You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 04:26:08 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 13734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #525 on: August 30, 2014, 12:30:41 AM »
Poland, the Baltic States, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine. They didn't like being under Russian rule and have been looking west rather than east.

Yeah, they didn't like being poor, nobody does.

I think it was more than money. More like a desire to be free. Free to speak out, to express ones opinion without being kidnapped and shot by some KGB type. T be free to leave if one wanted to, to have an actual voice in choosing a leader and not have one essentially chosen for you. So I'd say it was more than a desire for mere money that many of Russia's allies turned to the west rather than stay with Russia.

It's pretty much just money. Look no further than Saudi Arabia, total dictatorship country, yet the US is close allies with them, I don't see the US opening a can of democracy on them, why? Because oil, money, petrodollar.

The US occupy no moral high ground in terms of international relations, just a lot of cash, a lot of countries dependent on that cash, and the strongest military force in the world.

Offline ladia2287

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #526 on: August 30, 2014, 12:39:38 AM »
Quote
Yeah, they didn't like being poor, nobody does.

I think it's more along the lines of they didn't like living in complete terror actually. The citizens of those countries endured some truly shocking things at the hands of their own government. Imagine life during the Holocaust, only worse.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #527 on: August 30, 2014, 12:59:38 AM »
What is it with all the talk about the US? I mean, the country has a really spotty record and I am sure as shit not going to defend that record, but right now, they are not a major player in the Ukraine.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #528 on: August 30, 2014, 01:02:24 AM »
What is it with all the talk about the US? I mean, the country has a really spotty record and I am sure as shit not going to defend that record, but right now, they are not a major player in the Ukraine.

Not outright. But they are a major Western power, which means they're backing the pro-Western Kiev-based government. Also, there's lots of talk ranging from reasonable suspicion to conspiracy theory about how much money the US/EU is secretly investing to prop up the Ukranian state against separatists and rebels.

Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #529 on: August 30, 2014, 03:15:34 AM »
Poland, the Baltic States, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine. They didn't like being under Russian rule and have been looking west rather than east.

 
 I think it was more than money. More like a desire to be free. Free to speak out, to express ones opinion without being kidnapped and shot by some KGB type. T be free to leave if one wanted to, to have an actual voice in choosing a leader and not have one essentially chosen for you. So I'd say it was more than a desire for mere money that many of Russia's allies turned to the west rather than stay with Russia.

When has Romania been under Russian rule? The area that is now Moldova has been and Romania has been part of the Warsaw Pact. Bucharest has never been under Russian ruling.

That said, the other 'allies' still want Russia. So all the countries you name are in Europe and close to the EU. Azerbaijan, Kazahkstan, Turkmenistan, they are all still friendly towards Russia but not near the EU. See a trend there?

Freedom is a farce. As QT says, there are tons of countries in the Middle East that are not 'free' but nobody's complaining there because they have money.

And Dice, the fact that America is no major player in Ukraine is exactly my point. They either are, and help, or they are not and shut the hell up. You cannot sit on the sidelines but condemn Russia at the same time.


          Sure, at one time the US conquered everything from Native American tribes in the Southeast (the Cherokee, anyone)...  All the way to seizing Mexican settlements in the Southwest.  On into turning half the Pacific Ocean into tributary states which might resemble a page from the ancient Chinese playbook.  And yes in more contemporary times, the US is fairly selective about when to intervene (Kosovo, Libya) and when to ignore or stand aside (Rwanda, Bahrain). 

         But then Donetsk is not Kosovo.  There was no sense of serious threat of ethnic cleansing in east Ukraine.  While the threat even in Kosovo may have been overestimated, that is somewhat understandable in the wake of the rhetoric and violence that did fly around in the previous Bosnia war.  By contrast:  The Russian banter about Right Sector, at least as it is directed at the West, came out after Yanukovich fell and at the same time Crimea was outright annexed (not merely intervened in).  And now the Tartars may feel quite insecure, speaking of historical ethnic tensions. 


I don't agree with that. The Yugoslav war was in the 1990's, after that things sort of settled down. Kosovo got independence in 2008. If there had been a genocidal thread why did everybody wait 10 years with it? It was a prime example of NATO and UN doing what they do. They didn't like what Serbia was doing within their own country borders so they stepped in. When Russia doesn't like what Ukraine is doing within their country borders, the two parties that took Kosovo off Serbia for exactly the same reasons suddenly condemn Russia for that.

