Well, not all of it, just the Russian east.
But seriously. I wonder what the western brainwashed zombies think(I'm not entirely serious).

See I thought the new Ukrainian government had already decided to give the crimean's a referendum. Then the Russians^[1] moved in

I don't think the russians are at all interested in the people's freedom or rights. They just want to annex more land.

type568, if you actually mean that, I would kill on the spot. But I'm kind of hoping that you're just kidding and not actually a monster

As a US citizen: I think the USA should fuck off when it comes to other people's business until it can figure out how to manage it's own.

I had a good laugh last night when the new prime minister spoke of the old president: "He should ... come back ... to Ukraine ... we will keep him ... very safe ... in a prison cell."

No, as the world's only western super power I think that the US has a great responsibility. The problem is that the assholes as got too much power in the US, which hurts the whole world. Religion, money, and lack of education, information, and openness is the problem. There's always someone working to hurt everyone else. Even here in Norway, which I think is a society that is more advanced than the US in most ways, all of that is still a fucking problem

The people of Ukraine hate Russia and russians with a passion (well, they have a history). Russians don't like Ukraine or its people but they have to deal with them to sell natural gas to europe because their main gas line goes through Ukraine. With Yanukovich, leaning east and corrupt, gone, Russia expects trouble to their gas exports. With a bit of military beatdown they expect to get more favourable results in trade negotiations. the ukraininan people are fed up with policy dictated from Moscow, and russia doesn't like how difficult selling gas would become with someone like Yanukovich's predecessor Yuchenko at the helm.

But that's only icing on the cake. This all flailing outwards is more to do with russian internal politics than external. After the global embarassing spotlight on corruption that Sochi was, Putin needs a quick win to convince his people that he is still in charge.

It has nothing to do with Kremlin's official mandate, "protecting russian citizens abroad". They weren't at danger to begin with, by acting against Ukraine, Russia brought danger to them.

I don't think this describes situation accurately. Most people of Ukraine DO NOT hate Russia. Even western parts were mostly indifferent, beyond telling of jokes and occasional blamestorm, but eastern parts seem to be pro-Russian even now, when there is a danger of military invasion. Russians, on the other hand, do not dislike Ukraine or its people. I mean, why would we? Ukrainians are fellow Slavs, and while there was some resentment over them providing a source of cheap labour after the fall of USSR, they were driven from that market by Southerners long time ago. There is VERY little dislike for Ukraine in Russia, especially with the rise of anti-Caucasus moods.

Now, here's my take on situation, directly from Moscow, specially for the fellow allegro.cc users .

First, I have no doubt that both western powers and Russian government do not have the best interests of Ukrainian people in mind. For everyone involved at a higher level, this is just a part of the great game, with Ukraine a mildly important token and its people (including its rulers) just pawns.

If viewed from a purely human level, Ukraine is a tragedy, a country pulled apart by meddling of third parties. Unfortunately, I can't see how this could be stopped now.

As a part of the great game of politics, Ukrainian events seem like American operation. Why? Because Russia actually would win nothing from instability in Ukraine. Even mildly anti-Russian government would be preferable to chaos, from economic and politic standpoints. Did you know there is already a stream of refugees from Ukraine into Russia? That stream would turn into freakin' raging river if a war of any kind started. And NOBODY needs refugees.

European countries, of course, would want to put a more pro-Western government in power, but they also have no need of war or chaos. After all, Ukraine is dangerously close to Europe, and refugees from western parts of the country will certainly try to make their way into Poland and Germany. Does Europe need thousands of refugees from Ukraine? Certainly, no. Does it need chaos in country which controls gas pipe? A bigger NO.

USA, however, could gain some points by creating a war zone between Russia and Europe. It would drive these two powers apart even further (that visa agreement that Russia and EU were talking about for past several years? I think it's off the table already, as are many business deals). It would create problems for both Russia and EU (while many view The West as some united entity, one should not forget that there are no permanent alliances in politics, and USA and EU certainly have some competing interests; therefore, creating problems for already-ailing EU might be a worthwhile goal for some US politics. For example, an influx of Ukrainian refugees may lead to closing of borders between European countries).

Anyway, SOMEONE is pushing the new Ukrainian government to be more radical. The current situation would not arise, if only Rada did not cancel a law that awarded Russian language, which is widely spoken in eastern part of the country and Crimea a special status. There was simply no need to cancel that law right now, even for nationalist party that seems to be in power presently. It could very well wait until things quieted down, a rule of central government has been fully restored and agreements with EU forged. But they went and did it anyway. I think it was done on purpose, to provoke fear of repressions in Eastern Ukraine and, indirectly, provoke Russians into acting. When the goal of government of a country in time of crisis is to turn temperature up, it's obvious that such a government is not acting in the best interests of their own country, but rather in someone else's interests.

All of this, however, does not excuse total failure of Russian politics in Ukraine. A bet on Yanukovitch was a disgrace: not only the man hadn't any integrity (after all, USA has no doubts about installing less-than-stellar rulers in other countries, when they need to), but he also was unreliable and when crisis came, he flip-flopped so many times you could use him to generate electricity.

An armed intervention into Crimea would be a PR disaster and would, most certainly, alienate people of Ukraine further. The cost of annexation of Crimea is just too much, for very little benefit beyond securing a base for Black Sea fleet, which could be done far more cheaply. And I'm pretty sure that Putin has no plans for invading and conquering the whole of Ukraine. Even if he succeeded, and western powers would do nothing to stop him (which seems unlikely), it would be impossible to HOLD captured territories. Russian army would be bound in an endless guerilla warfare, long-lasting PR nightmare and what's most important, it would all be for no benefit at all.

The biggest loser of all possible scenarios would be Ukraine and its people, of course. Beyond that, it remains to be seen if Russia could salvage something of this situation, but the USA, or whoever organised this provocation, has already won: Russia responded predictably, tarnishing its already-less-than-nice reputation, alienating some part of Ukrainian population, which didn't give Russia much thought before, and possibly entering a costly land combat operation.

A colleague of mine, who is visiting our office on a trip from Odessa, mostly expresses the view of "plague on both of your houses" regarding Yanukovitch and the new government. It's just some anecdotal evidences, of course, but I think that this sentiment might be more widespread than either Western or Russian TV news might lead you to believe.

Every joke has some portion of joke in it

Invasion!^[1]

Oh, and a bit more serious..

P.S:
I mostly agree with above post.

*cough*

Yes, I know about Nord Stream, of course. Still, I'm not seeing what EU might win by supporting instability in Ukraine or provoking Russia into military actions.

On a side note: a report I've heard recently noted, that China used current situation to buy a lot of cheap property in Ukraine. I'm not sure how relevant is this, but who knows. Did you ever noticed, that it's always Hand of Moscow or CIA agents, when things heat up in Europe or in Arab world? It's like China does not have interests abroad or is unable to conduct complex undercover operations...

From here, the Czech Republic, it seems mostly like Putin has adopted 1938 German rhetoric on the subject of Sudetenland and Sudetengermans. We've discussed it with a friend whose wife comes from Ukraine and everything the Russian side says and does about Crimea bears uncanny resemblance to Munich 1938.

From what I've heard the Russian television does really a good job at skewing reality in their own way by broadcasting old recordings from Kyjev protests and saying it's what happens there right now and showing photos from Ukraine-Poland border with refugees stating it's the Ukraine-Russian border.

I don't want to speculate who's behind this and who will profit with this. Nobody would profit from a war, certainly not the people of Ukraine. It was their fight against corrupted regime and it should be those people to decide.

@molang

Not all of the gas can be rerouted through Nord Stream.

@OICW

Thanks. Not that I agree, but well.. Not as brainwashed as I could've expected
Oh, and.. What you're totally right about(I guess) is Russian media. It's the western *(-1).
At times more radical, at times less.

Reading both sides gives some clue though. Oh, and there is also the "less biased" stuff from both sides. Like Reuters from the western, and RBK("Russian Business Channel") from the eastern.

& P.S:
God damn it. My stocks. Both Russian & American

I've now switched from local media to Guardian and BBC because I smell bias in our media for quite a long time. Yet, you have to be critical on both sides. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. The severely biased sources will actually just not tell you about things that aren't in its favour. So not only do you have them reporting on things in such a manner that they might as well be lying, they also try to keep you ignorant. It's insidious. And if they ever do report on it, they treat it as if its nothing and something to laugh at

Well.. Now there were reports about some Russian ultimatum, about which the Ukranian army officials heard from the news. Which has pushed the S&P to fresh lows, and then skyrocketted from the bottom as Russia officially dismissed the claims. (the news source is my twitter, but stock movement is my observation)

The Guardian is pretty good stuff I suppose. BBC = -RT(I think RT is a bit more objective, but I'm biased here).
As I mentioned above, least biased stuff out there is Reuters. But it's still closer to BBC than RT of course. Unfortunately I know no eastern news source that is comparable in content quality to Reuters.

Every single state media news source is severely biased. First paragraph of this post is an example.

I don't know if I'd call FOX News or MSNBC "State media sources" though

Russian beat the Free World in the Olympics. Now they will crush us in war too.

I'm all for NATO and/or USA intervention to stop this megalomaniac.

I like how the UN held a meeting and passed a resolution to exclude the Security Council to keep Russia out of the discussion.

I rarely encounter first, and I'm totally unaware of what the heck is the second. I've literally no opinion about them.

Fuel the rockits

MSNBC is the Fox for the left wing nutjobs in the US. Yet another 24 hour news channel that fills 23 hours of the day with tabloid news, and entertainment shows.

Yep, sure. I've made that shortcut. You're unfortunatelly right, we will never know the whole story behind it. It's full of secret intentions of various subjects and we can barely scratch the surface of it. Provided we can discern subterfuge and blatant lies told in the media.

What worries me most about the situation is the role of the so called new media. People can post there anything that can do much harm because the news there aren't double checked. And even if people find out that something posted on Twitter, for example, is an obvious hoax it may be too late or nobody would care.

Despite me having no clue about what the website is, the content looks totally legit to me.

Can someone who understands give an elaboration of the newest developments?

@Katko

After the revolution in Kiev(Ukrainian capital), the 80%+ Russian Crimea declares itself independent from Kiev & is to hold referendum about its independence on 30th March(or so its officials said).
Russian troops go out of existing base + cross the border with Russia, beggin' Ukrainian troops to give up arms(by begging I mean no ultimatums or violence), diggin' defense line "from Kiev side"(it's a peninsula so no hard). West goes nuts(officially), China supports(officially).

I tried to make it as neutral as possible, with only facts.

I think your facts might be a little biased :-x

OK. Could you please point out which ones exactly?

It's more your wording, and choice of things to mention, and leave out.

Kiev actually agreed to the referendum, so there is absolutely no need for Russia to move thousands of troops into a sovereign nation.

And I'm not sure rolling armed troops and tanks into a city, and holding a government building is not hostile.

