The Baltic States were not under the rule of the tsars. They were "under rule" of the German/Prussian empire for nearly 500 years, back and forth. They were briefly occupied by the Ruskies during WW1, during the bolshevik revolution, and fought for and won their independence at the end of the war. Latvia was an independant nation from 1918 until Russian invasion and occupation in 1941 (when the first 50k or so citizens were removed and sent to the Gulag). The German army then invaded and occupied until 1944, when the Russians returned, occupied, killed another 20k or so people, and solidified their occupation.
Agreed. :thumbsup:But the actual offense that I am pointing out is that these countries should somehow be considered different from countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia that were "occupied," where as the Baltics were somehow "a part of the Soviet Union." There is no legitimate distinction there, as the Baltics were equally occupied, and never officially recognized by any western nation and the UN as part of the USSR. Throughout the history of the USSR, they were always recognized as occupied; unless one was a soviet sympathizer.
keep in mind this is a military site and not a general history forum
poland also has been invaded and conquered and occupied by both germany and russia throughout history
germany and russia shared a border during the early 20th century right?
Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Eastern Ukraine would be a very expensive cow for Russia to buy.
The unrest is restoring leverage for the pro-Russian Eastern Ukraine. Of course Russia is going to support it. It's giving the Kiev regime a choice, you have a civil war, or you can come to terms with Russia. No NATO is going to be term number 1, and no EU is going to be term number 2.
so what exactly should we think here now
there is always support for russia with everything that you say
You should think "Russia Bad." It's the easiest thing for you, and it won't hurt your head.
You should think "Russia Bad." It's the easiest thing for you, and it won't hurt your head.
Fortunately if you take the "Russia Bad" approach, you will be correct many more times than you will be wrong. It's a fairly reliable starting point to begin deciphering & understanding a situation.
You should think "Russia Bad." It's the easiest thing for you, and it won't hurt your head.
You should think "Russia Bad." It's the easiest thing for you, and it won't hurt your head.
As has already been said, saying "Russia bad" over the last 15 years or so would yield a pretty shocking percentage of correct answers. Remember when Putin said there were no Russian soldiers in Crimea? He lied to you. Remember when he said they didn't want to annex Crimea? He lied to you. Remember when he said Russia's concern in Syria was international law? He lied to you. Remember when he said there were no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine? He lied to you.
How long are you going to let this guy play you for a fool? Why support such a vile individual pursuing such transparent aggression?
It's this kind of thinking that got us into the Iraq war. Once you start with that starting point, it's easy to sell you any lie that fits along with it.
And it's the same kind of thinking except "US Bad" that is guiding a lot of Russia's actions in Ukraine, and Russian internal support for them.
Countries have interest and fears, you can try to ignore them, but then they will ignore yours. And you will have war.
Where did I exclude the possibility of digging deeper into the situation with an open mind?
The flip side is, those with a completely open mind seeking all the information they can, often are the ones who get sucked into the propaganda such as what Russia spews out. We could be all happy hippie flower-handing peace lovers over here in the U.S., Russia is still going to put out propaganda to serve the selfish interests of the small percentage of rulers. My way of forming my opinions in no way affects the way Russian drones form their opinions.
Personally, I'll take 100 years of active Soviet aggression and brutal oppression as the firmer basis for my opinions on the matters. History predicts the future far more than you think.
As for Iraq, Saddam was a brutal dictator who committed genocide against groups within his control. The world is a better place with him dead. The intelligence, planning, and execution of that war were horribly flawed, and inexcusable. But the subject of this thread is not the Iraq war. Bringing the Iraq war (at least you didn't include Kosovo into your argument here...) into the discussion is what aids Russian propaganda far more than anything I do.
So we should take into account last 100 years of Soviet history, but not last 20 years of US history? For all the freedom of speech here, the US media got just as much behind the Iraq war, and Kosovo war, etc, as the Russian media is getting behind interfering in Ukraine. On foreign affairs, the media just regurgitates whatever the state tells it, because they are afraid of being called unpatriotic and siding with an external enemy if they question their own government. That is true in both Russia and the US.