There was never any thread in Kosovo other than the lame excuses UN and NATO came up with. At least in Ukraine there is a thread as the government army is shooting and bombing it's own innocent civilians.

Offline ladia2287

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #530 on: August 30, 2014, 05:49:45 AM »
Quote
Freedom is a farce

Which is why so many people are so sceptical of Russia's claims that they are 'liberating' and 'helping'. It's nothing more than a transparent excuse being used by the Russian government to justify their actions.

Quote
They either are, and help, or they are not and shut the hell up

Has it not occured to you that perhaps the reason the US and its allies have not sent armed forces is because they are smart enough to realise that they'd receive exactly the same condemnation that Russia is now experiencing? Also, no country has an endless supply of armed forces, or of money and frankly, the US has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy so many times in the last few years that I'm honestly surprised they still exist as a sovereign nation. Getting caught up in another conflict when their existing resources are already spread so ridiculously thin would be a pretty stupid move.

Quote
I don't agree with that. The Yugoslav war was in the 1990's, after that things sort of settled down. Kosovo got independence in 2008. If there had been a genocidal thread why did everybody wait 10 years with it? It was a prime example of NATO and UN doing what they do. They didn't like what Serbia was doing within their own country borders so they stepped in.

No, things did not settle down. Kosovo didn't gain independance for so long because Yugoslavia's politics got in the way. It's not so simple as saying 'We don't like being part of this country, so we're going to make our own country now'. There is a process and this process can be long, lengthy, tedious and even violent depending on the political system and the laws that are in place. Also, in the 1990s, NATO and the UN had a great deal more influence because the world's leaders listened to them a great deal more than they do now. They also had more money, and more money meant that they could actually afford to intervene. Nowadays, most of the countries who want to intervene can't afford to. It costs money to send aid in any form, whether it is humanitarian, financial or military, and that's money that a lot of governments just don't have at the moment.

Quote
There was never any thread in Kosovo other than the lame excuses UN and NATO came up with

Now this I find offensive. I know several Kosovan refugees. All of them have told me absolutely horrific stories of absolutely brutal genocide within what we used to call Yugoslavia. Serbians killing Bosnians and Bosnians killing Croatians for no other reason than the fact that they are of the 'wrong' ethnic heritage. I'd say that's the very definition of a threat of genocide, and I rather think I'll take their word seeing as they were actually there.

Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #531 on: August 30, 2014, 06:20:11 AM »
And Ukrainians being shot or ignored by their government for wanting to join Russia is not genocide?


I find it offensive that when the US/EU or NATO is involved it's genocide but when it's Russians, it's alright and the whole world should sit on their hands and do fuck all. Cause that is basically what you are saying. When the Kosovo people are threatened to be killed and are ignored by Belgrade, it's okay for the UN to step up and split Kosovo off from Serbia but when Ukrainians are being shot and completely ignored and abused by their government, nobody does anything.

THAT is offensive.

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #532 on: August 30, 2014, 06:23:43 AM »
And Ukrainians being shot or ignored by their government for wanting to join Russia is not genocide?

...No, it's not.

Quote
Genocide

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is an ethnic cleansing, this is not a genocide. No one is being targeted for their ethnicity, they're being shot because they want something and their Government doesn't want to give it.

Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #533 on: August 30, 2014, 06:26:39 AM »
...No, it's not.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is an ethnic cleansing, this is not a genocide. No one is being targeted for their ethnicity, they're being shot because they want something and their Government doesn't want to give it.

So being killed in a genocide is bad but being killed by your government because you want something is okay?

Speaking of offensive...

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #534 on: August 30, 2014, 06:29:30 AM »
Okay, stop it. I don't care how big the axe is your looking to grind, stop shoving words in peoples mouths. I'm not a part of your script.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #535 on: August 30, 2014, 08:04:59 AM »
The best thing you can do for your government is question it at all times over everything. Blindly following the status quo and defending them without examination is both foolish and dangerous.

And with that, I think it is time for me to leave.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #536 on: August 30, 2014, 01:13:00 PM »
And Ukrainians being shot or ignored by their government for wanting to join Russia is not genocide?


I find it offensive that when the US/EU or NATO is involved it's genocide but when it's Russians, it's alright and the whole world should sit on their hands and do fuck all. Cause that is basically what you are saying. When the Kosovo people are threatened to be killed and are ignored by Belgrade, it's okay for the UN to step up and split Kosovo off from Serbia but when Ukrainians are being shot and completely ignored and abused by their government, nobody does anything.

THAT is offensive.