To be honest, I don't see the point of Russia's actions at all. There is no reason what so ever for it. Pretty sure Ukraine can fend for itself.

I purposefully did not offer judgement, and did not say what for did the troops move in. I triple checked that, as there maybe a lot of reasons. So did I make any arguable statement in my previous post?

However:

Leaving things out, and wording make a big difference you know

Hmmm. Sorry, when I was reading the article on the referendum, I was mixing up the governments. That sucks. The region really should be able to vote
on its own future. Especially given the reaction they had towards an invading force... Clearly they don't want to be part of Ukraine. Forcing the issue is just going to lead to more tension.

append:

By begging, I think you actually meant threatening.

Well. I wrote only the most significant stuff. To expand it I should also add the doubts in legitimacy of the Crimean prime minister(although a vote for referendum of 81/84 makes it sound legit anyways).

Yet on the other side, I should also add

For a Russian speaking region. Really.

And there are many other things that matter.

Well. I didn't like the word because it works if you come armed to unarmed people. Or if you bring tanks or something..
Perhaps those few who did give up weapons were actually threatened. But if you're in a position you can be threatened you DO give up the weapons. Or at least you say what happens what if weapons not given up, and all media highlighted there were no ultimatums or whatsoever.

Append:

They didn't want it since start. The article I gave link to is a good history lesson about the topic. The point is that they never hated it enough to make their own revolution. Not to mention it isn't certain they can.
Well, now they can.

In the news: several more cities are reported to be willing to join Crimea if it referendum succeeds. I'm a bit confused by this news item, because it's not clear whether it's only cities themselves, or with their respective territories. Also, I'm not sure how could they "join" autonomous republic of Crimea at all...

Odessa is a vital sea port for Ukrainian economy. I heard that nobody dared to touch it during recent disturbances for the fear that import would be totally halted.

Also: according to BBC, the West can do relatively little to pressure Russia. The biggest threat is to freeze foreign assets and accounts of Putin's circle and to refuse visas to them, but I'm not sure this will be quite effective. Such actions could even be used by Putin to root out those susceptible to Western influence from government apparatus. This is where he differs from Yanukovitch: his exit strategy does not involve plundering country's treasury and running.

I see it as an ultimatum. "Cooperate or we kill you". that's a pretty serious ultimatum.

No one is ready to kill anyone, that's the sweet part. Actually there were reports of some shooting by an Ukrainian soldier, who got injured by a flashbang afterwards. I don't think anyone has said they're going to kill anyone, not like we can know. But in such scenarios things don't escalate without anyone being shot.

You don't have to say it out loud. Say you walk into up to someone and point a gun at them. What does that say?

Actions are louder than words as they say. so what if they haven't shot anyone yet. They've already instigated things. If anything happens, its because Russia is there meddling.

They agreed not to point guns at each other(not sure what is the source, but some news service with articles in English, I think it was the Guardian). Perhaps before they did, point at each other. I wonder if they were smiling then.

Party's over.

Yeah, I don't really see the difference either way.

If I walked down the street here with a semi-auto, even if I wasn't pointing it anywhere or at anyone, I would be shot if I didn't listen to the police.

But if you see an armed SWAT squad you aren't expecting any of them to be chased off.

Sure, the armed SWAT are trained and employed by my government. And would likely be the ones that end up shooting me.

Wargames. Haha.

I wonder if anyone ever told putin that the only way to win is to not play the game?

And The Onion delivers as usual!

{"name":"Vhgb4ay.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/8\/f85b8ad0707a25f6c37c943aacd8ed1c.jpg","w":559,"h":746,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/8\/f85b8ad0707a25f6c37c943aacd8ed1c"}

*cough*

{"name":"1891147_10203506009875229_1950832331_n.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/6\/16cc52c70ae693085a948084a08d4aa2.jpg","w":751,"h":960,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/6\/16cc52c70ae693085a948084a08d4aa2"}

I'm unfortuantely disconnected from the close east politics....

@type: is this Ukraine crisis some sort of Georgia Reloaded? (albeit with significative differences?)

As of Georgia, make sure you're appropriately informed. Today it is a concensus Georgia has "started shooting first", it is important.

In Ukraine, a 60%+ Russian Crimea, found itself a part of country that has canceled the official status of Russian language, and denied the Crimean authorities the right to have a referendum on it's legal status(either to stay with Ukraine, or Russia). (Crimea wants to vote to go, the capital says "no".)

Russia has intervened to secure the referrendum. I won't be surprised if to rig it too, but I can't imagine it not gaining majorty of votes in either case.

Well, the west condemns Russia's actions of course. When wasn't it the case?

Who knows. All I know is that Russia overstepped its authority. The US and EU should have not been meddling, and the new Ukrainian government shouldn't have revoked Crimean's right for referendum. It's a big old clusterfsck.

It's like everyone involved is working together to make things worse! News sound crazier every day.

Who says yes? Crimean officials who stepped into power backed up by unmarked Russian troops. Sounds a bit shady, don't you think? There's lot of people that don't want to join Russia. And I bet there's lots of them who are accounted for in the 60% Russian majority. Only the most vocal people are now heard, there are news of pro-Russian protestors being forced to attend the protests by their bosses.

The referendum should have been held by the end of the March, no suddenly it will be held next week. The vote was passed under the pressure created by the presence of heavily armed Russian soldiers. What does that tell you?

{"name":"608356","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/6\/565e7c91e0db986fdb7ee4934db990c1.jpg","w":332,"h":214,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/6\/565e7c91e0db986fdb7ee4934db990c1"}

More or less what I was talking about: at the time the general Western approach was that Russia was "invading" but things ended up being the reverse (sort of).

I suspect that in this case crappy Ukraine politcs are the main "offensive" and the cathalist for the Russian intervention, that is the difference I was speaking about

Rather yes than no.

With the current UA government in power, I literally can't imagine Crimea NOT willing to be annexed. You speak Russian(in many cases only, and so did your dad living in the same place, and his dad). Then your language is revoked the status of official. You're offered to join a country with a lot higher level of life that is ready to subsidize you. Will you say no?
If you're not Russian, are you sure you support Ultra Right party at power?
Yes it has siezed power as it was actually most radical, and seized power by force(including force with firearms).
If the party is a transitional government, it doesn't rush disgusting laws in parliament, it keeps the country in order until the next elections.

Legitimacy of the authorities willing to have referendum is questionable. Relevance of the referendum is not. The west pushes for cancelation of the referendum and not a fair referendum enforced by U.N. though(I guess that is because they're sure Crimea will vote for Ukraine, right?).

So be it what it is. There will be western polls anyways, and everyone knows the answer will be Russia. That is why the referendum idea condemned as whole, not the potential lack of fairness.

The Russian approach is rather rude, but it IS for the good of Crimea. It's condemned because if everyone achieves their goals this way things go really bad in our world. But the point is that everyone who can do it without concequences does it anyways(cough N cough AT cough O).

I pity the other Russian regions though(well all of Ukraine, but for clear reasons I'm more conerned with the Russian speakers).

I really don't get why they would revoke the russian language as official. A lot of people there speak the language, even if they aren't living in Crimea.

I understand being a little upset with the previous "russian friendly" regime, but talk about a kneejerk reaction.

type568: do you know/think if the majority of ukrainians would actually support the stuff the "transitional government" is doing in a permanent basis?

I can't be absolutely certain, but I'm almost sure that not. The radical nationalist far right, purposefully making life difficult for an ethnic minority(which is majority in many regions, just so it has happened not in the capital city)..

Which actually why the eastern side not-acceptance of the regime has a basis. And why I view the current western actions as a double standard. Europe accepts violent regime overthrow by an extremist party as a legitimate new government? Seriously?

And out of context:
{"name":"bH5-Dlwo9Ow.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/5\/55c74c3ba8734ed9e004df1c09097ac2.jpg","w":427,"h":604,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/5\/55c74c3ba8734ed9e004df1c09097ac2"}

I think we're all forgetting... what would Jesus do?

Suicide?

I think everyone's forgetting the key factor here; our planet is run by a bunch of put-to-power by any means necessary no balls no real charisma no real wit no real intelligence morons who are powered and sustained by more, no balls no real charisma no real wit no real intelligence morons, who are publicised by even more morons with none of the above, who's reports are spouted, made to memes and believed by even more morons with none of the afore referenced above...

....basically, the situation in Ukraine....like the situation was in *pick a country*....like the situation on this planet....like the situation since man picked up a stick....like the situation in my head....is all just f*****g arbitrarily desperately winging it, putting those that will and 'might' get away with it in the spotlight, and praying it all goes well and there's something to gain out of it all.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Damn, this guy's weed.. Heh.

I'm now reading that Ukrainian government actually did not repeal that law about Russian language. Their parliament did, but repeal was not approved by executive branch (whoever it is presently).

Then again, it all hardly matters, since all sides will continue their propaganda no matter what facts say. My boss is in Kiev presently at our local office. He will be coming back during the next week. I hope to hear something about real situation there from him. Last time, he said that Ukraine was a nice place to do business currently, because the government can't collect taxes and fire-safety inspection isn't working, so you don't have to pay them off (fire safety and health safety inspectors are a bane on all small and middle-sized business in former USSR countries, because they ALWAYS can find something your company violates: rules and laws are made to be impossible to comply with on purpose).

On Crimea: it seems to me, that Russian actions in Crimea bear signs of a planned operation. I guess its elements were put in place for an occasion when Ukraine would be weakened by something, and now Putin commanded their activation to try to gain something from current disaster.

Whoa, wait a minute man. I'm not well informed about the political parties of Ukraine, but I hardly believe that the new prime minister Yatsenyuk is some ultra right nationalist whatsoever. Sure, during the protests, some ultra-right radicals were there as well, but the protests began with students. Then when the students were beaten up, common folk came. It has happened before in my country in 1989. We have overthrown the socialist regime back then, does that make us ultra-right?

Anyway, what I see now are the Crimean so called self defence units beating up journalists. I see the point of that, people behind this don't want journalits sniffing around and threatening their FUD propaganda. Do you think that a referendum backed up by armed bullies and unmarked soldiers of a foreign state means freedom of choice?

See, the biggest problem is the propaganda, sure on both sides but from what I can tell it's total bullshit that goes on on most Russian channels and the lack of information and abundance of disinformation. I highly recommend reading up the column by professor Zubov and this article by Timothy Snyder for reference.

Were you performing armed patrols a month after your revolution?^[1]
So riot police that stood under molotov coctail fire with no shot fired for weeks, is dissolved and replaced with armed thugs. That's, urm.. Very innovative. And not radical at all.

Although apparently I was misinformed somehow(I mean it this time). There is a problem with these guys(Praviy Sector & Svoboda), but they don't run the house. Guess I did fall victim of the propaganda.

