Putin signs treaty, adds Crimea to map of Russia

[lester1/2jr]

http://newsru.com/russia/19mar2014/aksenov.html - translation: new Crimean Russians will now get to do military service in Chechnya. congrats guys!

cereberus - Ukrainians have their skeletons from that era too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia

[Umaril Has Returned]

Holodomor

"Death by starvation"...no wonder the Ukranians fought for Germany during WW2. Their govt. starved them to death! (of course they had also enlisted the help of Romanians looking to reclaim the lost province of Moldava.)

[BoyScoutKevin]

Well, it is official. Putin inked the document that made the Crimea area of the Ukraine part of Russia. Frankly, it looks like that the West was caught flatfooted by all this originally, but it does look like they are making up for it. Not by threatening military action, which would probably not work outside of a full scale war, but with diplomatic and economic actions. Some of which are against Putin's supporters, if he has any supporters left in Russia. They recently polled the Russian people and 73% came out against what Putin is doing in the Ukraine. Of course, when did a politician ever listen to the will of the people.

The question is why is Putin doing what he is doing. It certainly seems short sighted on his part, but when did a politician ever think in the long term past their next election. And it is not the first time that Russia has done something like this. Around 2008 Russia annexed the Russian dominated portions of Georgia (the county, not the state) Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which then led to a short war between Russian and Georgian forces, with Russia maintain control of the two areas.

One thing in Putin's favor is the West needs his cooperation on the subjects of Iran and Syria, so there is some question in the West, as to how far he can be pushed.

We'll see what we will see.

[Umaril Has Returned]

Well, it is official. Putin inked the document that made the Crimea area of the Ukraine part of Russia. Frankly, it looks like that the West was caught flatfooted by all this originally, but it does look like they are making up for it. Not by threatening military action, which would probably not work outside of a full scale war, but with diplomatic and economic actions. Some of which are against Putin's supporters, if he has any supporters left in Russia. They recently polled the Russian people and 73% came out against what Putin is doing in the Ukraine. Of course, when did a politician ever listen to the will of the people.

The question is why is Putin doing what he is doing. It certainly seems short sighted on his part, but when did a politician ever think in the long term past their next election. And it is not the first time that Russia has done something like this. Around 2008 Russia annexed the Russian dominated portions of Georgia (the county, not the state) Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which then led to a short war between Russian and Georgian forces, with Russia maintain control of the two areas.

One thing in Putin's favor is the West needs his cooperation on the subjects of Iran and Syria, so there is some question in the West, as to how far he can be pushed.

We'll see what we will see.

Well we all knew the day was coming when the Soviet Union would be strong enough to start breaking their ties with the EU and UN. What, with all those Chinese bodies to back them up too?  They just say back, took their sweet time looking legit on the world stage and now we see the result.

[lester1/2jr]

http://pando.com/2014/03/17/the-war-nerd-everything-you-know-about-crimea-is-wrong-er/

The oil market is like the recreational-drugs trade: Pundits may make up stories about “pushers,” but the truth is there’s always more demand than the supply can handle. Nobody needs to push those products; they sell themselves, and people will pay anything to get them. That means the people who own the world’s #1 “gas station” can pretty much do anything they want

[RCMerchant]

Personally-I aint worried about Russia-if Criemea wants to join a country that cant even get their toilets to work-f**k em.

Aint we got enuff to worry about here than f**king with these idiots-really? I mean-we cant even get our s**t straight-let alone f**k with other people's s**t.
Its all poser bulls**t on America's half-we aint gonna get in a war with Russia-and they know it-WW 3 aint on Obamas agenda.
As George Carlin would say-it's all bulls**t-and it's bad for you.

[Umaril Has Returned]

Personally-I aint worried about Russia-if Criemea wants to join a country that cant even get their toilets to work-f**k em.

Aint we got enuff to worry about here than f**king with these idiots-really? I mean-we cant even get our s**t straight-let alone f**k with other people's s**t.
Its all poser bulls**t on America's half-we aint gonna get in a war with Russia-and they know it-WW 3 aint on Obamas agenda.
As George Carlin would say-it's all bulls**t-and it's bad for you.

Well Obama doesn't know it but he's already endorsed the biggest provision of Putin-Care with his do-nothing attitude:   "If you like your dictator and your takeover, you can keep your dictator and your takeover, period.

