, sure. You’re such a peach of a fellow after all!!

Can you explain how you arrived at a conclusion that what happened in Crimea the past few weeks were non-peaceful actions?

[aceplace57]

The question now is can the rest of the Ukraine be saved? The Russians have troops massed all along the border. They could take the whole country in a few days.

Something is developing. Sure hope this isn’t a waste of time.

Ukraine crisis: Kerry and Lavrov in push for solution

US Secretary of State John Kerry has diverted his homebound flight at the last minute, for hastily arranged talks on the Ukraine crisis with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The decision came after President Vladimir Putin spoke to President Barack Obama by phone late on Friday.

[CarnalK]

I doubt Russia will go for the whole of Ukraine. Worst case is the south-east part of the country. If you look at the maps tomndebb posted a page or so back, you’ll see what a solid geographic divide there is voting-wise. The eastern part of the country is who got robbed of their vote by the Kiev overthrow.

So that might happen. If the Russians have learned any lessons from USA-Iraq though it should be that you don’t want “insurgents” too mad with a nice long pipeline to defend. I have little doubt that some members of Right Sector would gleefully blow up sections of the pipeline to fuck over Russia AND Europe.

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

You.

Here’s the context:

On 03-28-2014 at 07:18 PM I asked this general question:

Was there a trigger to the chain of events that led to the done deal that is Crimea becoming part of the Russian Federation? Or was it that Putin simply ‘decided’ to jaywalk-invade Crimea with absolutely no provocation of any sort from Ukraine and the events in Kiev?

On 03-28-2014 at 07:33 PM **Falesh **responded to RedFury (Post 17238002) when he wrote:

What this thread is about is Russia’s actions in Crimea and how the world should deal with them. In that context I can understand comments about Russian or Ukrainian hypocrisy, but if it is determined that Russia is in the wrong does it matter if one of the countries taking action against them has a history of hypocrisy?

My first point on 03-29-2014 at 02:37 AM was my response to Falesh (Post 17238432) that he was correct when he wrote, *"What this thread is about is Russia’s actions in Crimea and how the world should deal with them.”*A that the World … must consider the FACT that the US and UK etc has not been SANCTIONED or PUNISHED for violating international law of a much worse and deadly nature.

My second point on 03-29-2014 at 02:37 AM was in response to Falesh’s statement that, *“but if it is determined that Russia is in the wrong does it matter if one of the countries taking action against them has a history of hypocrisy.” *. And this is an important part of my argument:

When you state “if it is determined” you must be cognizant of the FACT that the ones making the determination are very much the same countries that have NOT determined that they did something very very wrong back in March of 2003.

We do not have an international court of law and justice for determining right and wrong. We have a system where the most powerful economic and military side is not held accountable for what it does that clearly violated international law in the past.

Legal justice is not blind in the international system. It is biased toward the powerful.

It is all relevant in how the world should deal with what has taken place in Crimea.

Then on 03-29-2014 09:06 AM Falesh responded to me with this:

You have a point that the US’s opinion should be inspected carefully and not taken at face value because it has a history of hypocrisy, as indeed Russia does. But that doesn’t mean that what it thinks is implicitly wrong, merely that we have to be careful to see if we agree with it or not. Besides there is a global response to this situation so we are not relying on the US to tell us if this is right or wrong, this is exemplified by the 100 countries that voted against Russia. Finally with regards to this thread what is important is our personal opinions, it doesn’t matter what the US thinks as that has no baring on each of our opinions about whether Russia is in the right or wrong.

On 03-29-2014 at 10:59 AM Falesh asked, “What is your opinion about this question? Do you think there was a trigger and do you think Russia acted correctly or not? (I posted my opinion about this above)”
To which on 03-29-2014 at 11:34 AM I posted this response:

The trigger is the participation by some right wing nationalists in the violent overthrow and illegal removal of an elected president in the latter days of February that triggered a chain of events. The threat to the President’s life and subsequent removal from office without any constitutional means led to a 'breakaway spontaneous and popular uprising; by the legislators in Crimea that was backed by pro-separatists militia that was home grown and with ranks being filled with Ukrainian military and police defectors at a rapid pace.

