Putin's Real Long Game

[Jayjay]

Press Conference, March 4th 2014 (transcript translation by Washington Post):

QUESTION: How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility of it joining Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we do not. Generally, I believe that only residents of a given country who have the freedom of will and are in complete safety can and should determine their future. If this right was granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this was made possible in many different parts of the world, then nobody has ruled out the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is fixed by several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke any such decision and will not breed such sentiments.

We now know though that the plan to annex Crimea was decided already in February.

But yeah, he lied, but he was in the middle of operation.

When is Russia not in the middle of some operation or another?

I am not outraged. He did say it's up to cimeans, and whether you admit it or not, they voted to get the hell out of Ukraine.

Respecting Crimean choice is not the issue. The issue is violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia itself didn't give the residents of Konigsberg or Karelia the choice, and there was no referendum in Chechnya. Eastern Ukraine did not get to vote whether they wanted Russian invasion and rebellion. Even the Russian federation itself is organized in centralized way so that governors are appointed by Kreml rather than voted in by the people. It's the height of hypocrisy to appeal to the referendum, but only this one time when it is advantageous to Russia.

Besides, what about the minority of Tatars and Ukrainians who remained in Crimea? Can they make their own referendum and vote for their lands to go back to Ukraine, or become independent?

Then, there is the whole issue of Russia invading Eastern Ukraine and escalating the conflict way beyond Crimea, in areas that were not majority ethnic Russian before. Why wasn't it enough to just annex Crimea and Sevastopol and leave it at that?

- - - Updated - - -

That "to the victor goes the spoils" is a silly justification.

Well, USSR was not the only one getting spoils, US got them too.
Anyway, Ukrainan government did everything humanly possible to lose Crimea.

Like what? Give it up peacefully without going to all-out war? Not have it ethnically cleansed like Russia did with its WW2 era annexations?

 

[barbos]

Press Conference, March 4th 2014 (transcript translation by Washington Post):

QUESTION: How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility of it joining Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we do not. Generally, I believe that only residents of a given country who have the freedom of will and are in complete safety can and should determine their future. If this right was granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this was made possible in many different parts of the world, then nobody has ruled out the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is fixed by several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke any such decision and will not breed such sentiments.

We now know though that the plan to annex Crimea was decided already in February.

But yeah, he lied, but he was in the middle of operation.

When is Russia not in the middle of some operation or another?

I am not outraged. He did say it's up to cimeans, and whether you admit it or not, they voted to get the hell out of Ukraine.

Respecting Crimean choice is not the issue. The issue is violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia itself didn't give the residents of Konigsberg or Karelia the choice, and there was no referendum in Chechnya. Eastern Ukraine did not get to vote whether they wanted Russian invasion and rebellion. Even the Russian federation itself is organized in centralized way so that governors are appointed by Kreml rather than voted in by the people. It's the height of hypocrisy to appeal to the referendum, but only this one time when it is advantageous to Russia.

Yes, you have a point here. In theory every region should be able to vote for anything at any time But in practice that's not workable arrangement most ot the time. Personally I (and lot of people in Russia) would have voted to kick Chechnya out It's just too expensive have them independent but they are expensive to keep them in too.
Legally, Chechnya had no right to vote for leaving. Crimea was autonomous region in Ukraine which had some rights but then thanks to some shenanigans in Kiev they lost that status.

Besides, what about the minority of Tatars and Ukrainians who remained in Crimea? Can they make their own referendum and vote for their lands to go back to Ukraine, or become independent?

I think the trick here not to separate by ethnic origin but by territory

Then, there is the whole issue of Russia invading Eastern Ukraine and escalating the conflict way beyond Crimea, in areas that were not majority ethnic Russian before. Why wasn't it enough to just annex Crimea and Sevastopol and leave it at that?

We've been over this countless number of times. Does Russia meddle in eastern Ukraine? the answer is yes but if you think it's invasion or occupation then you are not gonna get me play this game.

- - - Updated - - -

That "to the victor goes the spoils" is a silly justification.

Well, USSR was not the only one getting spoils, US got them too.
Anyway, Ukrainan government did everything humanly possible to lose Crimea.

Like what? Give it up peacefully without going to all-out war? Not have it ethnically cleansed like Russia did with its WW2 era annexations?

