|
Annexing Uktaine. Objections? |
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
{"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"} --- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Aikei_c said: 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, 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. Quote: or the government and separatists
Well it did happen. Quote: 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. & 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. Quote: 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?
Do 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:
|
Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
|
type568 said: Do they we? Never heard. Cause the law is new. As I said earlier, you can get up to 3 years for propaganda of separatism. Quote: & 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.
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. Quote:
Well it did happen. You must be kidding. You definitely understood that I meant separatists and the central government. The government in Kiev, not the Russian government. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
type568 said: I'm clueless of the scale of rigging, or if it took place at all. But over 95% said yes, and over 80% attended. 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. -- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Aikei_c said: Cause the law is new. As I said earlier, you can get up to 3 years for propaganda of separatism.
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).. 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. 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? >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:
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
type568 said: l.o.l.. Night, so much content removed. I agree with it, mostly Feel free to use any of it. --- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
I read it as a post, it was also in my reply window.. Then saw it removed, & Putin appeared Append: Thomas Fjellstrom said: Where did you get that last number?
Russia Today. here reuters deliver official word it's 83%
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
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. --- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: Russia Today. 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? Reuters said: Officials said the turnout was 83 percent. So no, Reuters didn't say it. They reported that "Officials" said it. Officials running a vote that is already obviously rigged. -- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
NiteHackr said: But I absolutely do not trust the liberal news media these days and was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny these reports.
Denied. However, the referendum was: 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. Thomas Fjellstrom said: HAHA! That's like getting numbers from FOX or CNBC! It is. But they can deliver an official report, right? Quote: So no, Reuters didn't say it. 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:
|
Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
|
NiteHackr said: if anyone can confirm or deny these reports.
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. |
jhuuskon
Member #302
April 2000
|
Quote: Russia Today. The only news source less credible than RT that I can think of is KCNA. You don't deserve my sig. |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
jhuuskon said: 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.
|
Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
|
type568 said: 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. |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
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.
|
Aikei_c
Member #14,871
January 2013
|
OK, tell me, when BBC or CNN gave false facts? |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
About Navalniy.. Are you sure all is wrong? About airstrikes? About something "general", well BBC has covered the Georgian conflict as Russian aggression from day 0. Although the independent commission says: wiki said: The Report stated that conflict started "with a massive Georgian artillery attack... against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008" 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.
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
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. -- |
Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: 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 is the best Canadian news source. Tax payer's money well spent -- but it's less "state-run" than others of it's kind. "He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe" |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Derezo said: 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". -- |
Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007
|
type568 said: It was all evil Putin, even though he was just Prime Minister then. The title may change but the man is still in charge regardless. Quote: Finding an appropriate specific lie, and proving it is no easy taskj. I could try, but sorry.. Only after you. 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? In capitalist America bank robs you. |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
Vanneto said: Sorry, but you're accusing the BBC/CNN to be propaganda spewing machines. It is on you to provide evidence that this is true. 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. Quote: The title may change but the man is still in charge regardless. 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. Quote: You make all these claims yet you have nothing to back them up. Except empty words, of course. But everyone has those, no?
Man you just caught me out of context. I gave an example above, and there are many other examples. Have a look.
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
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 *** 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 . original Russian text: 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. --- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
NiteHackr said: Russian President has received permission to use the armed forces , but this was not done Yes it was.... -- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
I'd rather read in Russian. On FB I found this page. I doubt it is legitimate. :| Append: Thomas Fjellstrom said: Yes it was.... It wasn't. It may still happen though. The guys secured Crimea did this before securing the permission
|
|
|