[Rev. Powell]

Putin responds to the West: http://www.theonion.com/articles/thanks-for-being-so-cool-about-everything,35584/

[indianasmith]

I do believe that most of the people of Crimea thought of themselves as Russians and wanted to be rejoined to Russia.
It's just the pattern of aggression going almost completely unchallenged that scares me.  I don't think Putin is as irresponsible
and deranged as Hitler was, but if he's allowed to continue taking whatever he wants in terms of territory, and the West doesn't
stand up, how long before he begins to think he is invincible?

[Umaril Has Returned]

I do believe that most of the people of Crimea thought of themselves as Russians and wanted to be rejoined to Russia.
It's just the pattern of aggression going almost completely unchallenged that scares me.  I don't think Putin is as irresponsible
and deranged as Hitler was, but if he's allowed to continue taking whatever he wants in terms of territory, and the West doesn't
stand up, how long before he begins to think he is invincible?

Well, with Germany, Hitler may have been cut-and-dried in his agenda, but there was also the war Germany was fighting for the re-joining of their lands, and ultimately against the Communists.   So basically, centuries of rivalry with other nations, and Hitler's leadership,  complicated what was an otherwise logical German viewpoint on re-joining their peoples and their lands, and as a result any soldier who fought for Germany was unjustly labeled as a Nazi as a result of that.  

[indianasmith]

A very interesting perspective.  There is no doubt that the Versailles Treaty was unnecessarily harsh, and some of the territorial concessions Germany was forced to make in the East were bound to create cries for re-unification.  That being said, the Versailles Treaty was not nearly as harsh or confiscatory as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the Germans forced on Russia when the war in the East ended in December 1917!
  But you are right; the vast majority of Wehrmacht soldiers and officers were NOT Nazis.  Unfortunately, they were forced to do the Nazis' bidding and pay with their lives for Nazi aggression.

[lester1/2jr]

The entirety of the 20th century was a demented experiment in centralization that failed on all fronts.

[Umaril Has Returned]

A very interesting perspective.  There is no doubt that the Versailles Treaty was unnecessarily harsh, and some of the territorial concessions Germany was forced to make in the East were bound to create cries for re-unification.  That being said, the Versailles Treaty was not nearly as harsh or confiscatory as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the Germans forced on Russia when the war in the East ended in December 1917!

Yeah, Brest-Litovsk was no cake walk either, but it seemed as if in WW1, all of Europe, no matter who they fought for (or against) were just interested in punishing the hell out of their neighbors in one way or another, and the amount of countries fighting against each other, as well as the countries fighting against Germany at the same time, was just a general indication of a lot of unrequited hostilities that WW1 seemed to be a perfect vehicle for.  Just my take on the situation.

But you are right; the vast majority of Wehrmacht soldiers and officers were NOT Nazis.  Unfortunately, they were forced to do the Nazis' bidding and pay with their lives for Nazi aggression.

Indeed, Germany's army was the finest and the last of the Old World militaries, and if it had been done properly (had Hitler been replaced with more competent leadership) Germany should have won WW2, but only on their grounds for re-unification and not Hitler's war. A pre-Pearl Harbor victory in Russia would have ended WW2 and also defeated the Communists, which would have been the greatest gift Germany could have given all of us.

No Korea or Vietnam wars, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and possibly no 9-11 (because Najibullah's pro-Commie regime wouldn't have been, and we wouldn't have armed and trained the backstabbing Afghans to fight the Reds with the understanding that they might have turned on us.) Just some thoughts.

As to what Europe may have had to endure under German rule (outside of what was already planned,) no one really knows, but for the chance to erase the Communists (and the post WW2 woes they inflicted on the world)  and for the chance for America to go isolationist and strengthen ourselves instead of everyone else, would have been a good start.

[Rev. Powell]

The entirety of the 20th century was a demented experiment in centralization that failed on all fronts.

Except in the US, where decentralization of power was soundly trounced in the 20th century.

Not saying I approve of it, but it seems to me that natural selection clearly favors centralization of power, until empires get too big and disintegrate. Then the cycle starts over again.

[Umaril Has Returned]

The entirety of the 20th century was a demented experiment in centralization that failed on all fronts.

Except in the US, where decentralization of power was soundly trounced in the 20th century.

Not saying I approve of it, but it seems to me that natural selection clearly favors centralization of power, until empires get too big and disintegrate. Then the cycle starts over again.

Yeah, and it seems we wind up making the same mistakes all over again. How right George Santayana was when he said "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."