And expecting folks who survived the Holodomor to accept Russian terms? Honestly Dashenka, the reason most of the Western side of the country is so militantly set AGAINST having their country cut away from them a region at a time. Would you trust the country that is the successor to the one that killed between 1 and 12 million ethnic Ukrainians? (Depending on the source).

Many of the former 'allies' that you dismiss out of hand followed the Soviet lead for so long because of actions like Stalin's engineered famine. It was a demonstration of power that not only curbed Ukrainian nationalism at the time but was a very loud and obvious lesson that could be brought up later on to the many puppet rulers of the Warsaw Pact and sections of the Iron Curtain.

Do what we say.. or die.. badly.

Look at it this way.. would you trust Russia, the inheritor of the Soviet State, that killed off major portions of your country 80 years ago, to not return to the old ways?

I'm sorry.. I think that Ukraine has a valid argument for asserting sovereignty over the lands that Russia and others recognized. And the 'vote' that was taken over the winter.. definitely not a real vote. It was clear from the moment the Russian navy blockaded the port by locking in the Ukrainian vessels with scuttled ships in their own port that this was a land/asset grab from the first day one.


Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #537 on: August 30, 2014, 01:28:03 PM »
Apparently there are people in the east of Ukraine who trust Russia to be a better choice than Ukraine. If you consider the Holodomor, imagine what a terrible option Ukraine must be if the majority wants to join Russia.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #538 on: August 30, 2014, 02:15:41 PM »
Apparently there are people in the east of Ukraine who trust Russia to be a better choice than Ukraine. If you consider the Holodomor, imagine what a terrible option Ukraine must be if the majority wants to join Russia.

That's just it.. we don't know that is true. The 'referendum' last winter offered no options to remain as they are.. and even you admitted there was massive amounts of voter manipulation/intimidation.

I'd say without international oversight..which barring Russia, there was none of, that everything about that vote is dubious at best if not outright fixed.

Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #539 on: August 30, 2014, 03:02:29 PM »
But there won't be any voting of that kind either. All they vote for, is a new government, which is most likely to be just as incompetent and corrupt as the previous one.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #540 on: August 30, 2014, 10:26:40 PM »
Yeah, they didn't like being poor, nobody does.

It's pretty much just money. Look no further than Saudi Arabia, total dictatorship country, yet the US is close allies with them, I don't see the US opening a can of democracy on them, why? Because oil, money, petrodollar.

The US occupy no moral high ground in terms of international relations, just a lot of cash, a lot of countries dependent on that cash, and the strongest military force in the world.

 Most people don't like being poor, but money is not the main reason most of the Warsaw Pact nations turned to the West. Almost 50 years of brutal, hard line Soviet rule is why they turned to the West. They DIDN'T want to be shot for speaking their mind, for voting against the party line, they wanted to have freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and not be killed, freedom to protest, freedom to be free... to move around their own country without having papers, freedom from the brutal hand of the KGB and its 'allied' services of Russia's  allies...  Hungary was such an ally, yet when Hungary tried to leave the Warsaw Pact, Russian tanks moved in to crush the movement because Russia didn't want any of its 'allies' to leave. They never got a choice, it was the Russian/Soviet way, or the grave.

 You're ignoring the occupation and damned heavy hand of Russian policies on the Central European countries, ie, strawdogging.

 More than that. There's a hell of a lot more freedom in the West than under Russia's areas. The US humanities record is a hell of a lot better than the Russian one is.

When has Romania been under Russian rule? The area that is now Moldova has been and Romania has been part of the Warsaw Pact. Bucharest has never been under Russian ruling.

That said, the other 'allies' still want Russia. So all the countries you name are in Europe and close to the EU. Azerbaijan, Kazahkstan, Turkmenistan, they are all still friendly towards Russia but not near the EU. See a trend there?

Freedom is a farce. As QT says, there are tons of countries in the Middle East that are not 'free' but nobody's complaining there because they have money.

And Dice, the fact that America is no major player in Ukraine is exactly my point. They either are, and help, or they are not and shut the hell up. You cannot sit on the sidelines but condemn Russia at the same time.

I don't agree with that. The Yugoslav war was in the 1990's, after that things sort of settled down. Kosovo got independence in 2008. If there had been a genocidal thread why did everybody wait 10 years with it? It was a prime example of NATO and UN doing what they do. They didn't like what Serbia was doing within their own country borders so they stepped in. When Russia doesn't like what Ukraine is doing within their country borders, the two parties that took Kosovo off Serbia for exactly the same reasons suddenly condemn Russia for that.

