5 ms·

Crimea. Georgia. Transnistria. It's become a pattern for Russia to use military force instead of diplomacy to resolve disputes. The notion that "Russia has don

by cjensen 10y ago

Crimea. Georgia. Transnistria. It's become a pattern for Russia to use military force instead of diplomacy to resolve disputes. The notion that "Russia has done nothing that any other large country hasn't done" is entirely wrong.

unlinker 10y ago
NATO would never use military force to fix stuff, right?
- krzyk 10y ago
  To annex part of a country? I don't remember.
  - pandaman 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Declaration_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Declaration_of_independ...
    - krzyk 10y ago
      It didn't annex it, they created a country out of it. And it still is a country. Can you say the same about Crimea?
      - pandaman 10y ago
        How could they create a country out of a part of another country without an annexation taking place first? Or, are you going to argue, that Russia did not annex Transistria and South Othetia because a country was created?
  - vetinari 10y ago
    Kosovo?
    - avmich 10y ago
      Annexation? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex Simple Definition of annex : to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place) There is a big difference between separation and annexation. In general, do we have many examples of countries changing borders forcibly after some time mid-last century? I certainly don't remember such a thing from G7. In this light, annexation of Crimea stands out as a regression to older - and less civilized by some standards - ways of doing things.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        Does that change the fact, that NATO did forcibly take a territory from Serbia? That is supposed to be OK? For all intents and purposes, the Kosovo government will do whatever the US government wants. The terminus technicus is puppet government. Even Crimea itself is an example of stolen territory. It was part of Russia, until (Ukrainian) Khrushchev moved it under administration of Ukrainian SSR in 1954. It was excused as being in the same country anyway. When USSR dissolved, the Crimean referendum about returning it back to Russia was ignored by the newly-formed government in Kiev. Bismark knew 150 years ago not to try to cheat the Russians. They will always come and take back, what's theirs.
        xiaoma 10y ago
        If it worked that way, most of Russia would belong to Mongolia.
        vetinari 10y ago
        If you want to be intellectually honest towards yourself, you must admit that Russia was going to be cheated off Crimea. They didn't accept that. That's all.
        xiaoma 10y ago
        I am being intellectually honest. Going back generations and claiming historical territory doesn't work peacefully in the long run.
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
Like stopping Muslims from being murdered in the Balkans?
qrendel 10y ago
I'm not an expert on the history of Russian foreign policy, but there are a lot of credible voices outside of the MSM that tell a different story than the U.S. administration does. For example: 1. http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence- http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-t... 2. http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview-seymour-hersh-dishes-saudi-oil-money-bribes-and-killing-osama-bin-laden http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview-seymour-he... Those focus largely on other topics, but both touch on how the attitude towards Russia (and others) has been manipulated by U.S. media. Given the U.S. administrations' track records for deceit in manipulating foreign affairs, I'm not inclined to dismiss the alternative narratives easily. Western governments do their fair share of astroturfing and media manipulation as well (can give many sources on that, if necessary).
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  So Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who plans to conquer Russia and turn them into American colonies? Wow, you could have fooled me. If he is pursuing such wildly aggressive foreign policy, then how come all the hawks in this country continually condemn him for being a wimpy surrender-monkey?
  - qrendel 10y ago
    The GOP criticizes Obama like he's the anti-christ for literally everything. They've opposed their own bills that they sponsored just because Obama later made public remarks about them being good bills. If you're referring to stuff like the "red line" fiasco in Syria, Hersh explains that too. See: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      So you do think that Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who spent his whole eight years as president planning to invade and conquer Russia? Including explaining to the American public why that would be a good idea?
googletazer 10y ago
Georgia is the only one of these that can cast Putin in a negative light - he let his personal ambition cloud his judgement. Could have stopped at the border of Ossetia, but decided to push on a bit to show Georgians who is the boss. For both Crimea and Transnistria they had their own referendums after the fall of USSR where they wanted to separate from Ukraine and Moldova respectively - neither of which were recognized by the larger countries. Its absurd to expect a region that wants to separate to get approval from everybody else. Ultimately it resulted in an armed conflict just as we see today. There is more to the story than MSM is feeding us.

