We, as Americans, know war doesn't always unite, but few other countries have experienced division over wars, or more or less seen it in their history books.

Buddy, you're reading American history books, so that tells you about the quality right there. War causes divisions wherever you go, that's why Hitler had the Gestapo, to stomp the resistance at home the f**k out.

Either bring home another republic(s) into the Russian Federation, or gain a tighter grip on the people's lives without their notice.

Let me Americanize this for you.

September 11th, 2001.

Declare war on Afgahistan -> Occupation.

Patriot Acts -> Big Brother

Declare war on Iraq -> Puppet government.

But oh noes! when Russia takes over a state that has a majority Russian population it's very bad!

Wait, you said more things! Quality of life...here's yours America :)

Have some facts on poverty in America: http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

Took this from Wikipeadia on American poverty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Measures_of_poverty

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for poverty in 2014[20]
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C.	          Alaska	Hawaii
1	$11,670	         $14,580	$13,420
2	$15,730	         $19,660	$18,090
3	$19,790	         $24,730	$22,760
4	$23,850	         $29,820	$27,430
5	$27,910	         $34,900	$32,100
6	$31,970	         $39,980	$36,770
7	$36,030	         $45,060	$41,440
8	$40,090	         $50,140	$46,110
Each additional
person adds	$4,060	  $5,080	$4,670

So the poverty rate is based on this chart, but I might add:

8 people living off ~40,000 USD is considered above the poverty line? BOLLOCKS!

I bet the poverty line in the US is closer to 30-40% if you rate it by German standards.

Edited 3/8/2014 00:37:52

Thanks for the sources.

Sorry, bro :/

But oh noes! when Russia takes over a state that has a majority Russian population it's very bad!

Yep, "All the other kids do it too!" sure goes down as the best argument in history. You could have taken on his point about Russian domestic politics having a shit-ton to do with this crisis. Instead, you decided it was time for some good ol' out-of-context bash on the US of A. Let me just say I would have found this quite telling if I hadn't already seen those other oversimplifying rants of yours.

Buddy, you're reading American history books

American History Books > "German History Channel". You should stop watching so much Guido Knopp.

It's funny how most western people are capable of identifying propagandistic elements in Russian communication while being completely oblivious to the same things in their domestic media. I guess it feels good to see the world in black-and-white.

Oversimplified rants...that's touching, but on the plus side, they've been more than anyone else as offered, yourself included. You don't use fine-dining etiquette in a pub.

This whole ploy is nothing more than a power-play and a well crafted/timed one at that. This is how our blue marble of a planet rolls in the cosmos, ethical or not. No the German History Channel isn't necessarily better than American History books that get passed out in high school, but a library full of them sure is and I actually visit mine on a regular basis, so yeah, simplistic my argumentation may be, but damn well informed, too.

Do I need to reiterate what Russia's Domestic/Foreign policy is at this point or has nobody been doing it in the last 2 weeks as the Crimean event has been unfolding? I don't wanna force feed anyone here, if you doubt me, do the research and challenge me instead of making a spoof attempt at undermining me by calling out my clearly sarcastic comments that I use to make jabs at Americans. And before you say something like "good ol' out-of-context bash on the US of A" realize that 1. It's not out of context and 2. I lived there long enough to know exactly what I'm talking about. Comparing Hitler to Putin? Dear Lord, American's are trigger happy for another sympathy war :P

"All the other kids do it too!"

Misinterpretation much? Russia actually has legitimate claims to Crimea as opposed to American's claims to invading Iraq. Plus, US condemning Russia on Crimea is a bunch of hypocritical bullsh*t, not to mention Pakistan and Yemen. Oops :P

Simple facts:
-1- Distance: Ukraine is far away from the US, relatively peripheral to the EU, and Russia's neighbor.
-2- Economic and political cohesion/influence: Ukraine's pipelines and the corruption tied to them makes Ukraine's economic and political structures more like Russia than the EU countries or the US. Ukraine is dependent on Russian energy (for consumption) and the flow of Russian energy resources via the pipelines (for income). Russia influences Ukraine's economy at least as much as the US influences Mexico (via NAFTA and economic imperialism). Pro-EU Ukrainians want to be more like the EU countries. But this is only because they are currently more like Russia and the Russian way benefits a minoritty at the expense of the majority's long-term well being.
-3- Demographics: Ukranian is as similar to Russian as the Romance languages are to each other. Ukraine is essentially a bilingual country divided east-west. The Crimea is pro-Russian, thanks to Russian migration, its Soviet-era ties to Russia, and the Black Sea naval bases.
-4- Willingness to help the Ukraine: The EU doesn't want to incorporate too many new countries that do not meet its stringent economic, political, legal, and other prerequisites for membership. Ukraine is the biggest European country west of the Urals and has all the Soviet or Cold War or Russian baggage. Ukraine's track to EU membership is probably more complicated and conviluted than Turkey's. And the EU can't really offer the Ukraine anything more than hope. Putin's carrots ($35 billion in loans, preferential prices from Gazprom, greater cooperation -- read, "Russification of Ukraine's economy") and sticks (what we currently see: Gazprom increases prices, no loans, spies and Russian soldiers without insignia causing an international problem in the Crimea, etc.) are more tangible. What can the US offer? Words, hope, diplomatic support, $1 billion in loans (after the coup). If the EU hopes to influence the Ukraine more and help the Ukraine become a more modern, wealthier, stabler country, it needs to offer more tangible aid.