Now Oligarchs^[2] got some of the regional power. Of course pro-western news source describes how good it is, but I see it as payment for their investment in the revolution. Actually there was some more detailed article about who got what. It's not just three guys. Nothing "just happens". The protests were well organized, and funded. Either by the west, or the Oligarchs. So essentially, one group of thugs has replaced another one. Probably with the U.S. help, as I touched the topic in another thread here on A.cc.

Overthrown, by any means necessary.^[3]

I don't have a TV, and due to the fact there are two biased positions, and no shit is neutral I try to base my opinion on sole facts, or at least opinions offered by the west. (if you glue a solid model using data of "opposing camp", you're probably close to being correct, assuming your logic is appropriate)
Of course you can call it a "wise move" to put Oligarchs to power, but why does it happen so suddenly? No elections, no shit. And it happens right after a very expensive power overthrow happens. Sounds like a "thanks", to call it softly.

I've encountered the first link you have given, and I read it before. I strongly disagree, and I find the comparison disgusting. It would be appropriate if Putin was actually to annex Ukraine, not just the Russian land with Russian people, who want to be annexed. It's extreme nonsense Crimea and some other regions were given to Ukraine after dissolution of the Union(Russian majority, given to Ukraine? :/).

And I'll go further. Hitler's annexation of Austria is of course not appropriate. However, it partially is: the part that was annexed to Austria after world war I. It was totally wrong to take German land with German people away from Germany even though Germany has started the World War I, and it was totally right to take it back. It wasn't right to take any more than this though. Ironically nobody makes a comparison with post WWI annexation of the German land by Austria. Well, winners aren't judged.

Oh,and..

I think you're more than 101% right. However, I really can't imagine a news channel that is any different. CNN? No better. Wicked propoganda, just closer to your mentality so you can accept it with less salt(but I bet your still take it with kilograms of it per liter of their news talks). Russia #1, #2.. CNN, BBC.. It's no news sources. You can only use'em for facts usable against their stated opinion. But majority of such facts never get released by them of course. Oh, also they can maybe be used to balanced one against the other. Grab a topic, mix CNN with RT, or CNN with Al Jazzira, or some Chinese news stuff, depending on the topic. If it touches Russia Russia Today suits the most. This way you may get an opinion close to the real stuff.

We have touched huge topics. I'm done for now. But I've said half of what I got to say, at max.

Append:
A lot of small edits to make it more readable. Also removed one of the links.

Append1:
{"name":"608358","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/4\/54fcefbffdd887aa7a5e8ac6270e6d5c.jpg","w":604,"h":377,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/4\/54fcefbffdd887aa7a5e8ac6270e6d5c"}
Translation:
-"Ukraine, why are you so sad?"
-"A peninsula has dumped me. And you know who did he go to? To his ex!"

{"name":"608364","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2bbe5f06c1ddd84fe177ef03ca2b4644.jpg","w":598,"h":385,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2bbe5f06c1ddd84fe177ef03ca2b4644"}

type568: yes, I think that we can both agree to the fact that the situation in Ukraine is far from ideal and that there's lot more going under the hood. I bet that many of those things (armed thugs instead of Berkut units, oligarchs, etc.) wouldn't be that much of a problem if it wasn't for Russians stirring up the chaos on Crimea.

Anyway, unmarked Russian soldiers on an unsolicited visit of another sovereign country, we've been there already. And don't tell me it's self-defence in that case why isn't anybody missing at least a battalion worth of military vehicles? Making a referendum in this situation is crying out loud: "forced takeover". Not to mention that in order for it to be constitutional it would have to be an all-Ukrainian referendum.

And yes, I'm well aware of the fact, that even western sources are biased that's why I'm not relying on a single source. At least they're not reporting about a fascist takeover etc.

How so? I never got any news about any blood in Crimea actually. Probably pretty much because of the forces stationed there.

This is nonsense. The people that live there should decide this themselves, the two million that live in Crimea, not the 42 that live in the rest of Ukraine. They were never given the choice actually.

Yes, & no. From one side, would not Russian forces be deployed there there would be no referendum. Ukrainian army would've entered and secured the area. And I've no doubt the majority DOES support the change of authority.

The story is of course.. "illegal"
However, either it is right or not we maybe able to learn after independent polls(preferably by some appropriate western media) to see the actual vote distribution.

That's pure speculation. Ukrainian army may not be used in internal conflicts according to the constitution, has never been used so, and army leaders have always stated that they will never interfere into internal affairs, even the bloody Yanukovich was not able to make the army follow his orders.

Referendum? OK, even Kiev authorities say that they do not exclude a possibility of a referendum and open to negotiations. However, Russian forces are shooting into negotiating parties sent to Crimea, do not want any negotiations, etc. They even turned off all Ukrainian channels. Is this how you see an orniary referendum? Looks more like an Anschluss to me.

If they want a refenredum, they need to create conditions where both views can be campaigned for and expressed. And they must give enough time to conduct the referendum. Like that was in Scotland. Referendum about Scotlands independence was announced a year before it would be conducted (it will be conducted in September 2014, I think), and all this time both sides explicitly promote their views and given equal possibilities.

Crimean euromaidan leaders have been kidnapped and are probably tortured now. Ukrainian channels were disconnected. Even cable providers were forced to disconnect Ukrainian channels, too.

Not to say that Crimea is completely occupied by Russia now.

Is this what you think democracy is? Oh well.

This is just an open annexation of Ukraine, it has nothing to do with democracy, will of the people etc.

Neither side wants to make it the right way, besides Russia doesn't have the means to do it the right way from beginning til then end, cos' it really doesn't have a legal basis for interference(although well, it doesn't recognize the new government, so perhaps it has some basis).

It isn't annexion of Ukraine, at most- part of Ukraine.

Crimean Euromaidan leaders were kidnapped? Uh? I even bother to google it now(Perhaps I missed something as big as this?). Well, I can't see. Oh, and I want a normal source, if you want to bother to prove anything. CNN/BBC doesn't count. Reuters, Guardian something like that. AP perhaps.

The fact it's not done the "democratically open way" doesn't make the locals want it any less. What happens in Britain is a legitimate question, with no ready answer. What's going on(or ever went) in Crimea has no question. They didn't want to join UA when they were annexed to it, they'd love to have a referendum before. Clearly they were not given for clear reasons(Center of pwoer(Kiev) doesn't want to lose any power). And nobody cares about the people(not then, & not now). Nevertheless, anyone who has any understanding of the background(historical, social, and current economic) can't argue what would majority of Crimeans prefer.

Furthermore, the wester talks aren't about a legitimate referendum. The alternative position to Russian is a "no referendum". From this point of view making it any more open or whatsoever would only complicate things because the west, or Kiev ain't going to recognize it under any cicrumstance(nor like anyone really cares). The western chit-chat is about UKranian constitution, not the people who's will was never represented in the sheet of paper.

Of course Russia wouldn't interfere if it had no interest in the story, but from moral side the actions are totally just. The people of Crimea benefit, and nobody else has the right to tell them whom they join.

Should Kiev or the west not question the legetimacy of the referendum, but would enforce it's fairness they would get the fairness. Only that this fairness would not give the west what it wants. The west won't get it anyways, but at least Russia is bad this way. Can talk sanctions, never apply any.

The the people choose to separate from the Ukraine in a fair referendum, than why not. The people who vote to separate from Ukraine and even join with Russia know what they are getting, if that is what they want, than why not? After all, the current government leader of the Ukraine wasn't elected at all in democratic elections, the elected leader was ousted merely because he sided with Russia... it definitely feels like a lot of foreign interference here, and I am not talking about Russia! I support Russia's move to protect their people. Plus it is in their interests as they do have an important naval base there and we all know what would happen if the tables were turned and it was the USA that wanted to protect their interests and protect their military base, don't we? How ironic that the USA tells Russia not to invade another country. Am I the only one that sees the irony here? At least in the Ukraine there are actual Russian people that WANT them there... which is more than we can say for the USA and places like Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Well, not all of the Ukranians nor even of Crimeans WANT Russian forces there, but there certainly are those who do. (and not few paid elites, but masses. bigger or smaller)

However.. This website, which is no news source at all for me has an intersting opinion about the Russians there. They're employees of private "millitary" firms, which may or may not be so. And they maybe hired by anyone, some could be of Ukranian origin or whatsoever. (those could've hired'em: Russian businessmen/oligarchs, Russian govt, Ukranian Oligarchs)

Anyone. Or of course they maybe Russian soldiers.

One could say the same thing about the protestors that wanted to side with the EU, perhaps they were placed there by the EU and the United States, military persons masquerading as protestors, the next thing you know, the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine is ousted and what a surprise, the new leader is against Russia... these conspiracies can go both ways you know. Or you can just look at the facts and leave them out of it.

Facts? The fact is that Russia is using its vast power to bully a smaller country. They have no business in Crimea. A referendum could have been held either way. The military base was never in danger.

Regarding the irony you talk about: two wrongs don't make a right.

Well. You both are right I guess, only thing I disagree with is Vanetto's claim that referendum could be held either way. Not it couldn't, and it wouldn't. Kiev & the west said so. Russia said otherwise, but also supported its statement.

It could if the new ukraine govt wasn't being stupid about it.

Well, not the new & not the old didn't want to have it which is perfectly logical, generally speaking. And about the new govt stupidity. Well, and probably if not the western supprot for the new govt position regarding the referendum. The chit-chat about constitution is really such a nonsense about this case. It's not what Ukraine has to decide, just the Crimea's enough.

Except that they are part of the ukraine whether they like it or not. Legally, now that the referendum laws were revoked, anything they do won't be acknowledged by the ukraine, and could be seen as an illegal action. It'd be like California deciding to succeed. It probably wouldn't be legal, and the federal government could intervene however it sees fit.

& the fed govt would be right, until so it'd happen the people would be against the interference. The fed would still intervene, but if it'd be against the locals it'd be against the moral. About which nobody cares.

Now when the Crimean's don't like(& never did like) being part of Ukraine, now they can stop being part of it. Whether the west OR Ukraine like it or not.

They would have to revolt, much like any american state would. There is no legal right to succession. So they would likely end up in a bloody conflict which I don't really think either side wants.

The point is that Russian people won't, until VERY upset, or well manipulated. Russia would be blamed as one arranging the revolt anyways. Furthermore, we actually can't be literally sure it's really Russian Soldiers there in Crimea.

Mercenaries make some sense, although I'd bet the Govt is behind it anyways.

Oh, and Russian claim about readiness for a millitary intervension in to Ukraine is actually a declaration Russia won't be sitting back and looking at a bloodshed should it arise. Oh well, condemned anyways. Just in case.

I thought Russia admitted to it? It doesn't really matter if they are hired guns from Blackwater or actual Russian Army, so long as it was Russia that sent em, its the same thing.

Everyone is entirely sure that these are Russian soldiers. They openly admitted that they are Russians numerous times. They drive cars with Russian military number plates, they have armored vehicles and vehicles with Russian "guards" sign. That's hilarious to think that if Putin and Russian officials say they are "spotaneous self-defence units", we are not yet sure that they are Russian soldiers. Trust me, there's plenty of evidence, both photo and video.

