Is Russia about to push toward Kiev?

Sorry, but there were already treaties in place and the naked aggression by Russia is not accepted by the rest of the World.

 

The referendum's results mean diddly-squat under the conditions and circumstances they were undertaken. You couldn't get 95 per cent of people to vote for free ice cream. The referendum has no legitimacy.

 

It is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.

 

Yes, I agree the % is not convincing but the die is cast, putin has crossed the Robicon by recognizing Krim as "indipendant" so now an armed clash in Ukrain is almost unavoidable, the more the Ukrainains will push toward Krim the more vicous the fight will be, all Putin has to do is defend and he has the ppl support, how far will the west go with this ? not too far, compremising is the word.

 

Putin's biggest fear is that the revolution in the Ukraine will spread to his own country. That is why he is acting aggressive to pound the Ukraine into submission. Ukraine replaced the corrupt Russian puppet. The Ukraine is a model for the problem in his own country.

 

Actually, international observers declared the referendum to be totally fair and free of all interference and threat. I am opposed to this referendum, not in principle, but rather, under the particular circumstances it was undertaken. Gorbachev recently made the point that Crimea had only ended up in the territory of post-Soviet Ukraine in 1954 because it had been transferred from Russia by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev when both countries were part of the USSR. And remember, no referendum of any kind was held at that time.

 

I think it had more to do with justifiable concerns he has with regards to U.S/EU territorial ambitions.

 

He lost his puppet government so yes, he is worried about his control of the area.

 

Your characterization of the USSR's totalitarianism--you dismiss it, breezily, as "so-called" totalitarianism--is really quite revealing.

And it did not graciously allow the breakup of the Soviet Union; rather, it was utterly impotent to stop it.

As for the suggestion that either Europe or the US might act militarily in Crimea: It is really much too ludicrous to warrant a response. I am unaware of anyone in a leadership position, in either Europe or the US--or anywhere else, for that matter--who has suggested that foreign troops should be sent to Crimea...

 

Soviet army had a possibility to crush any uprising. In Czech republic of Poland or Baltic countries. The force of soviet army was formidable and they just needed an order. But they didn't, because the head of communist party didn't have any butchers of Powell's type and soviet people didn't want to kill their neighbours. Everyone considered himself to be a victim and everyone was made to think that living apart would do good to all the sides. That's why USSR was ruined. The people were too kind to pressurize each other...
Roman empire was dying for hundreds of years ultimately destroying and betraying its eastern part. British empire died after 2 wars which made it bankrupt. Russian empire (which I like more than Soviet) was dying in the bloodest civil war ever. And soviet empire collapsed without noticable lists of victims. Could it happen with bloody rulers and angry people? Noway! So don't lie about the people you don't know.

Good for you. Because the self defense (unidentified) crimeans and russian black sea fleet would make the western troops surprised if they made the mistake. And those who order to right anything different know it.

 

You overlook the fact that elections in Ukraine are coming soon, elections which will be at least as fair as those in Crimea.

Now help me understand the difference between Russia in Crimea and Nazi Germany in Austria - the Anschluss. I'm sure you've seen the same newsreels of happy Viennese waving German flags as they welcomed Hitler.

Then help me understand the difference between Russia in Crimea and Britain in the Confederacy. I'm sure you remember that during the Civil War Britain actively supported the Confederacy in hopes of weakening the US and regaining control. I assume you think the Confederacy was right to secede from the US, just as Crimea was right to secede from Ukraimne. If not, why not?

Do you think Tibet and East Turkestan ("Sinkiang") have a right to secede from China?

What about the Basques? The Quebecoise?

There are countless examples throughout history of regions which have seceded from bigger countries, or tried to secede. Do you offer some rule or principle to decide which of these secessions are right, or are you simply in love with the idea of a reconstituted Soviet Union under the thumb of a dictator, as are so many of your leftist peers?

