5 ms·

Well Russia already anexed Crimea and is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. You may not find Ukraine enough European for you to count. Next: other Eastern Europea

Well Russia already anexed Crimea and is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. You may not find Ukraine enough European for you to count. Next: other Eastern European countries. Next: the baltic countries.

blackflame7000 6y ago
They’d still have a long ways to go to even get back what they had as the USSR. Russia isn’t the soviet union but in time they could be or they could be a US Ally someday. Imagine a world where the US and Russia were on great terms... China would be very unhappy with that.
elmo2you 6y ago
> Well Russia already annexed Crimea .. Yet another show of either (willful) ignorance or (intentional) peddling of (Western) propaganda. People may think whatever they want about what happened to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but to called that an annexation (or an invasion, as many have) is disingenuous as best. It's no secret (in fact, it's on public record) that it was the USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" in power in Kiev. While presented as "spreading democracy and freedom", in the backdrop Western companies (with strong government ties) were making deals to take control of the natural resources in both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Most importantly, those deals envisioned to take away the control (or even access) Russia (and the local population, for that matter) have/had over these resources. If anyone annexed anything, it was rather the USA than Russia. The key on all that is to observe which side was the one taking all the initiatives, and which side was basically just responding to what the other side did. This fear mongering about Russian expansion simply doesn't match reality. If anyone has been expanding the last decade or so, it is NATO, not Russia. In reality, it probably should not surprise anyone. It's a well proven tactic to simply accuse your victims of being the one showing aggression, while in reality that is just resistance to your own (illegal) aggression. Just ask some of the older Poles. They still remember what Germany did.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side note, the kind of justifications / rationalization you give for the annexation - somebody installed politicians there that were not pleasing Russia enough - are not only factually incorrect, too, they are also irrelevant to the question whether the Crimea was annexed by Russia or not. I don't know where you think the "green men" militia came from, but I know for certain that they were Russian military (and no, not on vacation). And let's not forget that a Buk system was provided directly from Russia that then downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 283 crew and passengers. Dutch authorities and international investigators have uncovered and documented every single minute of this crime, from the arrival of the BUK system to its hasty departure afterwards, and identified the Russian officers involved in it by name and picture. These are the facts.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.
    - nl 6y ago
      The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.
      - buran77 6y ago
        The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.
coldtea 6y ago
No, I find Crimea Russian enough to not count...

blackflame7000 6y ago

They’d still have a long ways to go to even get back what they had as the USSR. Russia isn’t the soviet union but in time they could be or they could be a US Ally someday. Imagine a world where the US and Russia were on great terms... China would be very unhappy with that.

elmo2you 6y ago

> Well Russia already annexed Crimea .. Yet another show of either (willful) ignorance or (intentional) peddling of (Western) propaganda. People may think whatever they want about what happened to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but to called that an annexation (or an invasion, as many have) is disingenuous as best. It's no secret (in fact, it's on public record) that it was the USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" in power in Kiev. While presented as "spreading democracy and freedom", in the backdrop Western companies (with strong government ties) were making deals to take control of the natural resources in both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Most importantly, those deals envisioned to take away the control (or even access) Russia (and the local population, for that matter) have/had over these resources. If anyone annexed anything, it was rather the USA than Russia. The key on all that is to observe which side was the one taking all the initiatives, and which side was basically just responding to what the other side did. This fear mongering about Russian expansion simply doesn't match reality. If anyone has been expanding the last decade or so, it is NATO, not Russia. In reality, it probably should not surprise anyone. It's a well proven tactic to simply accuse your victims of being the one showing aggression, while in reality that is just resistance to your own (illegal) aggression. Just ask some of the older Poles. They still remember what Germany did.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. On a side note, the kind of justifications / rationalization you give for the annexation - somebody installed politicians there that were not pleasing Russia enough - are not only factually incorrect, too, they are also irrelevant to the question whether the Crimea was annexed by Russia or not. I don't know where you think the "green men" militia came from, but I know for certain that they were Russian military (and no, not on vacation). And let's not forget that a Buk system was provided directly from Russia that then downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 283 crew and passengers. Dutch authorities and international investigators have uncovered and documented every single minute of this crime, from the arrival of the BUK system to its hasty departure afterwards, and identified the Russian officers involved in it by name and picture. These are the facts.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.
  - nl 6y ago
    The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.
    - buran77 6y ago
      The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict. Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending. Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.

coldtea 6y ago

No, I find Crimea Russian enough to not count...