{"name":"608373","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80469ee24b4862d5bbea6c5c63dbeb1e.jpg","w":590,"h":379,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80469ee24b4862d5bbea6c5c63dbeb1e"}

"Awaiting Sanctions"

Yep, they were gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev, whether they did or didn't want back then is now beside the point. During the dissolution of USSR Ukraine was granted territorial integrity in its then/current borders provided they give up their nuclear arsenal and return it to Russia. Now, Crimean people had more than 20 years to bring up the question of secession.

The real question is why all of a sudden the question about secession is brought up to the table. Coincidentally at a time of political turmoil in Ukraine backed up by Russian soldiers. The referendum could have been held but presently it is a mockery. First, it is moved to a much closer date (presumably not to allow time for people to orient themselves and think about it and to exploit the current situation), second, apparently there's no way of voting no, third, there's just Russian source of information in Crimea.

Not just you, probably lot of people do. In that case Russia would be off their seats crying out loud. The only slight difference is that in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia the goal was not to annex the countries/their territories. And as far as Afghanistan is concerned Russia and USA don't need to blame each other. Both countries were involved at different times.

It doesn't work the way you say about having a referendum in Ukraine. The country is too young, and is ex-communist. The power spine isn't that well established with people for them to be really represented in the national parliament. They just would not get out without external help.

And it isn't coincidence. Not everyone likes the new power, especially when it passess a law to cancel the official status of Russian language, and propose various other repressions. Yes, there's just Russia there and everything is decided. However, western approach was no more democratic. Neither actually wanted or proposed an open-fair-whatever referendum. It was just a "no" by the west, and a "yes" by Russia.

You say the goal wasn't to annex territories of the conquered countries? It was to occupy their bussiness in general, and oil bussiness especially. Oh, and the bloodshed years after the interventions.. Who cares? It's democratic bloodshed now!
There's barely a day when there are no breaking news from Iraq or Lybia about explosions or other kinds of "terrorist attacks". But well, it's democratic now. Russia's Lukoil no longer has a contract in Libya(fact), though I bet Exxon or Total have gotten it. I didn't check, it's clearly some big western giant with the stuff now. Well, they lobby the shit. And "bloody dictator" Gadaffi is an excuse.

Well, prove me wrong. In reality, neither of us is exactly right.

Why no interference here? Nobody cares.. Bad investment grounds. Almsot no oil. No port nearby to export it..

Honestly, when it comes right down to it, it's none of my business. I don't need my country getting involved in yet another country's disputes. So long as our country is not threatened, let them sort it out themselves.

That's what people said in the US while Hitler was conquering Europe.

Yes, and then they dropped two nuclear bombs... I'm sure it was all worth it.

Well, it's hard to blame you for killing somebody who tried to kill you in the first place. Even if he meant to kill you with a knife and you used a gun instead.
I'm sure if the leadership of the Japanese Empire had been more in touch with reality they would've surrendered much earlier and this wouldn't have happened.

Yes, lets all be in favour of over reactions.

It was a different time. Besides, when you have a choice between your citizens dying fighting a war the enemy started and ending it really, really soon. What would you pick? Everybody is a general when the war is over.

I was wondering today: these situations evolve around us. We can never know what will lead to what. Maybe we are on a verge of the next big thing. Hopefully not, though it is (kinda) exciting.

It's a shame that Putin has made Russia look in an anthropomorphic sense, a complete and utter "knob-end", but probably no worse than Bush did to the USA, with Iraq. And each will probably come to rue their decisions, just as the USA did in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan.
When people stop imposing their ideas of reality onto others through the use of arms/force then I really think that we as the human race will make great strides to stopping the hurt we perpetuate upon one another.

I'm sure if U.S. politicians wouldn't be all after their victory, and waited just two three more days for Japan to realize it has lost a million army, territory of the size of Western Europe, and got another neibhour raging & capable it would've surrendered without the bombs. Well it is arugable, but not even waiting.. Oh. Heh. It's not like shooting a knife armed thief, it's more like shooting him when ur buddy holds him to the ground.

Meh. Western propoganda. It's yet to be clarified, and to be polled. But I literally am out of doubts they'd vote for it. And well, Russia says 95.5% did. 80% voted.

Surrendered... Right.

Well, points of view change.

That's clearly one of the things make points of view change. I'm not saying the bomb wouldn't be needed(though again, two of'em?)

But waiting a bit, having more than 2 days delays between the bombs.. There was no plan to save lives. Hard actually to blame the politicians for lack of willing to kill less Japanese, I'm sure in these days some 85%+ of Americans(more than this, Russians too, and most of allies as well) would've supported it. And politicians don't want to suicide, they want popularity. Democarcy.

Append:
Back to OP:
{"name":"608376","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/f\/ef97bfcf41a596f2fede99a57665a8df.jpg","w":624,"h":351,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/f\/ef97bfcf41a596f2fede99a57665a8df"}
Democracy.

{"name":"608377","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/360d307526d5b77f976765963f27a824.jpg","w":690,"h":388,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/360d307526d5b77f976765963f27a824"}
Occupation.

It's just about the flag you know.. The first ones decide the constitution, and the second ones must obey it.

The atomic bomb showed them they can be destroyed without them inflicting extra casualties to the U.S. If they could prolong the war (even if it meant their destruction) and cause the U.S. more suffering and destruction, I'm sure they would.

Lets try another scenario: the U.S. doesn't drop the bombs. The Japanese continue to fight to defend their homeland with even greater zeal than before. Each island taken is paid with the blood of American soldiers.

When it comes down to it it's either them or you. It's easy to be humane today when they're not crashing planes into your ships...

Let's get in to mind of those made the decisions. USSR conquers 1000000 army on huge territory almost without casulties. They can occupy Japan, and it'll become communist. Rather bomb them.

Also the point of people actually supporting the bombinbg. And what I called for here, wasn't not bombing. It was just delaying the bombings, and spanning the two over longer time than what it was.

I'm not saying that the bomb was absolutely necessary. I'm just saying: come on this was a war and they knew they were losing it already and they actually expected and knew a lot of civilian casualties are to come in the future. If they wanted to avoid unnecessary casualties they should've surrendered much earlier.
Emperor Hirohito, I remember, was saying something like he was ready to fight until the last japanese dies.
Moreover, these cities were actually major industrial objects, they produced a lot of weapons, planes etc. every day. So they were legitimate military targets and not just means to just kill a lot of japanese.
And there are no rules at war.
Really, I find this amusing that such views are actually widespread not only among Russians, as I previously thought.

BTW, I'm sure if Germans occupied now Kaliningrad Region, and then held a referendum offering salaries and pensions increase, keeping Russian language as official language, etc, while stopping access for all Russian journalists into the Region, saying that stalinists came to power in Russia and already killed more than 90% of Russian population, turned off all RUssian channels, they would probably get even 100% on a referendum to join Germany.

There isn't any international law which lets one country (partly) occupy another and then annex this part just because people there supported it on a referedum held by occupation authorities. Even if they really say and think they support it.

By the way, do you actually know what happens in Russia to those who tries to hold a referendum like this inside Russia? According to a new law, which was adopted in 2013, unclearly defined "separatism propaganda" not even a referendum, already punished by up to 3 years in jail.

How many referendums has Russia actully held? Has it a moral right to say that people have a right to self-determination? I'll tell you how many: 0. Last people who wanted to separate from Russia, Chechens, got two bloody wars from Russia instead of a referendum.

So, Crimea can actually join Russia. But can it separate from Russia after that? Definitely no. Not without a bloody war at least.

These words of Russian authorities are meaningless, they are just meant to cover their imperial ambitions, and that's it. Will of the people has nothing to do with this.

Especially since almost all of the people against the annexation didn't vote.

"Let's get in to mind of those made the decisions. USSR conquers 1000000 army on huge territory almost without casulties. They can occupy Japan, and it'll become communist. Rather bomb them."

On the other hand Russia/USSR is the only country (thus far) to commit a WORSE HOLOCAUST than Hitler. So everything would be fine if we had let the red empire across Asia?

Your thought experiment is interesting. I agree.
One has to admit a certain enthusiasm on the pictures from Crimea, but again, that was to be expected, with a predominantly Russian population. The question really is why Russia did not let everything sort out itself, but intervened militarily? Put differently, if the people of Crimea really would have liked to join Russia, why did they not organise themselves and have their own referendum, instead of one organised by Russia?

They really couldn't give a rats ass about the people. Russia has already actually invaded Ukraine outside of Crimea. They took over a gas valve station 10km over the Crimea-Ukraine border. This was never, and has never been about the people.

Land and Resources grab. When is it anything else but that?

Don't be too quick to change your mind, check my name in addition to location
<Edit>Oh, actually it no longer says the name. Well, it is Russian </>

& you think Germans would support the initiative?
Or would the Russians disarm the missiles themselves?
Oh, and should Russia repeat a collapse of USSR(aka split to even smaller fragments) Kaliningrad could very well end up becoming German.

They really want to get in, why would they want to part?
You say really not? How did Ukraine spin off in the first place?

Of course they are. Everyone just plays his cards. There's no right or wrong, big forces just play their games. But from some forces, the "simple people" can actually benefit, get what they want. As it is in case of Crimea.

I'm clueless of the scale of rigging, or if it took place at all. But over 95% said yes, and over 80% attended.

Well, because it could intervene & do it fast & clean. Nobody cares about the west anyways, the sanctions can be damn good to combat corruption and capital flight of stolen capital. EU ain't gonna stop buying gas, duh.

However.. Now Donetsk authorities raised appeal for a referendum, after a precedent has been set. Let's see how democratically will Kiev react to this. Somehow I doubt it will. However, it has no ability to affect Crimea, so Crimea got what its people want.

What does all of it actually has to do with what I said? The purpose of my example was not to compare military capabilities of Russia and Germany, but to show that any public opinion can be easily formed if there is occupation, no freedom of speech, and particularly if large portion of population already already supported you.

But the most important and supreme principle of international law is that the borders may not change, at least without open agreement between two accepted governments, or the government and separatists. The principle is, countries accept each other in their current borders and agree not to support any change of such borders, at least not agreed with the central authorities.

That's really interesting. I'm talking about today's Russia and not about Russi of almost 25 years ago. They NOW talk that people have a right to self-determination, but jail people for separatist propaganda inside their own country. How about that?
But if you want to remember the past, then yes, there were several years when Russia really was more liberal than today and even accepted dissolution of the USSR without any blood spilled.
However, do remember that there were two bloody civil wars on Ukrainian soil before that: after the First World War and during the Second World War, millions of Ukrainians died in the XX century for their independence.

{"name":"608378","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10f532130bb3536347fbeaa25098a535.jpg","w":796,"h":796,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10f532130bb3536347fbeaa25098a535"}
Mr. Anderson...