By trying to ban russian language and privately promising to hang pro-russian (which is pretty much everyone) crimeans.

 

[RVonse]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[Jayjay]

I am not outraged. He did say it's up to cimeans, and whether you admit it or not, they voted to get the hell out of Ukraine.

Respecting Crimean choice is not the issue. The issue is violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia itself didn't give the residents of Konigsberg or Karelia the choice, and there was no referendum in Chechnya. Eastern Ukraine did not get to vote whether they wanted Russian invasion and rebellion. Even the Russian federation itself is organized in centralized way so that governors are appointed by Kreml rather than voted in by the people. It's the height of hypocrisy to appeal to the referendum, but only this one time when it is advantageous to Russia.

Yes, you have a point here. In theory every region should be able to vote for anything at any time But in practice that's not workable arrangement most ot the time. Personally I (and lot of people in Russia) would have voted to kick Chechnya out It's just too expensive have them independent but they are expensive to keep them in too.
Legally, Chechnya had no right to vote for leaving. Crimea was autonomous region in Ukraine which had some rights but then thanks to some shenanigans in Kiev they lost that status.

Besides, what about the minority of Tatars and Ukrainians who remained in Crimea? Can they make their own referendum and vote for their lands to go back to Ukraine, or become independent?

I think the trick here not to separate by ethnic origin but by territory

Then, there is the whole issue of Russia invading Eastern Ukraine and escalating the conflict way beyond Crimea, in areas that were not majority ethnic Russian before. Why wasn't it enough to just annex Crimea and Sevastopol and leave it at that?

We've been over this countless number of times. Does Russia meddle in eastern Ukraine? the answer is yes but if you think it's invasion or occupation then you are not gonna get me play this game.

What it's called is not the point. But what is happening in Eastern Ukraine is not some coincidental happenstance, it's part of the same campaign as the annexation of Crimea. In the end, Crimea will likely end up with Russia, but the situation is not going to be resolved until the invasion/occupation/meddling in Donbas is over one way or the other.

That "to the victor goes the spoils" is a silly justification.

Well, USSR was not the only one getting spoils, US got them too.
Anyway, Ukrainan government did everything humanly possible to lose Crimea.

Like what? Give it up peacefully without going to all-out war? Not have it ethnically cleansed like Russia did with its WW2 era annexations?

By trying to ban russian language and privately promising to hang pro-russian (which is pretty much everyone) crimeans.

"Private promises" of hanging people is pure hyperbole. Extremist elements on both sides have made gaffes like that, and such statements are inflated and exaggerated for propaganda purposes. The language law was voted down by the parliament and it was never the real issue, merely a pretext. And what is ironic is that now that Russia is in control, the Ukrainian schools are being shut down in Crimea and Ukrainian language is in the process of being eradicated.

 

[Jayjay]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

 

[barbos]

"Private promises" of hanging people is pure hyperbole. Extremist elements on both sides have made gaffes like that, and such statements are inflated and exaggerated for propaganda purposes. The language law was voted down by the parliament and it was never the real issue, merely a pretext.

There were no extremists on pro-russian side at the time. And that's how it started. Hyperbole or not, but when high ranking officials openly twit "Promise them (crimeans) anything, we will hang them later" It does not help.

And what is ironic is that now that Russia is in control, the Ukrainian schools are being shut down in Crimea and Ukrainian language is in the process of being eradicated.

Where do you get this stuff?

- - - Updated - - -

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

Well, Hillary compared Putin to Hitler and did try maidan him out around 2012. Nuking Hitler would have been logical.

 

[TV and credit cards]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Who wouldn't celebrate the unpredictability of Trump.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Unless, of course there is something we don't know about Trump that these celebrating high ranking Russian officials do.

 

[RVonse]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

You've got to be kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEDixlWwnYo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Hillary is one of the most insane war hawks ever to be secretary of state. Thank god she went no further and lets hope for the future of mankind she retires permanently from politics.

Trump looks normal next to her....at least when it comes to getting into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

You've got to be kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEDixlWwnYo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Hillary is one of the most insane war hawks ever to be secretary of state. Thank god she went no further and lets hope for the future of mankind she retires permanently from politics.