The Crimean separatists movement signaled they had taken much of the control of Crimea outside of the bases where Russian troops were legally stationed. They feared the Ukrainian government was being absorbed by anti-Russian nationalists and could gain control of the army and police in Crimea and do harm. So they requested protection by Russian Forces already in Crimea and that could be brought into Crimea if possible.

Crimea was not a part of Ukraine in revolutionary sense after the declaration to separate was announced and Ukraine security forces could no longer over power and arrest them. They formed a new government spontaneously and because of the trigger that was pulled in Ukraine, buy Ukrainians.

Any Russian troops that left the bases where they were legally stations should not be considered ‘invaders’ since they were responding to calls for assistance by the new formed ‘rebel’ government of Crimea.

Forming a ‘rebel’ government is a violation of Ukraine’s constitutions however the major violation of Ukraine’s constitution had already been presented.

Because it was violence in Kiev that pulled the trigger I can accept that the Crimean’s reaction was wrong in a strict legal international sense with respect to respect for territorial integrity of nations, however I must have much less sympathy for Ukraine’s territorial integrity in light of the fact of the violence and chaos and illegal government in Kiev that is only now cracking down on the right wing extremists that were free to roam the streets the past few months to stir up violence and bloodshed to push their agenda through the threat of violence and protest against a government.

I tend to side with the rebels in Crimea more than the rebels in Kiev. And the western media is not reporting this story in any objective sense to tell both sides.
That is the most dangerous element of all as far as I’m concerned.

On 03-29-2014 at 12:14 PM Falesh cited this from my 11:34 AM post (Post 17239770) where I, NotfooledbyW wrote:

They feared the Ukrainian government was being absorbed by anti-Russian nationalists and could gain control of the army and police in Crimea and do harm. So they requested protection by Russian Forces already in Crimea and that could be brought into Crimea if possible.

With that quote, On 03-29-2014 at 12:14 PM Falesh asked me:

So ultimately you think that the Russian intervention was justified in order to protect Russian nationals? I could see that if all Russia did was to provide security but the annexation or Crimea actually goes against the goal of providing security. If the Russian nationals throughout Ukraine were in danger from anti-Russian people then logically the last thing Russia should do is to inflame the passions of those anti-Russian people. The annexation of Crimea does the exact opposite, it not only inflames any already present anti-Russian feelings but also creates new feelings of hostility as now Ukrainians have just witnessed Russia cut out part of their country.
Also do you not think that it is somewhat extreme to annex part of a sovereign state in order to avoid a temporary security issue, which was not currently a problem as Russian troops had flooded Crimea?

On 03-29-2014 at 01:01 PM I responded:

My point is that on around February 28 the Ukraine, due to the vacuum created in Kiev this was this chain of events that rapidly occurred to fill it:

• The Central government of Ukraine lost Constitutional, security and military control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

• The Crimea leaders and vast majority of legislators declared notice that it was the intent of Crimea to separate from Ukraine

• Once that rebellious anit Ukraine act was committed there was no turning back. The only way to implement independence at that time was to seek military backing from Russia.

And they got it. And Crimea has joined the Russian Federation and the world will learn how to deal with it.

Meanwhile Ukraine has so many internal problems that they best get down to business with cleaning up their own act. And don’t blow up the pipelines. Nobody in the world wants that

On 03-29-2014 01:38 PM Falesh replied:

But there wasn’t much of a vacuum in Kiev. After the old government fell an interim one sprang up with a promise of elections in May. At the end of this process Ukraine would have a government elected by it’s people again. Besides, Crimea would still be fine even if there was a temporary vacuum in Kiev due to the overwhelming presence of Russian troops throughout Crimea.