Neither was mine. What I wanted to say, I'm not sure annexion of Kaliningrad by Germany wouldn'y necessarily be bad. Well, it would be for Russia, but for Kaliningradians.. Who knows.

Well it did happen.
As of annexion, legitimate government. Well, the democratic leader of Ukraine did ask for Russian help, R.o.F.L. And Russia has more than enough reasons not to accept the new "government". So does all of Russian speaking population of Ukraine. And so it does.

& regarding certain areas of it it was dumb. Russian economy got bombed 30 years back on it. Ukrainian life level is by far below what it was in the final days of the USSR. Their current GDP per capita is something about six. This is below chinese, and about seven times less than this of U.S. About two and a half times below Russian.

Do they we? Never heard. (I'm in Saint Ptersburg at the moment, and I spent her nearly 18 months during the latest 24 months. Or more.

Now back to international law. It's nonsense, it's the tool countries at power use to control those that without to abuse their power. It has always been this way, and that's it. U.S, China or the EU are no different. Just Europe, lacking central authority is least decisive.

Append:
l.o.l.. Night, so much content removed. I agree with it, mostly

Cause the law is new. As I said earlier, you can get up to 3 years for propaganda of separatism.

That's just not true. That's what people say on the streets over here, but that's too shallow. Also, I often visit Ukraine, and my wife is Ukrainian, and no, the living standard there isn't as bad as everybody tells you. But yeah, it's worse than in Russia. But remember that they don't have gas or oil pipe to sit on, if Russia had no oil it would probably be much poorer than it is.
Also, there's much more freedom in Ukraine. I love how you can turn on TV and actually see people expressing different points of view instead of pure soviet-style government propaganda. Nobody even tries to control Internet by blocking some sites, as in Russia. Nobody is going to jail people for "offense of religios feelings". Nobody prosecutes bloggers for their anti-government posts, which routinely happens in Russia. And so on. You really think it's better to get twice as much salary than to live in a totalitarial government? Maybe. I don't.
Really, if you live in Russia, and don't notice how increasingly totalitarian it becomes, and all what you care about is that you get twice as much money as you would get in Ukraine, I've nothing to discuss with you, since we probably just don't have a subject to discuss.
I think that the dissolution of the USSR was the best thing happened to Russia in the XX century. And Ukraine. My parents always say we have never lived as good as we do now.
Also, full discussion of USSR economy, what it was, and why it ended so badly, will take too much time. But just to be short, there were underlying causes for its dissolution and it wasn't an accident, as you may believe. And Russia is bound to dissolve once again, if it continues its policy. Which it probably will. And this time it might be bloody, I'm afraid.

You must be kidding. You definitely understood that I meant separatists and the central government. The government in Kiev, not the Russian government.

Where did you get that last number? The voting booths weren't actually all that busy from what I read. Booths were empty by evening that day. Maybe 80% of the people that identify as Russian voted but there are still a significant portion of the population in crimea are ukranian and tartar. Neither of which are generally in favour of splitting.

Link or didn't happen. Found something on reuters, but it wasn't about a passed law. Just proposed.
...
Actually it was easier to find in Russian. Oh my
You're right. 5 years though.
I wonder if protest against Crimean annexion qualifies

About your claim about economic comparison of Ukraine to other countries. It isn't true. Level of life does vary from place to place in all countries, so specific examples(yours) do not make it a rule. Neither is a GDP per capita a fair comparison, but.. A better measure. Gives SOME understanding.

Just looked up five links for you, on U.S. factbook. GDP per capita also includes stuff like education, med expenditures, army etc'(not direct reference for level of life)..
However it doesn't include the fact Ukranian current expenditures are not sustainable, despite the fact there isn't enough of these expenditures.

GDP per capita in U.S. dollars(unsure of the reference year of U.S$ value, but recent more or less), info for the year 2013.
UA, 7 400 ^[1]
China, 9 800^[2]
RU, 18 100^[3]
US, 52 800^[4]

In World bank the difference between US & the rest would be lesser I think, it makes bigger adjustment for lower prices I suppose. I'm not going to look up now.

The freedoms you've mentioned do not touch 99% of the population, though I'd rather have them than not. However, I'd rather not have them with our opposition. Seems by farm more radical than the power, and no appropriate alternatives to Putin are visible. I'd love to see Prokhorov instead of him one day, but I believe now this guy ain't gonna cut it on the international Arena. & I don't wanna see more failures like Libya, or worse ones with more direct interests. In other words I view it as temporary necessary evil. Although there is that saying nothing is more permanent that temporarary. But I don't mind too much.

Oh, and regarding people who'd rather earn x2 more and give up the ability to say Putin is mofo?
Well, I'd rather do
Oh, remember the boy who said on FB he'll kill Obama? American freedom of speech
Vast majority would surrender the right as well, although depends on the salary. After certain point the preferance for more cash will decline, but those have less than they want.. Would give up the ability to threaten to kill Putin.
Oh, and about freedom. Well, Ukraine is free you say? Look at what this freedom does. The freedom is also very selective. Maidan gets what it wants, Donetsk seems less so. Border with Russia closed. Democracy, freedom..
About web blocking.. I didn't give a damn until I found out redtube.com was blocked. I bothered to change the DNS settings in router. Nothing is blocked now.

>And Russia is bound to dissolve once again, if it continues its policy. Which it probably will. And this time it might be bloody, I'm afraid.

I'm slightly afraid it could, I can't see any potential for blood though. Although, Caucasus.. Perhaps. But it's typical. And well, again.. Putin handled it the way it can be handled(put one of the local clans to command the others, duh). Otherwise there probably would be permanent unrest(and not because the people hate Moscow, just because every clan would fight for power and no clan would hold it's throne without external help). As of dissolution, I'm afraid of economic concequences. They wouldn't be as harsh as those of USSR, but they'll be severe nevertheless. Not to mention "divide et impera". There will be beneficiaries. But they won't be the people living on the divided lands, at least not the masses.

As of your latest line of text, yes I am.

P.S:
Thoroughly edited to make it more readable.

Feel free to use any of it.

I read it as a post, it was also in my reply window.. Then saw it removed, & Putin appeared

Append:

Russia Today.
Kinda official numbers. Again I'm clueless how honestly was this stuff counted, I don't think the media cheats though, even those Westerns avoid the attendancy. A hint it was high, with numbers etc'
Append1:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140317

here reuters deliver official word it's 83%

There is one thing I am curious about, there is reports that the options on the ballet were basically "yes: Join Russia now" or "yes: Join them later" with no "No" option. But I absolutely do not trust the liberal news media these days and was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny these reports. I caught a brief glimpse of a ballet on the news which seemed to have quite a bit of text on it.

HAHA! That's like getting numbers from FOX or CNBC!

Really though, I wonder how they are counting it. How many actually showed up, and have any dead people or people's pets voted?

So no, Reuters didn't say it. They reported that "Officials" said it. Officials running a vote that is already obviously rigged.

Denied. However, the referendum was:
A Simple yes, to join Russia.
OR
Return to constitution of Crimea year 1992, and stay with Ukraine.

In three languages, two of which I recognize as Russian & Ukrainian. Third.. Perhaps Tatar.

The sources are wiki of a second ago + generally what I heard from news, including BBC. Laughed how they pointed out only Russians vote yes, while Russian news pointed how Tatars & Ukrainians vote yes.

Well, if majority want to join Russia odds are it'll happens ooner or later. No word about it in the referendum vote though.

It is. But they can deliver an official report, right?

Did I say reuters said? I said they delivered official('s) word. Sorry for my English I guess. I stated upfront I got no info regarding fairness of the vote(A quote of me: "Again I'm clueless how honestly was this stuff counted,").

P.S:
Not caught :p
But yes, precision of words is important.

Yep, that's basically true. The 1992 constitution gave Crimea almost confederative status, although inside of Ukraine, yes. They didn't even have a choice to leave everything as it is.
However, it doesn't matter. Everyone there are completely Russian-oriented, Russian flags were there all the time in Sevastopol, although not as many as there are now.

The only news source less credible than RT that I can think of is KCNA.

In my eyes RT is same as CNN or BBC(pretty much not credible). I did find it on reuters too though. And yes, it's only official report. The referendum does not meet international standards, and wiki says the international orgonization that oversees this stuff did not participate.

You are wrong, because RT broadcasted completely false and/or unchecked information many times, while I don't remember CNN saying something which was definitely false, and they knew it. That's not just about different points of view, they actually lie and destort facts. While you may believe that free press and state-run soviet style press is the same thing - just a propaganda, you are wrong. Because reliable news sources do not lie. That's what makes them reputation. RT has a bad reputation.
But not this time, though. I do believe that almost everyone there voted for Russia, that's what everyone says who's been there, and that's close to what I remember when I visited Crimea.

BBC isn't free media, it's propoganda media that belongs to government of the UK. Not to be confused with The Guardian or Reuters.
I think any news source can sometimes be caught on a blunt lie, and any propoganda is providing distorted facts 24/7. CNN is biased westwards, RT is biased towards the East. I've no reason to think either is less biased than the other. And I can't recall any blunt lie of RT or BBC to be honest. I'm certain there were by both though, and I'm sure they happen regularly.

OK, tell me, when BBC or CNN gave false facts?
RT did this numerous times, like a claim that McFaul sent Navalny to Yale to study how to overthrow Russian government. During the South Ossetia war they claimed there were no airstrikes on Georgian cities, while THERE WERE airstrikes, and all media except for Russian ones confirmed it. Their claim of 2000 civilian deaths too, it was made up by RT first, I think.
That's just what I remember. And they say such things constantly, and they actually know they are lying, these are not just mistakes.
Tell me some examples when BBC or CNN lied and distorted facts.
[EDIT]
Also, BBC may be owned by the goverment, but the thing is: does the British goverment dictate their editorial policy? Can you express opinions which differ from the official British point of view? The answer is: no, they don't dictate, and yes, you can express your different opinion. While on RT, you definitely can't do that, I remeber a correspondent was fired from RT for trying to cover airstrikes in Georgia, because this was against their policy.

About Navalniy.. Are you sure all is wrong?

About airstrikes?
I'm not sure. And to be honest, to take it as granted I need link to RT report saying there were no airstrikes, and an actual proof there were airstrikes before the specific date(against Georgian cities). Regarding civilians, it's important to listen to their claims exactly(if there were), and make sure it is numbers they claim there are, and not them delivering words of someone. Well, same as I was pointed out Reuters didn't report 95%+ voted to join Russia now, Reuters delivered word of Crimean officials.

About something "general", well BBC has covered the Georgian conflict as Russian aggression from day 0. Although the independent commission says:

It later notes no one is right there, as the "independent" commission is very much western after all.

But would have you gotten this thought from listening to BBC reports, or CNN? It was all evil Putin, even though he was just Prime Minister then.