So we should take into account last 100 years of Soviet history, but not last 20 years of US history? For all the freedom of speech here, the US media got just as much behind the Iraq war, and Kosovo war, etc, as the Russian media is getting behind interfering in Ukraine. On foreign affairs, the media just regurgitates whatever the state tells it, because they are afraid of being called unpatriotic and siding with an external enemy if they question their own government. That is true in both Russia and the US.
Aside from "two wrongs don't make a right", Russian media is not free. Surely you've heard all the stories of news outlets being shut down, journalists being fired, etc.? Not just recently, but it's been going on steadily ever since Putin took power nearly a decade and a half ago.
And while the US was wrong (and Cheney lied) about WMDs and Osama links in Iraq, I'm pretty damn sure that we were absolutely in the right with Kosovo. And even with Libya and Syria.
lol + 1Fortunately if you take the "Russia Bad" approach, you will be correct many more times than you will be wrong. It's a fairly reliable starting point to begin deciphering & understanding a situation.
QFTYou should be able to count on one hand the number of Soviet/Russia is good incidents over the past 70 years.
For some, evil can not be evil, but just misunderstood :thumbdown:
One freakin' HUGE difference - the USA never attempted to annex Iraq. We didn't attempt to install a puppet government, we didn't even take our costs from their oil income or insist they sell only to us. We allowed them to have free elections knowing that the resultant government would hate us pretty much as much as did the one we toppled.So we should take into account last 100 years of Soviet history, but not last 20 years of US history? For all the freedom of speech here, the US media got just as much behind the Iraq war, and Kosovo war, etc, as the Russian media is getting behind interfering in Ukraine. On foreign affairs, the media just regurgitates whatever the state tells it, because they are afraid of being called unpatriotic and siding with an external enemy if they question their own government. That is true in both Russia and the US.
As has already been said, saying "Russia bad" over the last 15 years or so would yield a pretty shocking percentage of correct answers. Remember when Putin said there were no Russian soldiers in Crimea? He lied to you. Remember when he said they didn't want to annex Crimea? He lied to you. Remember when he said Russia's concern in Syria was international law? He lied to you. Remember when he said there were no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine? He lied to you.
One freakin' HUGE difference - the USA never attempted to annex Iraq. We didn't attempt to install a puppet government, we didn't even take our costs from their oil income or insist they sell only to us. We allowed them to have free elections knowing that the resultant government would hate us pretty much as much as did the one we toppled.
More local defense forces must have gotten into the local SWAT lockers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/w...-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?hp
Dubya looked deeply into Putins eyes once and got all warm and homo over him, seeing his soul and all.
That should tell ya enough right there.
(I normally don't agree with Cheney, but he was at least right about that...)Mr. Bush came to office skeptical of Mr. Putin, privately calling him one cold dude, but bonded with him during their first meeting in Slovenia in June 2001, after which he made his now-famous comment about looking into the Russians soul. Mr. Putin had made a connection with the religious Mr. Bush by telling him a story about a cross that his mother had given him and how it was the only thing that survived a fire at his country house.
Not everyone was convinced. Mr. Bushs vice president, Dick Cheney, privately told people at the time that when he saw Mr. Putin, I think K.G.B., K.G.B., K.G.B.
"I had looked into Putins eyes and, just as I expected, had seen a stone-cold killer."
The defense secretary for Mr. Bush and President Obama, writing in Duty about his meeting with Mr. Putin in February 2007
(I got a chuckle picturing Putin telling Bush that he's "hot-blooded".)Ive been warning you Saakashvili is hot-blooded, Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin.
Im hot-blooded too, Mr. Putin said.
No, Vladimir, Mr. Bush responded. Youre coldblooded.
Crimea people did wanted to be annexed... Ukraine was economicaly broke and close to a civil war... they voted a referendum...you may say that it was a fraud but remember.... there is no resistence, no rebels and no "terrorism" so far show me a militia group agains russia in Crimea, and i will happily change mind
(I got a chuckle picturing Putin telling Bush that he's "hot-blooded".)
Crimea people did wanted to be annexed... Ukraine was economicaly broke and close to a civil war...
they voted a referendum...you may say that it was a fraud
but remember.... there is no resistence, no rebels and no "terrorism" so far
show me a militia group agains russia in Crimea, and i will happily change mind
They wanted to be annexed so bad the party dedicated to joining Russia got 4% of the votes in the last election? Now just for the icing on the cake. That party's leader is now leading Crimea.
Sounds legit!