by cjensen 10y ago

unlinker 10y ago

NATO would never use military force to fix stuff, right?

krzyk 10y ago
To annex part of a country? I don't remember.
- pandaman 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Declaration_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Declaration_of_independ...
  - krzyk 10y ago
    It didn't annex it, they created a country out of it. And it still is a country. Can you say the same about Crimea?
    - pandaman 10y ago
      How could they create a country out of a part of another country without an annexation taking place first? Or, are you going to argue, that Russia did not annex Transistria and South Othetia because a country was created?
- vetinari 10y ago
  Kosovo?
  - avmich 10y ago
    Annexation? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex Simple Definition of annex : to add (an area or region) to a country, state, etc. : to take control of (a territory or place) There is a big difference between separation and annexation. In general, do we have many examples of countries changing borders forcibly after some time mid-last century? I certainly don't remember such a thing from G7. In this light, annexation of Crimea stands out as a regression to older - and less civilized by some standards - ways of doing things.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      Does that change the fact, that NATO did forcibly take a territory from Serbia? That is supposed to be OK? For all intents and purposes, the Kosovo government will do whatever the US government wants. The terminus technicus is puppet government. Even Crimea itself is an example of stolen territory. It was part of Russia, until (Ukrainian) Khrushchev moved it under administration of Ukrainian SSR in 1954. It was excused as being in the same country anyway. When USSR dissolved, the Crimean referendum about returning it back to Russia was ignored by the newly-formed government in Kiev. Bismark knew 150 years ago not to try to cheat the Russians. They will always come and take back, what's theirs.
      - xiaoma 10y ago
        If it worked that way, most of Russia would belong to Mongolia.
        vetinari 10y ago
        If you want to be intellectually honest towards yourself, you must admit that Russia was going to be cheated off Crimea. They didn't accept that. That's all.
        xiaoma 10y ago
        I am being intellectually honest. Going back generations and claiming historical territory doesn't work peacefully in the long run.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

Like stopping Muslims from being murdered in the Balkans?

qrendel 10y ago

I'm not an expert on the history of Russian foreign policy, but there are a lot of credible voices outside of the MSM that tell a different story than the U.S. administration does. For example: 1. http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence- http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-t... 2. http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview-seymour-hersh-dishes-saudi-oil-money-bribes-and-killing-osama-bin-laden http://www.alternet.org/world/exclusive-interview-seymour-he... Those focus largely on other topics, but both touch on how the attitude towards Russia (and others) has been manipulated by U.S. media. Given the U.S. administrations' track records for deceit in manipulating foreign affairs, I'm not inclined to dismiss the alternative narratives easily. Western governments do their fair share of astroturfing and media manipulation as well (can give many sources on that, if necessary).

woodandsteel 10y ago
So Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who plans to conquer Russia and turn them into American colonies? Wow, you could have fooled me. If he is pursuing such wildly aggressive foreign policy, then how come all the hawks in this country continually condemn him for being a wimpy surrender-monkey?
- qrendel 10y ago
  The GOP criticizes Obama like he's the anti-christ for literally everything. They've opposed their own bills that they sponsored just because Obama later made public remarks about them being good bills. If you're referring to stuff like the "red line" fiasco in Syria, Hersh explains that too. See: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    So you do think that Obama is a blood-thirsty imperialist who spent his whole eight years as president planning to invade and conquer Russia? Including explaining to the American public why that would be a good idea?

googletazer 10y ago

Georgia is the only one of these that can cast Putin in a negative light - he let his personal ambition cloud his judgement. Could have stopped at the border of Ossetia, but decided to push on a bit to show Georgians who is the boss. For both Crimea and Transnistria they had their own referendums after the fall of USSR where they wanted to separate from Ukraine and Moldova respectively - neither of which were recognized by the larger countries. Its absurd to expect a region that wants to separate to get approval from everybody else. Ultimately it resulted in an armed conflict just as we see today. There is more to the story than MSM is feeding us.