Settle Crimea with a Referendum

[barbos]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/settle-crimea-referendum-30087
It's not all about Crimea of course.
The reason I post it is because I totally agree with every word in that article. Don't really hold much hope for serious discussion though, I have posted similar links to western experts who are not rabidly and ignorantly anti-russian and usually was simply ignored.
This one is probably the best one I have seen so far, the guy went through all points and clearly understands the issues.
Anyway, try reading it.

 

[zorq]

Here is the problem I have with normalizing relations with Russia after they stole a chunk of Ukraine: Where does it end? It is a pattern repeated throughout history. One aggressive country invades and steals a chunk of another country and then says, "Hey, sorry about that, but we're cool now right?" Things settle down and then a few years later it's the same thing all over again.

The author of the article thinks the West should forgive Russia for it's theft and let these grievances die in the past. But that isn't how it works on a personal level, so why should we let Russia get away with it on the international stage? If someone steals the sofa out of your living room you hold a grudge against them until they return it. Even if it's not your sofa but you know who stole it, you know not to trust that person and if you have principals you refuse to do business with them. If you forgive the thief and let them keep their stolen loot what lesson does that teach the thief? It teaches them that it is profitable to be a thief and that they should endeavor to steal again.

This seems to be exactly the lesson that Russia learned as they jumped straight into destabilizing Eastern Ukraine and supporting separatists there after they realized their Crimean Annexation worked. And what is Putin's suggestion to Trump regarding Ukraine? A referendum on the (Russian funded) rebel held regions. Please.

How do you stop this cycle? You don't forgive the sin until it has been made right. Forgiveness emboldens the brazen.

 

[barbos]

Here is the problem I have with normalizing relations with Russia after they stole a chunk of Ukraine: Where does it end?

You did not read the article. So go read it it first, then get back and discuss the article.

 

[zorq]

Here is the problem I have with normalizing relations with Russia after they stole a chunk of Ukraine: Where does it end?

You did not read the article. So go read it it first, then get back and discuss the article.

I did read the article. The article thinks the west should normalize relations with Russia and ignore the sin of Crimea. My response was pertinent.
Your assumption that I did not read the article seems to be a deflection.
The article proposes some ways for the West to justify forgiving Russia for their sin but it still boils down to forgiving Russia.

 

[barbos]

Here is the problem I have with normalizing relations with Russia after they stole a chunk of Ukraine: Where does it end?

You did not read the article. So go read it it first, then get back and discuss the article.

I did read the article.

No, you did not. Otherwise why would you refuse to discuss the content of the article and go to an old and false argument said article address in the first place? The damn article answered your stupid question/problem.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with Zorq. Better to just invade and give it back to Ukraine. It's the only thing that works.

Condoning any land grab is just asking for more trouble. That's why it's so import to keep China out of the Spratley's.

Expecting a free and fair referendum. in Crimea is a pipe dream.

 

[zorq]

I did read the article.

No, you did not. Otherwise why would you refuse to discuss the content of the article and go to an old and false argument said article address in the first place? The damn article answered your stupid question/problem.

I did. My response was referring directly to the content of the article. The article is all about finding a way for the West to justify to themselves moving past Russia's crimes in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think the West SHOULD move past those crimes. What don't you understand?

 

[barbos]

I did read the article.

No, you did not. Otherwise why would you refuse to discuss the content of the article and go to an old and false argument said article address in the first place? The damn article answered your stupid question/problem.

I did. My response was referring directly to the content of the article. The article is all about finding a way for the West to justify to themselves moving past Russia's crimes in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think the West SHOULD move past those crimes. What don't you understand?

I understand that discussion goes exactly as I expected - complete ignore of the article.

 

[zorq]

I did. My response was referring directly to the content of the article. The article is all about finding a way for the West to justify to themselves moving past Russia's crimes in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think the West SHOULD move past those crimes. What don't you understand?

I understand that discussion goes exactly as I expected - complete ignore of the article.

I have actually mentioned the contents of the article. If you don't like the direction the thread is going why don't you try to actually CONTRIBUTE something. So far the only thing you have said in this thread is "I totally agree with every word in that article." So in other words you have contributed NOTHING to this thread except for a link. As far as I can tell from your contribution to this thread, YOU have given no indication YOU have read the article. YOU are the one ignoring the article.