Why do you think the will of the people is decisive in Crimea but irrelevant in Ukraine? The formality of an election will soon be over. When the Ukrainian people vote to sustain their government, will you be satisfied then?

P.S. What do you think of Kim Jong-Un's recent election to North Korea's parliament with 100% of the vote?

 

Russia collapsed because they spent 80% of the government budget on the military and left it's people to live in poverty except for the elite. Russia often brutalizes not only it's neighbors but it's own troops. Russia is quickly turning into another fascist State with a dictator that gets to count the votes.

 

Gorbachev is no longer in charge. This is to be decided by people who live in Crimea and Russian government. It is nobody else's business. Why Ukrainians do not run referendums in their provinces? Why there are no elections after Yanukovich fled?

 

So if it is Russia's business, then it is any other countries business.

 

How can you say that this is an issue for Russia?

The Ukraine is an INDEPENDENT COUNTRY.

Russia is a DIFFERENT COUNTRY.

It doesn't matter that Russian's are living in part of the Ukraine they have to abide by local and Federal Ukrainian Laws NOT the laws of Russia nor does the Russian Leadership have any rights whatsoever.

This whole issue is so screwed up that I can hardly believe Putin is acting this stupid!!

What do you THINK is going to happen eventually?

The United States just imposed Economic Sanctions on 32 Russian Leaders as a WARNING as the U.S. HOPES Putin will come to his senses.

If Putin does send more troops into the Crimea as everyone around the world has seen the video's of Spetsnaz wearing uniforms without insignia's on them....if Putin does this then the United States will have to apply Economic Sanctions on the entire Country of Russia and the E.U. will do the same.

And just WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WILL DO?

The Russian Economy is too weak and Russian Family's are barely getting by right now....and when the U.S. applies sanctions and anyone who want's to keep doing business with the U.S. which is the Worlds #1 Consumer Nation as well as the Worlds #1 Manufacturer and the Worlds #1 Economy....if the U.S. say's...don't buy Russian or else you cannot sell to American's.....NO ONE WILL BUY RUSSIAN!!!

This does NOT have to happen.

AboveAlpha

 

Hello! Yeah, it's true(((( I live in Ukraine, and Russian only stoping only time. They will invade... >>>Link Removed<<<

 

USSR collapsed because of different reasons. Economically there was an arms race. There was not only one red racer in the show. It also had other participants. The SDI-project was initiated those days just as a teaser for the soviets to get ready the response. Besides the Shuttle program was made. Such a shuttle is a nice carrier of extremely heavy nuke that cannot be attacked until it is too late. Economically as you see it now there is no reason for the US to use those expensive pieces of machinery. It was done just to drain money from USSR. Besides, US had an agreement with the Al Kayeda nest that they would increase the production of oil which will drop the prices making it difficult for the USSR to survive. There was also a cultural bomb. Different radios that were broadcasted in the teritory of former USSR had a hatred propaganda. Unlike soviet propaganda which tried to make everyone thinking that all the nations are a brotherhood of workers and farmers. The collapse of soviet union was triggered by multiple conflicts that were made ready for years and years. Armenia and Azerbaijan. Georgia and Abkhazia. Baltic countries and Russia. Kirgizia and Tajikistan. Chechen people and dagestani. This blood was paid from american taxpayers pockets for years. Finally there was a leader that was found insode communist party by Thatcher and her best movie star. This leader was extremely vulnerable to any influence and he had all the good intensions without having a strong character. He was under the influence of his wife. And his appointment to the post of the head of state was a matter that he was young and was able to talk to western leaders (at that point soviet communists came to an idea that it is possible to negotiate to americans rather than making sure that the territory is safe of their provocations.

The grim of the history is that having won such a mean victory over the USSR american politicians stopped in their development and for the moment the american empire looks very much alike... with the last days of USSR. Once I look at numerous fights between democrats and republicans, once I see a cheap soap opera about the elections which is made the way that it is interesting to look at on purpose, I am afraid that there will be the same in the US... I myself don't want that.