Trump looks normal next to her....at least when it comes to getting into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

We will see, we will see. I predict that Trump will be the most unpredictable, volatile, war mongering president in our lifetime. But maybe I'll be wrong......

 

[Jayjay]

There were no extremists on pro-russian side at the time. And that's how it started. Hyperbole or not, but when high ranking officials openly twit "Promise them (crimeans) anything, we will hang them later" It does not help.

And what is ironic is that now that Russia is in control, the Ukrainian schools are being shut down in Crimea and Ukrainian language is in the process of being eradicated.

Where do you get this stuff?

UN report on Human Rights in Ukraine:

179. The start of the 2016-2017 school year in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol confirmed the continuous decline of Ukrainian as a language of instruction, a phenomenon observed since Ukraine’s loss of de facto sovereignty over the peninsula in March 2014, while an increasing number of Crimean Tatar parents appear to be making use of the possibility of educating their children in the Crimean Tatar language.

180. There are 533 schools in Crimea. Of the seven Ukrainian language education institutions that existed until 2014, the Simferopol Gymnasium School is the only one remaining. This year, however, it ceased instruction in Ukrainian in the first and second grade. The spokesperson of the Crimean ‘ministry of education’ attributed this to a supposed lack of interest among parents for continuing Ukrainian-language instruction.

"Supposed lack of interest" indeed.

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

Well, Hillary compared Putin to Hitler and did try maidan him out around 2012. Nuking Hitler would have been logical.

No, it would not be logical today. There are dozens of dictators and regimes that have been compared to Hitler (even Putin himself invoked the Hitler parallel in one of his speeches), and so far nobody has been nuked or even threatened with nukes yet.

 

[barbos]

There were no extremists on pro-russian side at the time. And that's how it started. Hyperbole or not, but when high ranking officials openly twit "Promise them (crimeans) anything, we will hang them later" It does not help.

Where do you get this stuff?

UN report on Human Rights in Ukraine:

179. The start of the 2016-2017 school year in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol confirmed the continuous decline of Ukrainian as a language of instruction, a phenomenon observed since Ukraine’s loss of de facto sovereignty over the peninsula in March 2014, while an increasing number of Crimean Tatar parents appear to be making use of the possibility of educating their children in the Crimean Tatar language.

180. There are 533 schools in Crimea. Of the seven Ukrainian language education institutions that existed until 2014, the Simferopol Gymnasium School is the only one remaining. This year, however, it ceased instruction in Ukrainian in the first and second grade. The spokesperson of the Crimean ‘ministry of education’ attributed this to a supposed lack of interest among parents for continuing Ukrainian-language instruction.

"Supposed lack of interest" indeed.

Yes, lack of interest. Russian does not need special protection, it was ukrainian which had been under forced protection and once this protection was removed it's only natural that the ukrainian dropped.

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

Well, Hillary compared Putin to Hitler and did try maidan him out around 2012. Nuking Hitler would have been logical.

No, it would not be logical today. There are dozens of dictators and regimes that have been compared to Hitler (even Putin himself invoked the Hitler parallel in one of his speeches), and so far nobody has been nuked or even threatened with nukes yet.

It could have been logical for Hilary, we don't know.

 

[Will Wiley]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

1.Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
2.The neocons have a very consistent pattern of demonising the leader of a country then invading bombing or starting a war with that country if they can't overthrow the leader.
3. The only real option for the warmongers is to strike first, and they would have to strike hard.

Have you read much about the neocons attitudes towards nuclear weapons?

The idea that came after MAD was to launch a first strike.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The Russians know about this which is probably why Putin has been issuing so many warnings. When you are facing someone who compares you to Hitler (which Hillary did to Putin), and this same person justifies pre emptive strikes on the basis that the world would have been better if someone did this to Hitler before WW2, Then you have to wonder if Hillary would do it.

It's a real possibility.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

1.Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
2.The neocons have a very consistent pattern of demonising the leader of a country then invading bombing or starting a war with that country if they can't overthrow the leader.
3. The only real option for the warmongers is to strike first, and they would have to strike hard.

Have you read much about the neocons attitudes towards nuclear weapons?