If you want to talk about why Russia deserves to get away with theft write something about THAT. If you want to talk about the legitimacy of local referendums for the self determination of the populace, write something about THAT. If you want to talk about all the benefits the West will accrue by dropping their sanctions with Russia, write something about THAT.

So far the only thing you seem to want to talk about is ME not reading the article. But that is a tedious thread.

 

[barbos]

I did. My response was referring directly to the content of the article. The article is all about finding a way for the West to justify to themselves moving past Russia's crimes in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think the West SHOULD move past those crimes. What don't you understand?

I understand that discussion goes exactly as I expected - complete ignore of the article.

I have actually mentioned the contents of the article. If you don't like the direction the thread is going why don't you try to actually CONTRIBUTE something. So far the only thing you have said in this thread is "I totally agree with every word in that article." So in other words you have contributed NOTHING to this thread except for a link. As far as I can tell from your contribution to this thread, YOU have given no indication YOU have read the article. YOU are the one ignoring the article.

If you want to talk about why Russia deserves to get away with theft write something about THAT. If you want to talk about the legitimacy of local referendums for the self determination of the populace, write something about THAT. If you want to talk about all the benefits the West will accrue by dropping their sanctions with Russia, write something about THAT.

So far the only thing you seem to want to talk about is ME not reading the article. But that is a tedious thread.

Stop wasting my and your time and get out of this thread.

 

[barbos]

I agree with Zorq. Better to just invade and give it back to Ukraine. It's the only thing that works.

Condoning any land grab is just asking for more trouble. That's why it's so import to keep China out of the Spratley's.

Expecting a free and fair referendum. in Crimea is a pipe dream.

Another one who did not read the article. It's not really about Ukraine.
The whole fucking point of the article was to address <edit> opinion of people like yourself. And here you come, not reading the article and then just repeating your <edit> opinion. Exactly as I expected. Happens every time.

 

[barbos]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't know that Russia is a worthwhile enough ally to reverse ourselves on Crimea. Who needs who more? My guess is Russia needs a more benevolent US police than vice versa. In that case, Russia needs to give up something big to retain Crimea. Let the Chinese encroach on Siberia.

As for a referendum, one choice should be for Crimea to become independent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Perhaps we just don't agree with you

 

[barbos]

I don't know that Russia is a worthwhile enough ally to reverse ourselves on Crimea. Who needs who more? My guess is Russia needs a more benevolent US police than vice versa. In that case, Russia needs to give up something big to retain Crimea. Let the Chinese encroach on Siberia.

How about election hacking? I heard it's a big deal in US, Russia could give up that
But seriously, you want too much. Russia gave a lot already and got nothing in return. The article discusses that.
Russia (Soviet Union) gave up East Germany, Warsaw Pact and then Soviet Union itself with very little blood and with full accordance of Soviet Union constitution. So what did it get in return exactly? NATO in Ukraine?

As for whether or not Russia is worthy of being US ally. What is the worth of Crimea to US exactly?
Did you plan to use as NATO base? or you just want it to be a reason for never ending sanctions?
But I do agree that US neocons see no value in normal relations with Russia. EU may have different view on that.

As for a referendum, one choice should be for Crimea to become independent.

Why? Why can't they vote on being part of Russia?

 

[barbos]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Perhaps we just don't agree with you

I did not ask whether or not you agree with me. I asked whether or not you agree with american expert who wrote that article and why you don't agree and with what.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't know that Russia is a worthwhile enough ally to reverse ourselves on Crimea. Who needs who more? My guess is Russia needs a more benevolent US police than vice versa. In that case, Russia needs to give up something big to retain Crimea. Let the Chinese encroach on Siberia.

How about election hacking? I heard it's a big deal in US, Russia could give up that
But seriously, you want too much. Russia gave a lot already and got nothing in return. The article discusses that.
Russia (Soviet Union) gave up East Germany, Warsaw Pact and then Soviet Union itself with very little blood and with full accordance of Soviet Union constitution. So what did it get in return exactly? NATO in Ukraine?

You make it sound as if the collapse of the Soviet empire was an intentional gift to the west. Seems to me they would've kept it if they could. I don't think Russia deserves any credit for that.

I notice you omit the central point: who needs who?

Also I'm tired of all these Russia is so weak it's not a threat so we should make it an ally arguments. That shit cuts both ways ie not a valuable ally.

As for a referendum, one choice should be for Crimea to become independent.