Clearly, the Ukraine is tied to Russia, even if it doesn't like it. A war will not happen. And for any Americans to sit across the safety of the Atlantic and call for war (or even the possibility of war) is utterly ridiculous. Just because the American form of diplomacy over the years is to kill people first and ask questions later doesn't mean it is the most effective approach in the long term. Didn't we learn anything from the War of 1812 (nationalism leads to senseless war), our occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898 (borderline genocide, instability), our CIA coups (vast majority led to long-term problems), the escalation and war in Vietnam (instability, borderline genocide, enormous human and financial costs), Reagan's covert operations in Afghanistan (instability, props up ISI in Pakistan, trains and arms mujahideen extremists), Clinton's small-scale preemptive wars in Africa (instability, basis of Bush's premeptive wars), Bush's preemptive war in Iraq (civil war, instability, Iran gains, enormous financial costs), the Afghanistan debacle (instability, enormous human and financial costs)? Fighting a just war is more important than just fighting a war for lack of creativity or intelligence.

Naturally, the Ukraine belongs in Russia's sphere of influence. There is no denying this. But finding a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in which the EU, the US and Russia reach a common understanding by updating the Budapest Treaty of 1994 would be the best option. Instead of the UK, US and Russia as guarantors of Ukraine's stability, it should be the EU, US, and Russia.

The path to resolving this crisis is simple: less Cold War theatrics and more diplomacy. NATO, Germany, OECD, EU diplomats, and UN diplomats are the cogs in the diplomatic machinery that will lead to a resolution to this mess, since they are the only way to get constructive bilateral negotiations between both the US and Russia as well as the Ukraine and Russia. A Putin-Obama dialogue is too mediatized, with all the great power pride and Cold War logic. Likewise, a Putin-Maidan dialogue is too problematic, since Putin claims to not recognize the legality or legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government.

Germany needs to step up, like it has, and the various organizations that interknit Europe, the US and Russia need to be used as venues of negotiation, to have less prideful saber-rattling and more discussion based on national interests, common interests, stability, and compromise.

Edited 3/8/2014 07:12:52

You'll get a better response out of me later Qi, but I'll leave you with a question.

Can Russia step down from this and withdraw from Crimea, allowing it to remain a part of the Ukraine, without the world declaring it as a Russian defeat and therefore defacing Putin and undermining his legitimacy?

I think so, but only if the negotiations are done at a more bureaucratic level (UN, NATO, OECD) and not strictly bilaterally (EU-Russia, US-Russia). I see Germany as the country best fit to influence Russia on a more personal level (Cold War history, less in your face diplomacy, Schroeder's ties to Russia, German business interests, etc.). But all bilateral discussion seems most useful as a means to steer negotiations to the bureaucratic level of European diplomacy (the UN, NATO, or OECD). The more "European" the Obama administration can make this appear (while still playing a leading role in organizing its allies), the better.

In this sense, I view negotiations a process with multiple stages.
- First stage: Crisis management, hoopla, media battle. I know what you are up to, I will punish you if you keep at it, so let's find a solution.
- Second stage: The special diplomats get on their planes to talk about when to talk and lay the groundwork for a future compromise.
- Third stage: The actual negotiations begin.
- Fourth stage: A compromise is reached. Crisis over.

We just entered stage two last week. Stage three should be beginning soon.

If it becomes a match of egos (Putin vs Obama) or national pride (the EU dictating policy to the Russian nation) played out in the international media and each country's respective national media, Putin is more likely to play hard ball.

This is why Obama is trying to avoid being too forceful with his words, and letting Kerry be more active. But Obama is a highly competitive guy, and is not ideally suited for the subtleties of this crisis. He seems unprincipled and reactionary to Putin. And when it is time to be gracious in victory, Obama gloats and makes one last stab at the opponent to convince everybody he was right. At least this is what he has done with the Republicans on numerous occasions.

