5 ms·

> Well Russia already annexed Crimea .. Yet another show of either (willful) ignorance or (intentional) peddling of (Western) propaganda. People may think what

> 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.
      - thefounder 6y ago
        Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?
colechristensen 6y ago
If one thing is clear, it is that in the events surrounding the crimean annexation, everyone was the asshole.
LunaSea 6y ago
The facts remain: - Ukraine was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military - Georgia was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines.
- disgu 6y ago
  > Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines. That's something all capable militaries do on a regular basis. "Accidentally", of course. The US does this, Russia does it, China does it and so on. While it's of course not nice, it's disingenuous to use it in any kind of argument.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Georgia is much more complicated. Georgia invaded the de facto independent state of South Ossetia. Russia sent troops into South Ossetia to repel the Georgian invasion and then chased Georgian troops into Georgia proper. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast in the Georgian SSR. When the USSR disintegrated, Georgia and South Ossetia fought a war, which ended up with a truce that lasted until the Georgian invasion in 2008.
SilentBan 6y ago
You are fooling noone Russian rat. The biggest mistake the West did was not fully getting being Germany in their Anti-Bolshevik crusade to exterminate your lot.
themihai 6y ago
So Russia annexed Crimea and is supporting a civil war in Eastern Ukraine to save them from the invasion of U.S capital and U.S energy corporations. Good to know that Russia is there to annex countries that are about to fall for this nefarious american trap. Some would say Denmark is already in this unthinkable situation so the poor people of Denmark can only hope that one day, some green patriotic Russians will land on danish soil to save them. >> USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" Let's not talk about questionable "politicians" supported by Putin. They are all either dictators or wanna be soviet/communist, oligarchs or the worst shady thing you could possible imagine. Until Russia realises that nobody wants (except Russia) the Soviet era back these small countries have no choice but support U.S's interests. The way Russia is doing business & diplomacy is just ugly(albeit efficient at times).

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.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?

colechristensen 6y ago

If one thing is clear, it is that in the events surrounding the crimean annexation, everyone was the asshole.

LunaSea 6y ago

The facts remain: - Ukraine was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military - Georgia was an independent country that got invaded by a neighbouring country's military Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines.

disgu 6y ago
> Russia also regularly crosses neighbouring countries' (Sweden, Finland, Alaska, etc.) borders with fighter planes, boats and submarines. That's something all capable militaries do on a regular basis. "Accidentally", of course. The US does this, Russia does it, China does it and so on. While it's of course not nice, it's disingenuous to use it in any kind of argument.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Georgia is much more complicated. Georgia invaded the de facto independent state of South Ossetia. Russia sent troops into South Ossetia to repel the Georgian invasion and then chased Georgian troops into Georgia proper. South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast in the Georgian SSR. When the USSR disintegrated, Georgia and South Ossetia fought a war, which ended up with a truce that lasted until the Georgian invasion in 2008.

SilentBan 6y ago

You are fooling noone Russian rat. The biggest mistake the West did was not fully getting being Germany in their Anti-Bolshevik crusade to exterminate your lot.

themihai 6y ago

So Russia annexed Crimea and is supporting a civil war in Eastern Ukraine to save them from the invasion of U.S capital and U.S energy corporations. Good to know that Russia is there to annex countries that are about to fall for this nefarious american trap. Some would say Denmark is already in this unthinkable situation so the poor people of Denmark can only hope that one day, some green patriotic Russians will land on danish soil to save them. >> USA who pumped copious amounts of money in getting a "favorable" group of very questionable "politicians" Let's not talk about questionable "politicians" supported by Putin. They are all either dictators or wanna be soviet/communist, oligarchs or the worst shady thing you could possible imagine. Until Russia realises that nobody wants (except Russia) the Soviet era back these small countries have no choice but support U.S's interests. The way Russia is doing business & diplomacy is just ugly(albeit efficient at times).