Finding an appropriate specific lie, and proving it is no easy taskj. I could try, but sorry.. Only after you. If you remember something that looked like a lie to you, it's no proof there was a lie. The professional dependent media works in such a manner that it gives you a specific impression, corroding facts but not actually lying, or at least not lying on something can be proved false.

I'm unsure what you mean about opinions, and who's opinions.

OT but, Speaking of state run media... It's funny. CBC is more reliable, and more likely to run things critical of the Canadian Government than any of the Canadian "Big Media" news organizations. It seems the government can pressure the private corporations, but not their own.

It is the best Canadian news source. Tax payer's money well spent -- but it's less "state-run" than others of it's kind.

It's funny too. Harper has tried to coerce it, buy constantly threatening funding cuts. But hey, now that the CBC doesn't have the NHL rights, they saved hundreds of millions! heh. But they lost a lot of views from that

Speaking of severely OT things, all of harpers "reforms" need to be rolled back as soon as the next pm gets into office. Especially the science related "reforms".

The title may change but the man is still in charge regardless.

Sorry, but you're accusing the BBC/CNN to be propaganda spewing machines. It is on you to provide evidence that this is true. Otherwise everyone can just claim anything and we'd have a real good party going on.

And just because something is state owned doesn't mean it's used for propaganda. You make all these claims yet you have nothing to back them up. Except empty words, of course. But everyone has those, no?

It was about Aikei saying Russia Today lies. I offer him to prove it, as it would encourage me to find a proof for a BBC lie. Most likely I'd go with something about Israel.

As of proving a media is a propaganda tool.. That's a lot easier. From reading an article you easily see the author's point of view, as well as their fact selection. For example, when I searched for a source for the 83% of vote attendancy, only western media I found it on was Reuters. There are others too, but I really browsed few articles about the topic. Didn't find it on BBC or CNN then. However, they all noted the 95%+ vote for Russia, which kind of hints it all rigged. They didn't say they applied to exit polls and were denied though. No western organization did, because they knew the results would be high.

Also the 95% vote for Russia, with 83% attendance break their myth about ONLY Russians voting for it, while Ukranians & Tatars being against. And well, either the referendum was rigged(which they actually do not claim), it'd be visible that not only the Russians dislike Kiev. And oh dear, then annexation much less unjust. Goes with Reuters, doesn't go with western propaganda which actually makes impression Ukrainians & Tatars didn't show up. While(assuming the referendum was counted fair) at least half of non Russians did attend.

Such an episode doesn't proof BBC is propaganda, but seeing them CONSTANTLY taking sides, and always same side- does.

Hard to argue. However, it maybe even more complex. He was appointed back then. In this or another way. Someone put him, kind of.. It maybe the same ones behind him today(KGB) and not just him.

Only argument against his power during Dmitry's presidency is actual change in Russia's foreign policy during Dmitry's years.

Man you just caught me out of context. I gave an example above, and there are many other examples. Have a look.
And me claiming it is propaganda, I do not mean it's given orders. It knows it's job.
So it has happened it's a western media, that's financed by western government that's exceptionally easily & visible biased, more than more appropriate westerns new sources. Okay.. Call it independent.

Here's something posted on Putin's Facebook page today on his point of view, and it brings up some very valid points. I used Google translate to translate it from Russian, I can post the Russian if you wish as well...

*** Begin Quote ***
About International Law

Russian President has received permission to use the armed forces , but this was not done . Yes, strengthened our group. Declaring its independence , the Crimea was based on the UN Charter . Incidentally Ukraine itself and did the same , announcing its withdrawal from the USSR. Ukraine exercised this right , and it denied Crimeans . Why ? Based on the Kosovo precedent .
No general prohibition on the unilateral declaration of independence does not arise from the UN Security Council documents . Besides international practice does not prohibit declarations of independence . It 's not even a double standard , it's an amazing cynicism . We can not always so rude podverstyvat fit your interests.
Again, to quote ( Declaration of the United States over the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in 2009) : " Declaration of Independence may violate domestic law , but this does not mean that it is a violation of international law." Sami wrote sounded , all bent , and now resent . Actions Crimean clearly fit into this statement. Somehow, what can Albanians in Kosovo ( and we treat them with respect ) , prohibited Russian , Ukrainians , Crimean Tatars in Crimea.
If Self-Defense Forces of Crimea time would not take the situation under control , there could also be a victim. Do you know why they were not there ? Against the people and their will to fight is difficult or nearly impossible. I want to thank those Ukrainian soldiers who did not go to the bloodshed and not mired in blood.
Our Western partners , led by the United States in international politics prefer to be guided by the right of the strong , they believed in their exclusivity , think the rules may be the only ones. Here and there use force against the independent states , knock desired resolution of international organizations or even ignore them. So it was in Yugoslavia.
Were Afghanistan and Iran, and frank violation of UN Security Council resolution on Libya . There was a whole series of controlled color revolutions . It is clear that people in these countries are tired of the tyranny , poverty and lack of prospects . But these feelings are cynically used . As a result, instead of democracy and freedom came a series of terror. The Arab Spring has changed the Arab winter.
*******************

original Russian text:
О междунарoднoм праве

Президент РФ пoлучил разрешение испoльзoвать вooруженные силы, нo этим правoм не вoспoльзoвались. Да, усилили нашу группирoвку. Объявляя o свoей независимoсти, Крым oпирался на хартию ООН. Кстати и сама Украина сделала тo же самoе, oбъявляя o свoем выхoде из СССР. Украина вoспoльзoвалась этим правoм, а крымчанам в нем oтказывают. Пoчему? Оснoвывались и на кoсoвскoм прецеденте.
Никакoгo oбщегo запрета на oднoстoрoннее прoвoзглашение независимoсти не вытекает из дoкументoв Сoвбеза ООН. Крoме тoгo междунарoдная практика не сoдержит запрета на прoвoзглашение независимoсти. Этo даже уже не двoйные стандарты, этo удивительный цинизм. Нельзя все так грубo пoдверстывать пoд свoи интересы.
Опять прoцитирую (из декларации США пo пoвoду oтделения Кoсoвo oт Сербии в 2009 гoду): "Декларации o независимoсти мoгут нарушать внутреннее закoнoдательствo, oднакo этo не oзначает, чтo этo нарушение междунарoднoгo права". Сами написали, прoтрубили, нагнули всех, а теперь вoзмущаются. Действия крымчан четкo вписываются в эту инструкцию. Пoчему-тo тo, чтo мoжнo албанцам в Кoсoвo (а мы oтнoсимся к ним с уважением), запрещается русским, украинцам, крымским татарам в Крыму.
Если бы силы самooбoрoны Крыма вoвремя не взяли бы ситуацию пoд кoнтрoль, там тoже мoгли бы быть жертвы. А знаете, пoчему их не былo? Прoтив нарoда и егo вoли вoевать труднo или практически невoзмoжнo. Я хoчу пoблагoдарить тех украинских вoеннoслужащих, кoтoрые не пoшли на крoвoпрoлитие и не запятнали себя крoвью.
Наши западные партнеры вo главе с США предпoчитают в междунарoднoй пoлитике рукoвoдствoваться правoм сильнoгo, oни уверoвали в свoю исключительнoсть, думают, чтo правы мoгут быть тoлькo oни. Тo тут, тo там применяют силу прoтив независимых гoсударств, выбивают нужные резoлюции из междунарoдных oрганизаций или вoвсе игнoрируют их. Так былo и в Югoславии.
Были и Афганистан, и Иран, и oткрoвеннoе нарушение резoлюции СБ ООН пo Ливии. Была и целая череда управляемых цветных ревoлюций. Пoнятнo, чтo люди в этих странах устали oт тирании, нищеты, oтсутствия перспектив. Нo эти чувства циничнo испoльзoвались. В результате вместo демoкратии и свoбoды наступила череда террoра. Арабская весна сменилась арабскoй зимoй.

Yes it was....

I'd rather read in Russian. On FB I found this page. I doubt it is legitimate. :|
Can I has a link, or original please?

Append:

It wasn't. It may still happen though. The guys secured Crimea did this before securing the permission

Oh, and for reference, here's the Wikipedia article with election results etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014

Oh, and here is the link Putin's Facebook page, he (or a rep of his) is always posting about what he is doing, it seems pretty legitimate to me...
https://www.facebook.com/Putin.President

Irregardless of who said it, I think there is a good point made. It was okay for the Ukraine to leave Russia, but not okay for Crimea to leave Ukraine? Hypocrites anyone? How about any of the Arab spring rebellions, that was okay but this is not? Or Libya, or Syria, or Iran, how about South Korea? I guess it's only okay if the great moral authority and global police that is the USA says so.

Dude, they rolled out armed forces into Crimea. How is that not using armed forces? Bull crap they did it without permission Armies just don't work that way.

You better recheck your history then bud. Because they do work that way. And did work that way. And the Russian people of Crimea don't seem to mind.

In any event, it's none of our business. We are NOT the global police.

To be honest I'm still lacking proofs it's Russian army had been securing the area. However, using armed forces generally assumes blood. At least it's been this way for the human history. Not this time, bravo.

But yeah, well.. Detaching Kosovo is OK, if U.S. says so. Without referendum if I'm correct. Didn't ask the people, just asked the NATO.

Detaching Crimea, which wanted to be detached(but NOT asking permission from NATO) is apparently illegal. And why? Because of.. Kiev laws! Not Crimean laws, Kiev laws!

Only good thing is that now this hypocrisy is pathetic whining.

Ah yes, one more thing.. The bloody Kiev overthrow is legal. Peaceful detachment of Crimea, that is WILLING to detach isn't legal.
Just the bold text. Is everyone OK with it?

Like it or not, yes, yes you are. By being the strongest nation in the world you hold a certain responsibility. Besides, it's in the U.S. interest not to let things escalate. The world being so connected economically as it is... A situation in eastern Europe would definitely not be beneficial to anybody.

Stop living in a bubble. I realize the U.S. is huge and all. But any situation in the world will affect you, don't you think? I personally love the fact that the U.S. is the world police. No big wars for long time now. Why do you think this is so?

If it had been done by the people for the people, sure. As it is it was a forceful landgrab by a tyrant bent on proving his strength after a large embarrassment. It would also have helped if the refferendom included all of the options rather than just leaving.

People can think what they want. I see the facts. Look at the world before the U.S. was a big player and after. You be the judge of what is more peaceful.

Obstacle to peace? Are you mad? (don't answer that) We're living in the most peaceful time in all of human history. No doubt due to the U.S. having a strangle hold on much of the world. I'm not complaining.

Vanetto, there are no big words because big nations can't even think a war of one against the other can benefit either. And smaller things escalate pretty damn regularly, and many of'em wouldn't escalate, or would quickly end if not the U.S.

So I really don't see how does the U.S. help to keep peace.