The idea that came after MAD was to launch a first strike.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The Russians know about this which is probably why Putin has been issuing so many warnings. When you are facing someone who compares you to Hitler (which Hillary did to Putin), and this same person justifies pre emptive strikes on the basis that the world would have been better if someone did this to Hitler before WW2, Then you have to wonder if Hillary would do it.

It's a real possibility.

Wow, do you not feel the tinniest bit hypocritical? I mean come on, if someone from Sweden or wherever wants to slam HRC fine. But you support the most brutal regime in the world today, Russia. Russia has killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Syria. You've destabilized whole regions (ME and Eastern Europe), invaded and taken land and then occupied it! People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing so many rocks. You need to look in the mirror.....

 

[Will Wiley]

1.Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
2.The neocons have a very consistent pattern of demonising the leader of a country then invading bombing or starting a war with that country if they can't overthrow the leader.
3. The only real option for the warmongers is to strike first, and they would have to strike hard.

Have you read much about the neocons attitudes towards nuclear weapons?

The idea that came after MAD was to launch a first strike.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The Russians know about this which is probably why Putin has been issuing so many warnings. When you are facing someone who compares you to Hitler (which Hillary did to Putin), and this same person justifies pre emptive strikes on the basis that the world would have been better if someone did this to Hitler before WW2, Then you have to wonder if Hillary would do it.

It's a real possibility.

Wow, do you not feel the tinniest bit hypocritical? I mean come on, if someone from Sweden or wherever wants to slam HRC fine. But you support the most brutal regime in the world today, Russia. Russia has killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Syria. You've destabilized whole regions (ME and Eastern Europe), invaded and taken land and then occupied it! People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing so many rocks. You need to look in the mirror.....

I don't think you understood or maybe didn't read the post I replied to.

But if you want to talk about Brutal Regimes then you need look no further than the Obama regime. An incredible 26171 bombs dropped on foreign countries last year.

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign

 

[funinspace]

With regard to OP, its just possible that Putins real long game is the same as my long game, also being the same as Trumps long game.

Its the long kind of game where you want to live as long as you can not end up getting yourself nuked.

It makes perfect logical sense to me why Russians were celebrating when Hillary lost to Trump. Self preservation, they don't want to get themselves nuked.

The theory is called occam's razor, where the simplest solution is usually the correct one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Who wouldn't celebrate the unpredictability of Trump.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Unless, of course there is something we don't know about Trump that these celebrating high ranking Russian officials do.

The devil they know in Clinton would be yet another neocon supporting the US as the global tough cop. With Trump, yeah they get a level of unpredictability, but they also get the possibility of an American retrenchment in the world and a possible American weakened leadership and cooperation around the world. Those would be a good thing to the world's largest mafia headquartered in Moscow. The question the Kremlin would have to ask itself, is Trump more of a paranoid narcissistic buffoon; or a crafty, albeit zany and narcissistic, negotiator for his perceived US interests. Personally, my view leans towards the former...

 

[RVonse]

Wow, do you not feel the tinniest bit hypocritical? I mean come on, if someone from Sweden or wherever wants to slam HRC fine. But you support the most brutal regime in the world today, Russia. Russia has killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Syria. You've destabilized whole regions (ME and Eastern Europe), invaded and taken land and then occupied it! People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing so many rocks. You need to look in the mirror.....

I don't think you understood or maybe didn't read the post I replied to.

But if you want to talk about Brutal Regimes then you need look no further than the Obama regime. An incredible 26171 bombs dropped on foreign countries last year.

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign

Most of the world (including Obama himself) was wondering how how in hell he deserved to win the nobel peace prize. But after the passage of time.... and after we actually observed his mass slaughter of civilians everywhere, we can conclude that Obama did actually get the prize when it made the most sense. Before he had actually begun doing anything in his job as POTUS! Obama would never have a better track record of peace than before he became president.

 

[Jayjay]

Where does the idea come from that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, Russia would get nuked? Was that one of her campaign promises? Out of the two candidates, Trump seemed much more likely to resort to nuclear weapons than Clinton.

1.Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
2.The neocons have a very consistent pattern of demonising the leader of a country then invading bombing or starting a war with that country if they can't overthrow the leader.
3. The only real option for the warmongers is to strike first, and they would have to strike hard.

Have you read much about the neocons attitudes towards nuclear weapons?