Why? Why can't they vote on being part of Russia?

Stupid question. I didn't say they couldn't.

 

[barbos]

How about election hacking? I heard it's a big deal in US, Russia could give up that
But seriously, you want too much. Russia gave a lot already and got nothing in return. The article discusses that.
Russia (Soviet Union) gave up East Germany, Warsaw Pact and then Soviet Union itself with very little blood and with full accordance of Soviet Union constitution. So what did it get in return exactly? NATO in Ukraine?

You make it sound as if the collapse of the Soviet empire was an intentional gift to the west. Seems to me they would've kept it if they could.

Well. it's true for Soviet Union collapse, to a degree at least. I mean they certainly could have tried harder. But it's not true for East Germany and Warsaw pact. It was a conscious decision to let them go in the situation where they did not have to. American government critters at the time admitted that. In fact it's on record that they told Bush that they have to reciprocate and Bush famously said "Fuck them, we won"

I don't think Russia deserves any credit for that.

That was not a perception at the time. Perception was that Russia certainly deserves the credit for leaving East Europe peacefully.

I notice you omit the central point: who needs who?

I did not. I admit that US neocons think that they don't need Russia to a point where they are OK with another chaos in a State with nukes.
I suspect they think "Well, it worked last time, it should work again"

Also I'm tired of all these Russia is so weak it's not a threat so we should make it an ally arguments. That shit cuts both ways ie not a valuable ally.

Interesting position. Why does US have Macedonia as an ally then? They are even weaker than Russia, you never heard of Macedonia? OK, what about Baltic States, you must have heard about them. Their AirForce consists of one training jet and few civilian helicopters and An-2 biplanes. Must have been impressive enough for NATO.

As for a referendum, one choice should be for Crimea to become independent.

Why? Why can't they vote on being part of Russia?

Stupid question. I didn't say they couldn't.

Fine then, they would have that option as well.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Well. it's true for Soviet Union collapse, to a degree at least. I mean they certainly could have tried harder. But it's not true for East Germany and Warsaw pact. It was a conscious decision to let them go in the situation where they did not have to. American government critters at the time admitted that. In fact it's on record that they told Bush that they have to reciprocate and Bush famously said "Fuck them, we won"

Makes sense to me.

That was not a perception at the time. Perception was that Russia certainly deserves the credit for leaving East Europe peacefully.

Yeah, that's why all eastern Europe ran to join the west ASAP.

I admit that US neocons think that they don't need Russia to a point where they are OK with another chaos in a State with nukes.
I suspect they think "Well, it worked last time, it should work again"

Not all neocons. Kissinger gets fat fees for promoting this shit.

Interesting position. Why does US have Macedonia as an ally then? They are even weaker than Russia, you never heard of Macedonia? OK, what about Baltic States, you must have heard about them. Their AirForce consists of one training jet and few civilian helicopters and An-2 biplanes. Must have been impressive enough for NATO.

I don't recall our having to sanction a Macedonian illegal annexation.

 

[barbos]

Makes sense to me.

Which part? "Fuck them, we won"? or "we have to throw russians something"?

Yeah, that's why all eastern Europe ran to join the west ASAP.

No, that's not why, and they did not run. it took what? 15 or something years? more like slow walking and after years and years of hard work of US neocons to cultivate right people.

I admit that US neocons think that they don't need Russia to a point where they are OK with another chaos in a State with nukes.
I suspect they think "Well, it worked last time, it should work again"

Not all neocons. Kissinger gets fat fees for promoting this shit.

Who is paying him? Do you admit that neocons are selling shit? If you do then you do realize that they never leave State Department, regardless who is US President?

Interesting position. Why does US have Macedonia as an ally then? They are even weaker than Russia, you never heard of Macedonia? OK, what about Baltic States, you must have heard about them. Their AirForce consists of one training jet and few civilian helicopters and An-2 biplanes. Must have been impressive enough for NATO.

I don't recall our having to sanction a Macedonian illegal annexation.

MMM OK, in that case, you do realize that "annexation" happened after US designated Russia as an enemy, not before?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#2014_Ukrainian_crisis
Seems to me that Kissinger basically agrees with the article and hence with me.
Now I realize that you call his views "shit". You need to elaborate on that because well, Kissinger disagrees with you, not to mention author of the article I posted. There are a lot of old retired foreign policy critters who agree with that "shit"