@Thomas
There were two options. Leave, or stay. What else?
Oh, I saw something in this thread about the second option being "join Russia later". Well it's BS. And someone asked me here to prove some media is propaganda. Name me the media made you think the other option is also Joining Russia, I'll increase my list of western propaganda

No. People got what they wanted in a rightful & peaceful way which was denied to them by their repressive government & bloody government. Dot. :]

This long article from Tokyo seems to sum up every major party's involvement in the matter including the US, EU, and Russia, as well as internal politics.

For example, how the US has been trying to seed dissension from satellite states of Russia so as to prop up military bases around Russia and cut them off from key resources like Serbia.

None of the players seem to have any care about the people involved. And I certainly haven't forgotten the US neocon's wanton lust for war over Georgia a few years ago.

p.s. If that long article is exemplary of the kind of journalism that Modern Tokyo Times puts forth, I'm definitely going to be reading more of their material. It's like night-and-day with the kind of headline, news clip, crap that 99% of news that I see on a day to day basis.

They weren't given the chance to do anything in a rightful and peaceful way. It was decided for them by another country invading, and threatening the use of deadly force.

No, the two options were leave, and leave. Either directly joining Russia, or full autonomy with a small connection to Ukraine. There was no "maintain previous status".

Is that true, Afghanis, Iraqis, Libyans, and quite a few other peoples? The only reason this could be called a peaceful era is because no one has declared open war. A side note: UPS has put delivery restrictions on shipping to Crimea.

People are still dying, no doubt. But you always have to put it into perspective. Substantially more people died before than now. But seriously, don't listen to me, go look at some numbers. Go back a few hundred years and compare the casualties compared to the population then.

I found "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" by Steven Pinker to be enlightening on this matter.

Well, exactly. For 20 years they weren't given the chance.

Well, it is kind of how it was. The amount showed up & voted for Russia didn't seem to mind.

By the way, in one of your previous messages you mentioned about that it was wrong because it wasn't done by people for people.
Well, Maidan also wasn't. Though it was also bloody.
If you think people of Kiev are wealthy enough to stay off work for months, and pay for their stay there- you're seriously wrong.
More than this, we've no reason to think the amount of people against yanukovich exceeded the amount of people for him, especially in such a manner.

However, this has also set a precedent for other regious. As I mentioned above Donetsk has asked for referendum. Should it get it, it's all fine. And if it doesn't, seems just for you?

well....I did not read the article itself but glanced at the "moderntokiotimes photos" thumbnails in the footer....

Their previous laws allowed them to have a referendum. Why didn't they?

Nope. This was more like a really small connection. more like canada and britain, rather than what they had before which was some autonomy inside ukraine.

Basically the question amounted to "Should Crimea stay a part of Ukraine" and the two answers were "No" and "No". There was no "Yes" or "Yes, with some more autonomy".

I think there were a good number of people there that believed in it. And a good many that were there 'because meddling'.

All of that said, if that article is accurate, the actions of the US have been absolutely reprehensible (again). I can understand it making Russia upset, but I don't think that means an invasion was the only solution

All I ask is that it be done more by the book. Less army, and less rigged votes.

I recently read (yesterday) that Kiev is granting more responsibility and power to regional and city governments now. Whether thats enough to stem the tide, I don't know.

[edit: Wrong video, ha]

Some good points made here.
http://www.change.org/it/petizioni/eu-no-sanctions-against-the-russian-federation-and-accept-the-referendum-in-the-crimea-for-the-annexation-to-the-russian-federation

I love the way people keep saying "the West are hypocrites! They have done what Russia are doing!"

It wouldn't f*****g stand up in court would it? "You are accused of raping and murdering a bunch of people, how do you plead?"

"well, guilty, but that bloke in the news last week did it so......"

[EDIT]

Just to confirm, I'm not saying anyone has been raping or murdering, it's a metaphor.

No, that would require someone to be doing something by force, against their will, and that hasn't happened In Crimea. The people chose to leave with the peaceful protection by Russia and no bloodshed what so ever. That's about as good as one could possibly ask. And if it had been American forces in there protecting English speaking people while they voted to leave, there would be no controversy right now. Oh that's right, American protection usually involves stealth bombers, I forgot.

You forget that Russia entered Ukraine. Crimea is/was a part of Ukraine.

I'll bring up what I said earlier... I don't like the way the US government is treating the north westerners. So I'll go in there with tanks and weapons and "liberate them". Obviously its the right thing to do!

So Putin is going to allow Dagestan and Chechnya referendums to see if they want to stay a part of Russia?

No I thought not....

Donetsk asks for referendum now. Why doesn't it have?
Because Kiev doesn't want it.
And it didn't want it before. Because the west, which is in power has interests that differ from those of the east. And there's no way Crimea would bet let away without protection(you call it armed invasion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_referendum,_2014#Choices
Quit smoking. Or stop listening to those smoke too much.

Unrest in capital, armed replacement of power- IS OK & democratic.
Unrest in Donetsk, demand for referendum denied by those made unrest in Kiev- is also OK.
So first group gets what it wants, second doesn't.
Because no "legal basis" for the second to have referendum. To aquire it should they storm Kiev? But they live in Donetsk!
Crimea asks for referendum, it's denied and Russia intervenes. Also not ok.
Oh come on, shut the double standards. I do understand your will to persuade me it's wrong, and there are problems(although debatable) with "itnernational laws" and etc', but seriously. I really can't believe you can be sure you're right. Crimeans DID want to go away. You saw it was no way an occupation. What has happened on Maidan is much more of an occupation than what has happened in Crimea. Just in Maidan it was orgonized more carefully.

It's really better with the army, and no blood rather than armed mob and yes blood.
Basically orgonizers of Maidan are murderers, but due to the fact they are related to the new power they'r not to be judged. That's already more than enough to be a reason not to consider the government legitimate.

Furthermore. Less army, "more book"? Kiev doesn't release it. That's just how it is. Same as Yodhe23 mentioned about some Russia regions. I've no clue if they wanna quit, but they ain't gettin' it under no circumstances. Same is true for Crimea, Donetsk and any other region.

Also no now Kiev has an army that isn't officially army, but can fight any other protesting group(same guys ousted Yanukovich).

What's the democratic way out of this? Correct, there's non.

*****

And now with U.S.(how is it fcking their business? it's rather EU business, not their) new sanctions, we have some potential for a full scale cold war, with Russian USD transactions banned, U.S. assets in Russia nationalized etc'

This could result in my first paragraph. I just hope these guys are smart enough to not let it spin out of control.

You didn't answer my question It was legal before, and they most likely would have still wanted to separate then, why didn't they?

I think you're misunderstanding, or conflating things.

For point 1, IF it was a majority of the people that wanted a change, and it wasn't orchestrated by other countries, YES. It's perfectly fine for the people a nation to oust leaders they are no longer happy with. It is NOT fine for it to be caused by other countries meddling (which this seems to have been). I highly doubt the protests would have ever gotten past peaceful demonstrations if there wasn't any manipulation by other countries.

As for point 2, I think Crimea should get to have a referendum. One that isn't held at the point of a gun, and one that wasn't so obviously manipulated from the very beginning.

Tell me, what reason did Russia have for censoring the media in Crimea? If everyone wanted it, there would be no reason to shut off TV and Radio stations, and replace it with Russia propaganda. I heard rumor from someone who actually lives in Crimea that there was talk that the cell phone and internet access might get cut off as well. There is no way to explain any of that other than that you have something to hide.

It should be up to Crimea to handle its own affairs, not the US, not the EU, not Canada, not Russia.

They want to go now, after the ass-hats that caused Maidan to be such a mess screwed with things, and Russia spread a ton of propaganda around.

It was and is an occupation. Up till Russia invaded, the land and people were ukrainian. Then Russia took it away by force. There can be no arguing that.

I'd argue it was less carefully organized. The original grass roots movement was just that, a bunch of people unhappy with the current government. Then it was co opted by crazy nationalists that were likely funded by the US.

False. The current people in charge should do what everyone expected, and call a new election right away, and step down. Will that happen? I don't think I trust them to do that based on their past actions sadly.

You are ABSOLUTELY lying to yourself if you think Russia is in this to help the people of Crimea. Russia barely tolerates its existing populace, and in some cases heavily discriminates against them. Especially if you disagree with putin or the current government's goals.

It isn't their business. Had they left well enough alone, the only issue in Ukraine right now would be some peaceful protests.

I highly doubt they know what they are doing. It's all reactionary. None of this would have been an issue if the US didn't "take action" in ukraine to begin with.

Have you actually read this constitution?
Here: http://sevkrimrus.narod.ru/ZAKON/1992konst.htm
In brief:
1) Crimea can enter into international agreements with other countries, have diplomatic relationships with other countries (directly, not through Kiev)
2) Crimea has its own, Crimean citizenship. Citizens of Ukraine are not necessarily citizens of Crimea, according to this constitution.
3) Crimea has its own president which is not in any way answerable to the Ukrainian president.
4) Crimea has its own legislation. Nothing mentioned about Ukrainian legislation being applcable to Crimea.

Actually, the only part of constitution which (briefly) mentions Ukraine is that Crimea is actually part of Ukraine, and Crimea may (or may not) delegate some of its authorities to Ukraine.

[EDIT]
And no, it isn't how it was before 2014. There was another constitution in force.

@Aikei, Thomas

I guess I'm wrong about the #2 in the referendum then. Ironically the western press mostly misses this point, as well as English wikipedia.

***

I'm not thinking Putin has done what he has done because of his care for the Crimeans, but he has certainly strengthened his already strong enough rule in Russia with this move. And the fact the people of Crimea benefit from the annexion cannot be denied.

I disagree about your claim regarding force. Force, is what took place in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya etc' etc'
No man killed by a soldier- isn't force. At least not completely. And well, you admitted yourself protection from current Kiev makes sense. And that the government doesn't make what it should do. And that this is result of western interference.

In addition to the question of the annexion done, or not done for the Crimeans, what's the alternative of for action?
Watch the west tear the nebhour apart, the government pass laws repressing the Russian people of Ukraine, and do nothing?

As of blocking Ukrainian channels.. Ukrain has block or has attempted to block Russian channels as well. Now again, why would you not react? Who wouldn't?

Should the west attempt to make the referendum in a fair matter, and not shout about constitution which has no moral basis in this specific case, it would perhaps be done in a compromisive way. Annexion still would've won.

But since it was solely done by Russia, top priority was peace and ease. Which was achieved.

Well, Russian reaction to sanctions seems no reaction(unless U.S. politicians really care about their assets in Russia being frozen ), but that signing of things against Russian industry, if turned in to force seem to be able to trigger some vicous spiral of sanctions against each other, collapsing the world in to another 2009 style, and Russia to the 1990s style(much worse in the short term).

Although, there maybe anothing point in the story.. It may stop somewhere in the middle, if rough sanctions are turned on but not supported by EU.