The idea that came after MAD was to launch a first strike.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The Russians know about this which is probably why Putin has been issuing so many warnings. When you are facing someone who compares you to Hitler (which Hillary did to Putin), and this same person justifies pre emptive strikes on the basis that the world would have been better if someone did this to Hitler before WW2, Then you have to wonder if Hillary would do it.

It's a real possibility.

No, it's a nonsensical non-possibility, at least compared to Trump, who during his campaign openly advocated use of nuclear weapons against ISIS and justified it with "why do we make them?". How many countries did Hillary nuke during his stint as Secretary of State? Zero. And even if she was a neocon, which she is not, remember that the real neocons were in power already in early 21st century. How many countries did they nuke? Zero.

And how is Putin calling Russia's enemies Hitler any different from Hillary making such a comparison? Really, if any one of these leaders is batshit insane enough to use nukes, Hillary would have been a distant third behind Trump and Putin.

 

[Jayjay]

UN report on Human Rights in Ukraine:

179. The start of the 2016-2017 school year in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol confirmed the continuous decline of Ukrainian as a language of instruction, a phenomenon observed since Ukraine’s loss of de facto sovereignty over the peninsula in March 2014, while an increasing number of Crimean Tatar parents appear to be making use of the possibility of educating their children in the Crimean Tatar language.

180. There are 533 schools in Crimea. Of the seven Ukrainian language education institutions that existed until 2014, the Simferopol Gymnasium School is the only one remaining. This year, however, it ceased instruction in Ukrainian in the first and second grade. The spokesperson of the Crimean ‘ministry of education’ attributed this to a supposed lack of interest among parents for continuing Ukrainian-language instruction.

"Supposed lack of interest" indeed.

Yes, lack of interest. Russian does not need special protection, it was ukrainian which had been under forced protection and once this protection was removed it's only natural that the ukrainian dropped.

That's precisely why such "forced protections" are needed. Besides if Russian language did not need protection, why make a big fuss about the language law that Ukrainian parliament voted down in the first place? It was never anything but a pretext.

 

[bilby]

Wow, do you not feel the tinniest bit hypocritical? I mean come on, if someone from Sweden or wherever wants to slam HRC fine. But you support the most brutal regime in the world today, Russia. Russia has killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Syria. You've destabilized whole regions (ME and Eastern Europe), invaded and taken land and then occupied it! People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing so many rocks. You need to look in the mirror.....

I don't think you understood or maybe didn't read the post I replied to.

But if you want to talk about Brutal Regimes then you need look no further than the Obama regime. An incredible 26171 bombs dropped on foreign countries last year.

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign

In the history of brutal regimes, that's not even a footnote. The RAF dropped more bombs than that just on 14 October 1944 alone.

If you want to talk about Brutal Regimes, then you need to at least mention the genuinely brutal regimes of the past, or people will just assume that you are completely ignorant of the brutality shown by humanity throughout history, and of the fact that there has never been a less brutal time in recorded history than the present.

 

[J842P]

1.Hillary Clinton is a neocon.
2.The neocons have a very consistent pattern of demonising the leader of a country then invading bombing or starting a war with that country if they can't overthrow the leader.
3. The only real option for the warmongers is to strike first, and they would have to strike hard.

Have you read much about the neocons attitudes towards nuclear weapons?

The idea that came after MAD was to launch a first strike.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

The Russians know about this which is probably why Putin has been issuing so many warnings. When you are facing someone who compares you to Hitler (which Hillary did to Putin), and this same person justifies pre emptive strikes on the basis that the world would have been better if someone did this to Hitler before WW2, Then you have to wonder if Hillary would do it.

It's a real possibility.

Wow, do you not feel the tinniest bit hypocritical? I mean come on, if someone from Sweden or wherever wants to slam HRC fine. But you support the most brutal regime in the world today, Russia. Russia has killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Syria. You've destabilized whole regions (ME and Eastern Europe), invaded and taken land and then occupied it! People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing so many rocks. You need to look in the mirror.....

Of for fuck's sake! Russia is the most brutal regime in the world because they are bombing the middle East? you are the one that needs to look in the mirror. The USA has been bombing this area and killing civilians by the thousands for decades. It is the USA who has no moral high ground here. Get off your high horse and read a history book for once.