US and EU Are Paying Ukrainian Rioters and Protesters
– much more at source
Fully cited in article. Just don’t believe your lying eyes.
Much better analogy. I doubt Red would like it very much. As you can see, he deflects by pointing out how evil the US is, and how we have no moral ground to stand on in condemning the Russian’s actions. It’s as if Russia can do whatever they want because the US has done bad things in the past (and, of course, as if the US is somehow central to this little drama, instead of a very peripheral player). Two wrongs make a right and all that.
Rah! Rah! Russia! 
Anyway, back to the CT no doubt and let’s hear from that traitorous doctor and other loopy theories…
I don’t see the point of this. Lets assume everything in that article is true and the US is a horrible, evil, rotten, no good country that hates humanity and enjoys seeing people enslaved for its own benefit. (I don’t think it is, and I don’t think the spin on some of those events are accurate, but lets say it is.)
Who cares? Even if the US is a terrible country, that doesn’t make Yanukovych any less of a kleptocrat who went after the press and his political opponents, and reversed his stance on the EU treaty, it doesn’t make the Maidan protestors any less angry at his failure to do what he promised, and it doesn’t make Russia any less responsible for moving troops into Crimea and backing secession movements there.
There’s this old joke that lawyers tell about how to win cases. It goes, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound the table.” All bringing prior US bad acts is doing is table pounding; bringing up a red herring to distract the conversation from the actual issues. Or, alternative, it’s hijacking the events in the Ukraine in the service of anti-Americanism.
Who in here is stepping up for the USA? Personally, I’m much more concerned about the people of Ukraine. I’m not even American.
So the USA has done many rotten things. So has Spain. Who gives a crap? That has little to do with Russia invading Ukraine.
I remain curious as to how you would deal with French troops moving into the Basque regions and then those areas suddenly announcing a referendum on separation.
Did you read the entire statement or did you just have time to take a little snip at part of it?
Khrushchev’s daughter just told Chris Hayes her father was wrong because Crimea did not want to be joined to Ukraine. That is a sentiment that lasts to this day. She says it is a done deal that Crimea is splitting off from Ukraine. The majority wants it.
And the West should sacrifice that pawn to save the bishop.
Let’s review:
If either of you really ** don’t **have a problem , “with a democratic and constitutional effort by Crimea to split off from Ukraine and be either independent or part of Russia” … you would recognize that ‘reality’ dictates that this perhaps is the only time and way **that a democratic ‘effort’ has a chance of getting anywhere. They have to get written permission from Kiev to have a vote on separating. When do you think they will get an answer that would be ‘yes’? How else do you get out from under a decision made in 1954 that did not involve choice or election>
I think the point is that while the US has been carrying on like this for 50-60 years, it’s rare to see under the hood, to see the scale of bullshit as it unfolds in real time.
Its all a very nice case study for how the empire conducts geo-politics and, just as interestingly, how the political class presents that to the domestic audience through the conduit of a largely submissive media.
Better be nice to Mr. Putin or else he’ll tell the American astronauts on the ISS to find their own way home.
I know this last part is simply not true. But the onus on this messageboard is on you to provide evidence for the things you write so I’ll start with: cite?
Red: Even if you assume the USA is mostest evilest country that ever existed, why would you condone what’s going on in Crimea? There’s a whole separate debate about whether the US has the moral high ground to criticize, but why would you condone another power doing something similar?
It makes no sense.
I want you to tell us what you mean by “certainly might be”. What does that phrase mean? It’s an oxymoron. Certain means 100%, and “might” means “not 100%”.
Just admit you used a stupid phrase and we can move on. But if you can’t do that, then I’m going to call you on it because it makes no sense.
I could be wrong, but I’ve always assumed he was a passionate opponent of Francisco Franco.
He earlier was using a Francoist magazine as his source. I’m not sure how invested he is in the issue except how it relates to the US.
For myself, until recently I didn’t even know who the spam of the Ukraine was so I don’t have strong opinions on the subject other than I suspect most Ukrainians are about to be in a “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss situation.”
Originally Posted by RickJayL: Crimea is no more entitled to unilaterally separate from Ukraine than, say, South Carolina is entitled to unilaterally separate from the United States.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW: South Carolina joined the Union voluntarily - the people of Crimea were assigned to Ukraine by a dictator They had no say.
Does this do it for you?
“Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic.”
It comes from here:
Can I use a definition of ‘certainly’ or would it confuse you more with more words?