And another thing, which I hope not something this Putin guy has in mind, is to isolate Russia to spurr local production or something. By nationalizing the things the west has here it have a chance. At great cost though, but it looks like Puti has the political power to dome something as reckless as this.

type568 please stop exaggerating, and get a grip on what you are saying as you keep making fallacious arguments such as

".. And the fact the people of Crimea benefit from the annexion cannot be denied."

May I suggest you study the trivium and general semantics as a way of stop exaggerating in an effort to make your point, as all it does (in my mind) is do you a disservice by making you sound ignorant.

Though I find it funny that by your own reasoning and logic, the Palestinians and their neighbours have the right to invade Israel to protect "their people" from the well cataloged abuses by sombunal Israelis which exceed any documented or historical trouble of the ethnic Russians in Crimea.

I guess I should really try to be writing more neutral. But as of benefit.. Well it really can'y be denied. It's like if Kaliningrad was annexed by Germany. There is a question the people live there may be unwilling(not the case of Crimea), but as of their standard of living(assuming no double standard of social securities introduced) the people of Kaliningrad would benefit from the annexion. Well at least if not the language barier.

And about the topic you find funny. I lived in Israel for 15 years, not sure if it's right to say that now I don't live there.
However, I literally hate its millitary machine, the way politics evolve around it, the new settlements and the three years conscription service. And all these trouble without a moral/historical justification for existence or whatsoever. That's a very bold statement, and it is of course arguable. However, now the country exists for a while, and there's no solution. You can't displays the Israelis, & you can't displace the Palestians. & the guys don't seem to really like each other. Oh, and politicans on both sides capitalize on the hatred, and there are MANY haters. Sad to admit among those I know in Israel too, and those people study in universities(of which there are just 7 in Iarael), and are making Israeli future.
Long story short with Israel: Fucked up, and no solution.

Following his logic that's not true, since their quality of life will decrease if they are annexed by any of Israel's neighbours, and he claims the quality of life will increase for the annexed Crimeans
Maybe it should be the other way around and Israel should annex those palestinians that prefer to live in Israel

Also, according to Google/dictionary "sombunal" is not a word, so I wonder what you meant. Firefox spellcheck suggests "somnambulism" (sleep walking), is that what you meant?

"Israel should annex."

How long you think will the politicians signing the annexion will stay in power? Surely not long enough to benefit from the newly annexe votes

Sombunal - Some-but-not-all (see Maybe Logic and Robert Anton Wilson)

And yes it can be denied, with great ease. For some will benefit and other won't, those who think they will may not, and those who think they won't may; see Zen stories about Luck for a philosophical interpretation of this
(http://www.thedailyzen.org/2011/12/zen-koan-maybe.html).

Why'd we spend all this time perfecting nukes if we're not going to use them to solve problems?

That's what Project Orion was for!

Check out Project Thor.

Sounds like a plot from a Heinlein novel... Oh wait, it is/was. Though I prefer Philip K Dick's, "Time out of Joint" that uses a similar tactic.
Though lets face it, whichever faction gets established in space first is going to an unprecedented leverage over anyone left on Earth.
Being at the bottom of a gravity well doesn't seem to make for good strategic positioning.

I have a two word solution for this problem: BUTT OUT

Works wonders.

Perhaps. But it's not difficult to make a missile that can hit a satellite.

The majors posses this stuff, Chinese have tested one not long ago.
The western media were so cute with their saber rattling accusations.

An electromagnetic pulse from a high altitude nuclear device can be quite devastating as well. The USA would be particularly susceptible to this type of attack.

For example (from the article)

I remember reading USSR had been developing stuff of the kind, but I don't think it ever had anything of the kind in service. Probably just small stuff as penetration aides for MIRV.

Sorry, I've had some life to do meanwhile. So what did I miss?

Party's over. Russian forces ain't going in to mainland Ukraine, west ain't gonna do anything about Crimea. Waiting for the next wave of unrest, which isn't comeing hopefully. In any case not earlier than 25th May(presedential elections). I may make a new topic then.

Russia has never had ANY intention to invade Ukraine. They have always only been there to protect Crimea and the Russian people while they voted. This whole "crisis" had been created by the west. And it will be made worse by unwarranted sanctions.

I'm Russian/Israeli, currently in Russia, and I own Russian stocks. I consider my actions astonishingly correct during this crisis, my Russian investments are green for the year, I'm out of the knockdown with more cash than with what I dived in to it(exceptional timing, I'm honestly proud of myself. My best crises management during my almost four year experience).

However, I'd be in much better shape if was more aggressive in my purchases. I did realize pretty fast west ain't gonna do shit about Crimea, as I mentioned here long before. But regarding Russia not invading Ukraine, I made it clear for myself only during this weekend, it was a real threat in my eyes which had effect on my investment positioning.

Eastern Ukraine, much of it- not just Crimea, is largely Russian speaking, with people in Donetsk demanding a referendum similar to this of Crimea and being denied the right to have it. There was violence. An action of force DID seem legitimate and possible to me.

I see what you mean, yeah, I suppose so. But lets reverse the roles here. If it was the USA, and Americans living in a neighbouring country were threatened, does anyone out there believe the USA would NOT respond with force to protect it's own people?

I think Russia has a legitimate interest in the region and in protecting it's own people and the west needs to butt out.

I totally agree of course.

The politicians need to be perceived as Doing Something(TM) to protect us from every conceivable harm while trying to entrench themselves into total control.

I am maybe wrong, and probably the show goes on. I'm 1.8 leveraged on Russian stocks, 1.1 Leveraged on American. Worrisome.

So, Crimea is back home, clear & clean.
{"name":"%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/1\/21600a1633d0955d7d2b3a2fb700cf97.jpg","w":640,"h":480,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/1\/21600a1633d0955d7d2b3a2fb700cf97"}
From wikipedia.
Here
3(14) June
YEAR 1783
SEVASTOPOL
City Was Founded
Sea Fortress of
Southern Russia*

Now the scary part.. Here even though authenticity is a bit doubtful, but photos look legit. Zerohedge is an "always counter trend" news source. Reuters doesn't report any positive news either though. I'm a bit scared of Russian intervention. I don't want any shots fired. I'd love to see it back to Russia though.

*-Translation is ugly by me, and yes I can read it from the photo pretty clearly. Sevastopol is one of the cities in Crimea, biggest one I guess.

Append:
Actually it's not enough to trigger it I think. But it may spook the already scared market :~S
And a later-stage intervention should it go violet or osmething is very likely.

I've heard that the Ukraine gov't elections are go, and there's a "Internet Party of Ukraine". Apparently the leader of that party dresses up as Darth Vader. It seems it is at least cheering people up.

He wanted to compete for presidency. But he didn't qualify

Aww, that's too bad. What was it that made him not qualify?

Not posting the required sum. About $0.25m I think.

I wish he had built a Death Star and brought us all to peace..

Ah, that would do it. That's a rather high amount for Ukraine. I bet it was set up to keep normal people out of politics

Well.. Those were(and are) and most likely will be at power, as those set by oligarchs of the state. They can afford that I guess.. Besides I would assume they ally and get their representatives represent interests of a group of wealthy guys.

That is how government and politics tends to work sadly. They want to keep it to themselves.

I wanted to add "that's how it works in any other country", but thought I rather don't

Nah, its perfectly accurate. Power begets power.

Well, the point is that people generally suffer from this. But in Ukraine they do a lot more than in the U.S, although it seems rather clear to me the theft in U.S. is in a lot larger scale, but nevertheless the "simple people" still get enough in the U.S. to accept this.

And in Russia, due to the disappointment in westernization people although see & understand this corruption(& suffer form it way more than Americans do, I'd assume) still vastly support the power, as they see no immediate alternative.

Append:
It's rolling faster than I expected it to. Way faster.

People still justifying anything that ever happens by saying "yeah but America done it too"....boring.

What do you mean? I mean I understand you, but how is it related to the few recent posts, if it is?

Sorry, you are right, it hadn't been mentioned for a while. I work with 2 Eastern Eurpeans and am SICK to the stomach of hearing "yeah but America have done worse" as a means to justify their warped right-wing views on how amazing Putin is. So now I'm all RAAAGGGGEEE and stuff. Got carried away.

I guess you're more carried away by your amazing weed you've promised to share.

I wasn't then, but I am now! Aaaaand relax! Are you coming over?

I've been told good THC is great for ADHD and Anxiety. I'm tempted. But it's still a crime here

I wanna think I'll one day.

No. When I was high, I was always "What did I come in this room for?" so ADHD is out, and it's easy to get paranoid. It creates euphoria and exaggerates emotions, well it's hard to get very angry, perhaps because you forget what you're mad about.

Arthur, I disagree with nearly everything you've just said, and I speak from 18 years experience. The paranoia can be an issue for first timers, but it depends on the person. Everything else you said is horse crap.

I think its a personal thing. What works for one person, may not work for another. I have experienced that with prescriptions, and I assume it's no different with "under the counter" remedies as well

That's funny, as my 22 years of experience pretty much echoes what he said. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us knowing the pair of you are paranoid lightweights with social issues and other mental problems.

I'm a don.

And this is really self explaining

You forgot the 'key' on the end of that.

Yeah...well....you're a wally.

Hehe, that brings back memories. I haven't heard that saying in a long time.

They make me feel like a virgin. Well, almost. I tried once, about five or four years ago.
Append: actually twice. 2nd was bad. It was some synthetic crap.

http://www.vocativ.com/world/ukraine-world/jihadi-jokesters-waging-holy-war-hot-ukrainian-ladies

How ironic.. It looks like this thread name is getting quite prophetic. Of course not all of Ukraine, the west doesn't want it. But the eastern parts of Ukraine seem to be quite cheering for it.

It seems more like passive aggressive joking to me.

The "citizens" that invaded govt buildings most recently were actually Russian, not Ukrainian. And they had the gall to try and call for a referendum. Last I heard not to many actual citizens were actually for a full out splitting.

How do you differentiate or understand if they're Russian or Ukrainian? All of eastern Ukraine is Russian speaking. Dual citizenship is allowed for both countries if I'm not wrong.

And while Crimean self defense forces were clearly professional, and not risking anything the current situation for the occupiers in east Ukraine is do or die. Hard to imagine them being Russian soldiers. Really.

And the U.S. position is really disgusting with its clear dual standards of support of temporary government(which came in by force) that revokes official status of Russian language, but blaming Russia in organizing protests against this nonsense.

They were asked, and said they were Russian. (outside of Crimea/Ukraine)

Not in Crimea it seems. If you want the Russian passport, you have to give up your Ukrainian. If you want to keep your Ukrainian passport, you have to leave.

Annexing Octaine? Octane? It's a gas pipeline, not a gasoline pipeline.

@Thomas

Source statements both please. Well, I'll try to find myself if you won't. But if you say it, I guess you can do it more easily. I'm not even trying ot prove you wrong, I'd like to know.

Oh, and.. If few of'em are Russians, it maybe. The idea seems more than legit for Russian speaking population anywhere.

@Johan

Heh. I noticed the typo after some time, but didn't think it THAT way