There was never any thread in Kosovo other than the lame excuses UN and NATO came up with. At least in Ukraine there is a thread as the government army is shooting and bombing it's own innocent civilians.


 Romania was in the Warsaw Pact, this means it was under Russian control. And it wants to be closer to the EU than to Russia. The Ukraine wants to be closer to the EU than to Russia. So do the Baltic states and most of the rest of Central Europe. See a trend there? They did not like being under Russian control.

 Freedom is a farce. Why? There's a LOT of free nations in Europe and the Americas. Are you so hateful of freedom that you don't want anyone else to have it? Why the hatred towards the nations of the West? Because they are freer? So what if many nations in the Middle East and Africa and Asian aren't free, consider them a work in progress that we can help make free (and before you get the idea that it means invasions, try diplomacy, economic incentives,  a growth towards freedom by the people of those countries. And you're wrong about those people not complaining because they have money. The governments have the money, the people, don't.

 Aahh.. yes, we have every right to be on the sidelines and condemn Russia. What you just implied is that unless our nations are just as involved in Ukraine as Russia is, we have no right to speak out about Russia's actions? That's pure BS and an attempt to shut up the opposition. That's low and beneath you. This server is in the free nations of the West, so please cease trying to deny us our freedom of speech and get us to shut up. That's not happening (and I find it disturbing that would want to shut us up if you could. )


 As far as I know, there was no real internet as we know it when Kosovo happened. That was during President Clinton's terms of office. Elliquiy hadn't been created yet, so it is impossible for there to have been a threat about Kosovo.  however this is now and we can talk about Ukraine and Russia, so we are.

 
Apparently there are people in the east of Ukraine who trust Russia to be a better choice than Ukraine. If you consider the Holodomor, imagine what a terrible option Ukraine must be if the majority wants to join Russia.

 There's nothing to indicate that the majority want to be a part of Russia. If they do, they can move to Russia.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #541 on: August 30, 2014, 10:35:19 PM »
But there won't be any voting of that kind either. All they vote for, is a new government, which is most likely to be just as incompetent and corrupt as the previous one.

Then they can do the same thing they did with the last one.. vote it out. Russia formally recognized the right of Ukraine to exist..they are trying to eat it bite by bite now. And if it works here..they'll do it to other neighbors..how many have Russian ethnic citizens?

It was the same excuse they used to invade Poland during the Second World War.

I admit, given the issues my country faces, that more than one or two times a week I wish that we had to build a coalition government for someone to remain as leader of our nation. I imagine we'd see a lot less roadblocks in some issues.

Offline ladia2287

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #542 on: August 30, 2014, 11:23:29 PM »
Quote
And Ukrainians being shot or ignored by their government for wanting to join Russia is not genocide?

It isn't the Ukrainian government killing Ukrainians! The Russian soldiers and the separatists are the ones who are doing the killing! The Ukrainian government wants Russia to butt out because they are trying to protect their citizens from a group of people who are worse than terrorists, and Russia is helping these terrorists!

If Putin was really such a good guy who had Ukraine's desires and best interests at heart, then they would have stayed out and respected Ukraine as a separate, sovereign nation, and would have refused to offer support to a bunch of callous murderers

Online Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #543 on: August 30, 2014, 11:24:03 PM »
Most people don't like being poor, but money is not the main reason most of the Warsaw Pact nations turned to the West. Almost 50 years of brutal, hard line Soviet rule is why they turned to the West. They DIDN'T want to be shot for speaking their mind, for voting against the party line, they wanted to have freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and not be killed, freedom to protest, freedom to be free... to move around their own country without having papers, freedom from the brutal hand of the KGB and its 'allied' services of Russia's  allies...  Hungary was such an ally, yet when Hungary tried to leave the Warsaw Pact, Russian tanks moved in to crush the movement because Russia didn't want any of its 'allies' to leave. They never got a choice, it was the Russian/Soviet way, or the grave.

 You're ignoring the occupation and damned heavy hand of Russian policies on the Central European countries, ie, strawdogging.

 More than that. There's a hell of a lot more freedom in the West than under Russia's areas. The US humanities record is a hell of a lot better than the Russian one is.

I guess for Iraq and Libya it was the US way or the grave. Really I am just waiting for your explanation of how the US spends more on it's military than like the next 5 countries combined. And how that isn't heavy handed.

Romania was in the Warsaw Pact, this means it was under Russian control. And it wants to be closer to the EU than to Russia. The Ukraine wants to be closer to the EU than to Russia. So do the Baltic states and most of the rest of Central Europe. See a trend there? They did not like being under Russian control.

