Fuchs66
Ring a ding
Russian irony!Pravda just means 'truth' and, well...
Russian irony!Pravda just means 'truth' and, well...
It [the invitation] was issued by the Moscow-based non-governmental organisation the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections (EODE), according to sources in the European Parliament.
I think a possible Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine is the most worrying thing at the moment.
Do you seriously think this is going to happen?
The Huffington Post UK 15/03/2014Do you seriously think this is going to happen?
Apparently there's "a natural gas distribution station" there which supplies Crimea?Russian forces have invaded Ukraine, according to the Foreign Ministry in Kiev, with troops taking control of the village of Strilkove, six miles beyond the border of Crimea. The move comes ahead of Sunday’s referendum on whether the Black Sea peninsula should secede and become part of the Russian Federation.
According to AP, the seizure of the village, which involved troops, helicopter gunships and armoured vehicles, is the first move outside the peninsula by the Kremlin’s forces. There were no reports of gunshots fired in the village.
Do you seriously think it's not a possibility?
My thoughts exactly! I really don't feel that the Russians want conflict but I also don't think they've thought it through properly and may have a few uncomfortable consequences to deal with in the near future.A deliberate launching of pre-emptive war by one side (probably the Kremlin) is not likely. But it's highly likely that one side (probably the Kremlin) will discover that it has unleashed a process, and unleashed forces, that it cannot control, and may itself (and everyone else) dragged into a vicious downward spiral that will lead only to. . .yep, you guessed it, war.
Because the Russian government is far right. Of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, I'd say Putin's Russia meets 9 or 10 of them.Or has Russia focused on inviting the far-right alone? If the latter, why would they do this?
I agree!Is it fuck.
Because the Russian government is far right. Of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism, I'd say Putin's Russia meets 9 or 10 of them.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
Do you seriously think it's not a possibility?
The Huffington Post UK 15/03/2014
Russian Forces Seize Ukrainian Village Beyond Border, Hotels In Crimea Stormed By Masked Gunmen
Apparently there's "a natural gas distribution station" there which supplies Crimea?
My thoughts exactly! I really don't feel that the Russians want conflict but I also don't think they've thought it through properly and may have a few uncomfortable consequences to deal with in the near future.
I also don't think they've thought it through properly.
Oh I agree that the "west" probably didn't reckon on Russia spitting on international law and annexing Crimea. Damn those "playing by the book" Westerners.I agree, but in terms of the west not having thought things through and now getting high on own farts so to speak (thus adding to the hysterical stink of it all).
I know how the Russians are having worked in the country for a large part of the last 6 years. Yes they do have a disregard for international treaties, agreements and laws and yes they do tend to get careless about it (mainly due to their arrogance), yes they do get caught out occasionally and no they don't give a flying fuck when they do get caught because they know that there is little anyone can do about it.They're not idiots nor bumpkins. They are sophisticated politicians who have been running the largest country physically in the world, with a population of hundreds of millions, for a long time.
Oh I agree that the "west" probably didn't reckon on Russia spitting on international law and annexing Crimea. Damn those "playing by the book" Westerners.
Just because I don't like it when Russia disregards International law doesn't mean I cheerlead for the US if they do similar. But tbh I can't remember the last time the US actually annexed a part of a neighbouring country, Texas was maybe the last occasion.If the situation were the reverse the US would chuck the book out too, and has done many times. When it's their "back yard" there is no book (Grenada, Panama, thats just the overt stuff).
If the situation were the reverse the US would chuck the book out too, and has done many times. .
American Samoa; Guam, Puerto Rico.Just because I don't like it when Russia disregards International law doesn't mean I cheerlead for the US if they do similar. But tbh I can't remember the last time the US actually annexed a part of a neighbouring country, Texas was maybe the last occasion.
But if it's wrong when the US does it, surely it's wrong when other countries do it, too.
Only Puerto Rico is close to being a neighbouring state and it as with Guam came to have their relationship with the USA as a result of the Spanish-American war, American Samoa was the result of a tiff between the US and Germany. So not exactly great but still date back to the end of the 19th century/start of 20th century and don't involve the military occupation of a neighbouring states territory and the annexation of that territory.American Samoa; Guam, Puerto Rico.
Just because I don't like it when Russia disregards International law doesn't mean I cheerlead for the US if they do similar. But tbh I can't remember the last time the US actually annexed a part of a neighbouring country, Texas was maybe the last occasion.
We as in "The British Empire" we?The US also tried with the San Juan Pig War, but we sent them packing.
Only Puerto Rico is close to being a neighbouring state and it as with Guam came to have their relationship with the USA as a result of the Spanish-American war, American Samoa was the result of a tiff between the US and Germany. So not exactly great but still date back to the end of the 19th century/start of 20th century and don't involve the military occupation of a neighbouring states territory and the annexation of that territory.
We as in "The British Empire" we?
Oh I realise that, but was it a part of a centralised policy of expansion or was it just individual arseholes trying to make a buck here or there (more there than here)? And also as you mention they failed each time which sort of hints at the possibility that it was just individual groups of "entrepreneurs" that were pushing north.I'm not joking about the Pig War. There were various situations in Canada where US traders would come north, then start acting as if they controlled the territory. The likely intent was to extend US influence north of the 49th. They built forts on the southern prairies; and in the Fraser Canyon of BC, they started conflicts with, and killed, local indigenous people. They were successfully pushed back each time.