3 ms·

You should look up what the US did for Russian election. The US was deeply involved. > Russia invaded Ukraine The Crimea was part of Russian empire for 100s o

by nickik 6y ago

You should look up what the US did for Russian election. The US was deeply involved. > Russia invaded Ukraine The Crimea was part of Russian empire for 100s of years and even in the Soviet Union it was part of Russia, not Ukraine. It was a pure political move to increase his own power in the central comity by Khrushchev to move it into Ukraine. This was done without any asking the population. Then it defaulted to Ukraine because of the way the Soviet Union broke up. It should be part of Russia. Now the way it happened is certainty sub-optimal and warrants a political response and negotiation but the US should not exclude recognition of Crimea as a diplomatic option. > Yeah we do cyber attacks and many other fairly inexcusable things. But to claim USA is the aggressor in this cause is highly debatable. I was playing devils advocates. But seriously, if you are Russian its easy to construct a case. And from my Swiss perspective who the good guy is, very much depends on the situation, I don't just default to USA good, Russia bad. Both governments do a whole lot of evil stuff. > And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it. But that's the point. The US did not 'default' to it. The US took major actions that were directly against opposed to multiple signed treaties with Soviet Union and Russia. When Russia tried to argue the point, they were dismissed and ignored. Despite strong objections by Russia and multiple red lines, NATO still went ahead with expansion and would have continued if Russia had not responded. What would the US do if Russia attempted to put a nuclear cover over Cube, Mexico and Hawaii? I think we know.

mint2 6y ago
> > And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it. >But that's the point. The US did not 'default' to it. Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to. People can debate to the end of time what the montagues and capulets did 3 decades or a hundred years ago. I am not interesting in wasting my time like that, especially if the debate is under the premise that if someone held land a hundred years ago then they are welcome to invade and that any response is bad. If that is the case, there’s be massive conflicts all over the world while the borders realigned. And why 100 years? Why not 200? Or 500? But these are rhetorical, I don’t foresee any constructive purpose to continuing this thread.
- nickik 6y ago
  My point it it was part of Russia for 400 years and people there clearly identify more with Russia. Then it was transferred to Ukraine totally undemocratic-ally for 60 years. The plebiscite that was done might not have 100% kosher but most experts agree that the overall result was correct. The question is why 60 years as part of Ukraine makes it right for Ukraine to control it. Israel has controlled the West Bank for the same amount of time and most people don't suggest they have the right to it. Do want the US to forever sanction and fight Russia in order for Ukraine right to require Crimea? To rain economic destruction on Russia for the next 20-100 years in until they finally give Crimea back to the Ukraine? Recognition of Crimea for Russia should be used as a barging chip in future negotiations. > Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to. Being against sanction doesn't mean they are against any response. Just against dumb ones. Again something you don't address is that harsh sanction primary hurt the innocent population. Usually profit criminals in the country. And as any historian political economy will tell you, have been largely ineffective.

by nickik 6y ago

mint2 6y ago

> > And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it. >But that's the point. The US did not 'default' to it. Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to. People can debate to the end of time what the montagues and capulets did 3 decades or a hundred years ago. I am not interesting in wasting my time like that, especially if the debate is under the premise that if someone held land a hundred years ago then they are welcome to invade and that any response is bad. If that is the case, there’s be massive conflicts all over the world while the borders realigned. And why 100 years? Why not 200? Or 500? But these are rhetorical, I don’t foresee any constructive purpose to continuing this thread.

nickik 6y ago
My point it it was part of Russia for 400 years and people there clearly identify more with Russia. Then it was transferred to Ukraine totally undemocratic-ally for 60 years. The plebiscite that was done might not have 100% kosher but most experts agree that the overall result was correct. The question is why 60 years as part of Ukraine makes it right for Ukraine to control it. Israel has controlled the West Bank for the same amount of time and most people don't suggest they have the right to it. Do want the US to forever sanction and fight Russia in order for Ukraine right to require Crimea? To rain economic destruction on Russia for the next 20-100 years in until they finally give Crimea back to the Ukraine? Recognition of Crimea for Russia should be used as a barging chip in future negotiations. > Who said anything about the US defaulting to it? I said the commenters here are defaulting to it by the majority being against sanctions that delineate what they are in response to. Being against sanction doesn't mean they are against any response. Just against dumb ones. Again something you don't address is that harsh sanction primary hurt the innocent population. Usually profit criminals in the country. And as any historian political economy will tell you, have been largely ineffective.