 

What does any of this have to do with the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union?

Oh, in case you are unsure as to exactly what totalitarianism is, it is defined, rather succinctly, by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Here is the link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism

 

Read carefully. The state had a need to preserve itself. For that reason every body does everything possible! And if there is a totalitarianism in the country then people act accordingly. E.g. if a state is invoved into supporting an illegitimate government then it would use propaganda to call for the majority's war hysteria. In a totalitarian state only a viewpoint that the leaders should kick the hell out of the rivals will get popular. But it didn't happen in the USSR. The USSR collapsed as democratic state. Peacefully. And with a celebration of this divorce by the people, who didn't know yet that the marriage was still better. See the point?

If USSR was a totalitarian state as most amercians are forced to think then the bloody KGB and communists would control their subjects with an absolute authority of the leader or the party etc...

 

Naa they will not its of no benefit to russia

 

Yes, it is always easier to blame other nations for your own troubles brought on by your own leaders. That is called having the necessary bogeyman to deflect from your own leaders failures. Russia is once again showing what it is, and aggressive and totalitarian State and of course, it will all be someone elses fault.

 

Did I blame only West? No.

CPSU was rotten. It's ideology was rotten. It didn't develop. There was no motivation. People lost the reality and agreed for a world of dreams in 1991. That was the mistake of my fathers. USSR according to democratic procedures should have been preserved. That was the wish of the people of USSR! But the people of USSR are also responsible for what has happened. They didn't arise to protect their homes as crimeans did or as people of south and east of Ukraine do.

It's like a war or a sport game. You are definetely responsible for your own performance. But you shouldn't forget about your rival who can have a lucky punch, or strategy and tactics. There is no doubt that the USSR has collapsed. It's a fact. It needs to be faced. (Some people in former soviet republic still haven't). But this collapse deserves to be learnt. It's much more complicated than just a totalitarian system that naturally gives way to democratic society.

As I said I can sum up the factors of USSR collapse:
1) Economical. The problems were not deadly. But they were obvious for the people
2) Ideological. It became obvious that the ideals and moralty of soviet culture is false or at least the political leaders don't share it themselves
3) The divided society. That was the moment when different nations wanted to have their piece of a state thinking that they will do better.
4) Personal factor of a weak leader.

Now looking at let's say western society I notice that you are in trouble. Of course the national question is luckily not the one. But there are some more dividing factors. The way I see it from the side: republicans-democrats, christians-homophils, weapon supporters - ban supporters. It is not as strong as national conflicts but a man is a very cruel animal. That can be quite enough.

 

Well, you have to agree that Putin wishes to capture the alleged glory days of the USSR and he is in fact born from the past. The Russian people in general still wish for something better so will support him even if they remember the problems of the past. I believe Putin's biggest fear is his own people.

Western nations are in trouble in general from a massive debt frenzy which will weaken them, possibly leading to economic collapse much like the USSR experienced. In the case of Western nations it is not necessarily due to military spending but a turning inward and trying to create a false wealth and a huge welfare state.

 

I never denied it. And that is why he is so popular among russians. He really was born in his time and on time. And he was educated when he should have been educated.

I would say that his people is his major concern. Not fear. Fear is a driver for weak people. Look at every Putin's move. He gets ready a move years before he is making it.
Western coup started in December and there was no action or result till february. Now there are still no true candidates for presidential elections and Crimea has already voted its longly awaited reunification...

Every life and every death have comon features and individuality. Of course there are differences between US, EU and USSR. I mean the tendencies.

 

Here, collapse of the Soviet Union is attributed to words of the "great communicator", ...."tear down that wall...", which is not true. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of bankruptcy of Socialist System. Speaking of which of USA presidents who seriously contributed in this process, I would rather name Jimmy Carter, who encouraged dissident movement in the former Soviet Union and mass emigration out of the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Putin already said he was not going to invade and take whole Ukraine.