What you seem to be suggesting is that certain people in Crimea saw this as an excuse to join Russia. If this is the case then they are completely in the wrong because they didn’t give the Crimean people a fair say about their future as the questions on the referendum did not include staying with Ukraine, it was set up and conducted in too short a time for a proper debate to be had, it was conducted while the country was occupied by Russian troops and there was a massive one sided propaganda war taking place. Finally polls prior to this showed that the Crimean people did not want to join Russia.

If security wasn’t an issue and the annexation did not give the Crimean people a free and fair say on their future, and by recent previous polls actually went against what the people wished, why do you think it was an acceptable thing to do?

On 03-29-2014 at 01:43 PM **CarnalK ** cited my (Post 17239907) and specifically where I wrote, "The Central government of Ukraine lost Constitutional, security and military control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.“

Carnalk’s response was “They didn’t lose control. The leadership changed.”

Also on 03-29-2014 at 01:43 PM ** CarnalK ** cited my (Post 17239907) and specifically where I wrote, "Once that rebellious anti-Ukraine act was committed there was no turning back. The only way to implement independence at that time was to seek military backing from Russia. And they got it. And Crimea has joined the Russian Federation and the world will learn how to deal with it. “Cite”
Carnalk’s response was. “So they implemented independence by joining the Russian federation. Does that make sense even to you?”
On 03-29-2014 02:09 PM aldiboronti responded to Carnalk’s statement:

The key question is whether it makes sense to the Crimeans and I guess they’ve answered that one.

On 03-29-2014 at 02:21 PM I responded to Carnalk’s post with a specific reference to what he had said about ‘leadership change’:

You have nothing to confirm your assertion that Russian occupation preceded the vote to separate Crimea from Ukraine.

Ukrainian security forces at the legislative building left their posts. The security forces that replaced central government forces were according to one high ranking parliament official there by invite - not by force or occupation.

The central authorities in Kiev were not in control of Crimes prior to the massing of what looked like unmarked Russian troops days later. By then it was not an invasion of troops it was an invitation to troops to intervene in the secession attempt.

Was it illegal for Russia to back a separation movement with military force? It most likely is. So slap their hand and moan a bit. And that is what has transpired.

On 03-29-2014 at 03:12 PM I responded to aldiboronti post where he used the phrase, “I guess”:

That is what seems to be repressed around here.

Crimean independence was a two step process. The announcement of separation was not a matter of ‘going back’ as far as those legislators were concerned. It was suicide or imprisonment for sure if the Russia Federation did not respond to their requests as transpired.

The referendum to be autonomous versus joining the Russian Federation was step two. The people decided a preference ‘following the declared independence from Ukraine’ to join the Russian Federation. Once Moscow paved the legal was to welcome Crimea back… the choice was most likely not too difficult to make.

The world can’t not recognize all of Russia, but they could cease to recognize Crimea as the world does not recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

On 03-29-2014 at 03:57 PM CarnalK pounced upon aldiboronti’s “I guess”:

You guess so, huh? Awesome.

On 03-29-2014 at 05:01 PM I posted this in response to Carnalk:

You asked today at 01:43 PM: Quote: “Cite” So they implemented independence by joining the Russian federation. Does that make sense even to you? “Cite”

You were responding to what I wrote at 01:01 PM today which was this: ((Once that rebellious anti-Ukraine act (the declaration of separation from Ukraine) was committed there was no turning back. The only way to implement independence at that time was to seek military backing from Russia.

And they got it. And Crimea has joined the Russian Federation and the world will learn how to deal with it.))

The precise answer to your question is not a guess.

It makes all the sense in the world to me. The people in Crimea have “implemented independence” from Ukraine by joining the Russian Federation. Do you doubt that this transfer has taken place? And the orderly way the change is being conducted it is quite safe to say that it makes sense that a majority of the people in Crimea accept if not welcome the change.

On 03-29-2014 at 05:18 PM CarnalK complains:

I wasn’t responding to you in that post.

For now I would like to inform Carnalk of his error. I did not say Carnalk was responding to me in that post.