 Freedom is a farce. Why? There's a LOT of free nations in Europe and the Americas. Are you so hateful of freedom that you don't want anyone else to have it? Why the hatred towards the nations of the West? Because they are freer? So what if many nations in the Middle East and Africa and Asian aren't free, consider them a work in progress that we can help make free (and before you get the idea that it means invasions, try diplomacy, economic incentives,  a growth towards freedom by the people of those countries. And you're wrong about those people not complaining because they have money. The governments have the money, the people, don't.

This is pure gold. So you do admit the US is very selective in where to intervene and US acts out in its own interests, ie if I country isn't free and has human rights issues but is good allies with the US, the US would leave them alone? That the US only uses freedom as an excuse and marketing term? That freedom is a farce.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #544 on: August 31, 2014, 12:13:32 AM »
I guess for Iraq and Libya it was the US way or the grave. Really I am just waiting for your explanation of how the US spends more on it's military than like the next 5 countries combined. And how that isn't heavy handed.

This is pure gold. So you do admit the US is very selective in where to intervene and US acts out in its own interests, ie if I country isn't free and has human rights issues but is good allies with the US, the US would leave them alone? That the US only uses freedom as an excuse and marketing term? That freedom is a farce.

 
 

 The US wasn't heavily involved in Libya beyond really providing support for the NATO/European troops/planes. We were more support than the main force on the ground.  Iraq was more troubling, but we did go in and I'd rather there has been more nation building than what went on, and that we'd done more nation building in Afghanistan.  But unfortunately, there are heavily armed people in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan that would rather live in the 14th century than the 21st.

 And as for why our military was so large (it's now down at levels not seen since before WWII, so don't call it large because it isn't.), use your mind and look at WHY we had to have such a large and powerful military., The USSR and the Cold War ring any bells? The US being the military backbone of NATO because it had the largest economy and population? Because it didn't spend four years getting the crap kicked out of it like Europe did, and the US was willing to foot the burden to fight against the tyrannies and brutal regimes of Stalin and Mao and their successors, Mao, the emperor/kings of North Korea and many other regimes of nations. None of them were examples of humanity, decency or freedom. The US and its allies stood against that sort of crap and would much rather have willing allies and freedom loving nations.

 Which brings me to your last paragraph; every nation acts, more or less, in its own self interests. We have allied with dictators, but only because they were the only game in the region. given a choice, we'd have much rather allied to free nations, but you take what you can get sometimes, even if that means it tastes unpalatable.  And why do you think it's bad if the US uses freedom as an 'excuse' (what's to excuse about freedom?) and marketing item?  Why can;t we try to encourage those dictator types that are our allies, to open up and be more free?  You make it sound like encouraging that is bad and evil..

 As for freedom being a farce, you're enjoying one of those freedoms right now. The freedom of speech. Hypocrite.

 
Quote
So being killed in a genocide is bad but being killed by your government because you want something is okay?

Speaking of offensive...

 You're being rather offensive by deliberately twisting what people are saying and trying to use buzz words to shut down conversation*. You're deliberately avoiding recognizing that the Ukrainian government has a right and a responsibility to see that its territorial sovereignty is kept intact. Currently that government is fighting rebels seeking to break that territorial sovereignty by breaking off a large chunk of the nation to join Russia. The Ukrainian government has -every- right to fight to keep itself intact and seek to expel, imprison or kill the rebels seeking to break it up. And no one has ever said a rebellion is neat and clean. This is messy and people will be killed because the rebels are dug into the cities where it's harder to dig them out  and Russia is now openly aiding them in a blatant land grab.  You're glorifying the rebels and trying to paint Russia as a good person helping out only  for the common/greater good of the ethnic Russians who only want to join with Mother Russia**, while ignoring that Russia has never, as far as I know, ever, helped anyone out of the goodness of their heart. There's always a motive here and the motive in Ukraine is territorial acquisition by force.


  * I am of the mind if you could, you would stop us from talking about Russia's actions. You don;t like freedom of speech when others use it to say things you don't like.

 ** If the ethnic Russians want to be a part of Russia, they can pick up their feet, pack their bags and move there. Just like any ethnic Russians elsewhere that want to be a part of Russia. They don't have the right to take sections of countryside with them to Russia.  I suppose you'd support the ethnic Russians in Alaska taking part of Alaska back with them  to rejoin Russia if they pushed for it. Would you support Russia if it tried to help them if those ethnic Russians tried to do it by force? According to what you're supporting in Ukraine, you would.

Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #545 on: September 01, 2014, 11:12:51 PM »
        Putin does seem to enjoy keeping busy with the snubbing and threatening the neighbors business...  Kazakhstan now?

Quote
Putin said there had never been a country called Kazakhstan, that the republic was purely the product of the current president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

"I am confident that a majority of its population supports development of close ties with Russia," said Putin. "Nazarbayev is a prudent leader, even the most prudent in the post-Soviet space. He would never act against the will of his country's people."

Kazakhstan, he said, was "part of the large Russian world that is part of the global civilisation in terms of industry and advanced technologies. I am confident that that's the way things are going to be in the medium and long-term."

Nazarbayev had "done a unique thing. He created a state in a territory that had never had a state before. The Kazakhs had no statehood."

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #546 on: September 01, 2014, 11:28:50 PM »
Ok, this is not funny:

http://mobile.news.com.au/world/vladimir-putin-talks-nuclear-power-as-he-tells-the-west-to-back-off-over-ukraine/story-fndir2ev-1227044661262

Someone, anyone, please, tell me what the hell is on his mind. Because this is crazy.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #547 on: September 01, 2014, 11:30:12 PM »
        Putin does seem to enjoy keeping busy with the snubbing and threatening the neighbors business...  Kazakhstan now?

Wow. The man's not even trying to be subtle at this point. It's like listening to the Act 2 speech of a James Bond supervillain.

Offline Scribbles

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #548 on: September 02, 2014, 03:38:01 AM »
Russia's preparing its military to face off with Nato and Nato is preparing a rapid response to face off with Russia...

To think, if Putin had just managed to contain himself and not annex Crimea, thousands of people would still be alive, Ukraine would be shaky but stable and the world wouldn't be inching towards another global war...

As an afterthought, if we do have a world war, we probably don't have to worry about nuclear weapons (at first) but when a side starts losing and growing desperate...

Online Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #549 on: September 02, 2014, 05:57:23 AM »
        Putin does seem to enjoy keeping busy with the snubbing and threatening the neighbors business...  Kazakhstan now?

Quote
"En route to Wales for a Nato summit that Putin, in Ukraine, has transformed into the most important such gathering since the end of the cold war, Obama will reiterate the alliance's '"all-for-one and one-for-all" defence pledges of Nato's article five commitments, seeking to assuage Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and Romanian fears of revisionist Kremlin regional ambitions."

What a bit of terrible journalism. I can't and won't take anything like this serious.

First of all, the writer should state the facts in a neutral way, he didn't do that. NATO is spelled with capitals since it's an abbrevation and third of all, nowhere does he give any proof that Romania has fears of being invaded. I think he means Moldova, which is a completely different country.

Terrible journalism, Kazakhstan is perfectly safe.


Ok, this is not funny:

http://mobile.news.com.au/world/vladimir-putin-talks-nuclear-power-as-he-tells-the-west-to-back-off-over-ukraine/story-fndir2ev-1227044661262

Someone, anyone, please, tell me what the hell is on his mind. Because this is crazy.

This article is probably even worse than the one from the Guardian. No fact, dozens of typing errors, etc. So Russia's upgraded some of it's ancient bombers? We all know that what Putin says are hollow and empty words. When he said he would retreat the troops, nobody believed him. So when he's threatening with nuclear weapons (IF he even did that) why should we take that seriously??? NATO's a bit selective at what they do or do not belief, just to provoke.


Russia's preparing its military to face off with Nato and Nato is preparing a rapid response to face off with Russia...

To think, if Putin had just managed to contain himself and not annex Crimea, thousands of people would still be alive, Ukraine would be shaky but stable and the world wouldn't be inching towards another global war...


Funny. I thought it was the other way around. NATO facing off with Russia in a conflict they have no part in.

Ukraine would NOT be stable, even if Putin had stayed out. Ukraine hasn't been stable for 20 years and will not be for another 20 years in their current form.



On a slightly different note, the 'rebels' have asked Russia for help to keep the biggest nuclear plant in Europe from meltdown. Pretty sure nothing of this was mentioned in the American news? A meltdown in a rebel controlled area is not very interesting but a nuclean threat from Putin is much more exciting no?

And on another different note, Obama's a bit late according to Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-nato-haelt-niederlage-fuer-kiew-fuer-sicher-a-989308.html
It says NATO believes Ukraine has lost the battle already and the best they can do is retreat their troops alive from the Russian controlled area's.