How long do you think the handwringing will go on seeing as how it is ***undeniable but difficult to define, quantify, or express… ***they might be better off for their decision.
What definition did you have in mind?
Also, Obama has said that the referendum in Crimea is not legitimate. Is he wrong?
So John if your snippeteering urges have passed, how long do you think the handwringing will go on seeing as how it is undeniable but difficult to define, quantify, or express… that ***there is a possibility that *** … being better off … will happen for them in the future.
No he is not wrong.
He’s not wrong, simply irrelevant, as are all the Western leaders as they busily mouth platitudes, which, let’s face it, are more for home consumption than anything else. They know full well that the most important player, Putin, isn’t listening. Crimea is returning to Russia, the only thing that could possibly prevent that is a referendum vote against such a return. That, to say the least, is unlikely.
So, the referendum, which you’ve been praising, is illegal. Is that correct?
Nina Khrushcheva said that what the referendum and Russian actions are a violation of Ukraine’s Constititution and international law. … But she says John Kerry should be negotiating a remedy that leaves Crimea aligned with Russia because they are primarily Russians and Crimea is leaving is a done deal. Its over. Crimea is not going back to its former status with Kiev.
And I consider her a great spokesperson on this issue Because here great grand mother is Ukrainian and her great grandfather is Russian. Her great grandfather is the one and only man who issued the “Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic” in 1954.
Was that undemocratic decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet legitimate? Certainly it was legal and binding according to international law. But legitimate in terms of fairness to the Russians living in Crimea in 1954 and to their heirs… A true believer in democracy would not consider that a legitimate matter of choice for the people of Crimea. The illegitimacy of actions taken sixty years later should be seen in that light.
Not so sure that it makes for a “whole different debate,” John, as it (US past & current actions) tie right into the hypocresy of calling Russia out on something they have absolutely NO moral standing to do so. And with all the grandstading and admonishments coming out of most political sources, the whole thing is turning into an Onion piece.
As for the Russian actions, while I stop short of condoning them, I can certainly understand why they’ve done what they’ve done. Moreover I am frankly surprised in light of the prior events that have come to light – the US & the EU openly meddling in Ukrainian affairs; up to and including paying protesters* – that anyone would be shocked (shocked, shocked! let me tell you) that Putin’s Russia did what it did. And correct me if I am wrong, but there hasn’t been a single casualty thus far in this so-called “invasion.” In quotes mainly because those Russian troops were already there legally as per their treaty w/Ukraine vis-a-vis leasing the port of Sevastopol. Now, if you or anyone else thinks that Russia would give up their only direct access to the Mediterranean, you have another thing coming – or rather what is happening now. You also have a plurality of Russian speakers/descendants that want no part of what is happening in Kiev nor Western Ukraine in particular. That the Russians used then as an added excuse to take over The Crimea, is a ploy the US has used over and over all over the world. Do two wrongs make a right? Of course not. But between the actions of the two nations over the past 15/20 years or so, yes I’ll go with what I see as the lesser of the two evils…for as long as they don’t prove me wrong.
***** Frankly very tired tired ATM as I’ve had a very long/stressful day, but fairly sure I posted a link to that story upthread – if not I’ll find it for you tomorrow.
I’ve never been content with the seemingly unipolar world that the US has been trying to carve for itself ever since the fall of the former USSR, thus I think some sort of counterbalance is a good thing. And the last straw is for Russia to allow NATO’s nuclear missiles in its own backyard. Never mind the plundering that has already been planned for Ukraine itself by the EU & the US themselves…even if they are not going about it hand in glove.
Lastly, like it or not (general “you”) it seems pretty clear by now that Ukraine in in total disarray and Kiev is hardly in control of anything, beginning with its own armed forces. If you would, please read the following article as it might give you some insight into who, exactly is heading this putsch – Boy Scouts they are not. Quite the contrary, in their fecklessness to replace Yanukovich it appears no ne took the time to vet these facists thugs:
How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum
Just an excerpt:
– more at source.
Now, imagine for a second if you will, that the same kind of violent coup took place in Mexico and replace those unsavory characters with anti-American ones, and I ask you? How long do you think it would take for any US President to intervene?
So, in a broad outline, there you have it – why I think the topics are not as separate as you seem to think.
Usual disclaimer: I am not a Putin-lover. In fact, I love no politician I can think of.
Perhaps it might make some now?
Ibaq, would you please make sure fucking Franco is still dead? Many thanks.