Putin seeks recognition and respect. If the West can stroke his ego somewhat while it negotiates a compromise in the interests of all (Ukraine, Russia, EU, US), perhaps a resolution could be done on a more personal level.

But pushing Putin into a corner and forcing him to admit what he is really up to is probably not the best course of action. Giving Putin some wiggle room to pull back is. There is no great need for the West to fight a crusade over international opinion regarding Putin's actions and goals. Common sense is enough for most people to see through the propaganda and dissimulation. So simply telling him what they know or think to be true is enough. Putin doesn't need to admit his actions so much as know that everybody else knows what he is up to.

Yet all this hinges on a simple question: Does Russia want to annex the Crimea? The answer is probably: Russia will take as much as the West is willing to give. So by organizing a united front involving increased economic, political, and diplomatic costs, the West has changed the cost-benefit analysis of Russian intervention in the Ukraine. If the West negotiates with Russia properly, giving Russia the respect it feels it deserves, and leaving Russia its due influence in the Ukraine, I think Russia will be more willing to consider the costs of escalation and the benefits of pulling back. But if the West does not give Putin and Russia the respect they feel a superpower deserves, and tries to dictate policy to the Russians in their backyard, then a rational analysis could become overly influenced by national pride and jingoism.

Edited 3/8/2014 07:21:07

Russia has occupied Crimea and set a referendum to be held at the end of this month. As most of the peninsula's population is Russian-speaking, they will probably vote to be annexed to Russia. The Crimean parliament already agreed to an annexation unequivocally.

Will Putin be content with getting Crimea, or will he push for more? I don't know. He still doesn't recognize the new administration in Kiev, saying that they are fascists.

Putin is not going to give up unless he either gets something of value, like Crimea, or the west manages to threaten Putin with something that really hurts Russia. Diplomatic talks are useless unless you're willing to use either the stick or the carrot. I'm sceptical whether economic sanctions or boycott of G8 will do the trick. And Russia can also limit its gas supplies to Europe.

Russian nationalism and jingoism is more intense than I had thought. It will be interesting how the West responds.

Other headlines:

- Official EU policy: The Crimea cannot hold a referendum without it being organized by the Ukrainian government.
- OECD military observers were not allowed to enter the Crimea. They will try again this weekend.
- Moscow is making official excuses for the Crimea, as if it is calling the shots.
- Ukraine's parliament is going to try to dissolve the parliament in the Crimea, which had its own mini-coup shortly after the coup in Kiev. The current leader, Sergueï Axionov, is not known in Kiev.
- Hollande wants more pressure on Russia to force Moscow to back down and negotiate more reasonably.

I don't see how anyone can say Russia has claims to the Crimean peninsula when it is part of Ukraine. You can't base boundaries off of who used to own something or else most of the world's boundaries would be illegitamite. That being said, I don't think there is much the rest of the world can do to stop Puitin short of going to war, which nobody is willing to do. The only game changer would be if Ukraine decided to try and reclaim the peninsula (effectively escalating the conflict Russia started into War) and then begging other nations to help them after they started losing. Russia could also claim more of Ukraine, which Putin probably wont do. Either way, things could get very ugly. The likely outcome, however, is a longstanding feud of words with Crimea being part of Russia for the forseeable future.

Russia does it peacefullier than America did in 1988, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

something your government doesn't want you... to .. know... * pc crash *

Edited 3/8/2014 18:25:29

I think IRL-boatbombing should be nerfed...

Edited 3/8/2014 20:09:08

You may have a valid point, but we can't really excuse the actions of one country based on the actions of another one. At least the US gave the canal back in the end, hopefully Russia does too.

Putin seizes Crimea. There is nothing the rest of the world, can or will do about it.
End of story.

Russia actually has legitimate claims to Crimea

Yeah well whatever you mean with 'claims' here, mate. I guess the BRD still has legitimate 'claims' on Elsaß-Lothringen then. The 19th century is over, you know.

Pulsius, Western (read: US, because who are we kidding) foreign policy being two-faced more often than not doesn't make Russias actions any less in breach of international law. Two wrongs don't make a right. What's so hard to understand about that? Who's the one seeing only blacks and whites here?

The tl;dr, 'shades of grey' version is this:

Take a good hard look at the West, in it's full resource-grabbing dishonest glory. Take note of all the systemic inequalitiy, all those civil rights in erosion, the emerging surveillance regimes and every single corporate sponsored market opening gunboat scumbaggery of the last 20 years. Then take a look at Putin's Russia. The Arab World. Iran. 'Communist' China.

What's your favourite 'model in crisis' for the future? Disregarding the West's largely stolen wealth, where'd you like your children to live? Also, note which non-Western powers I did not mention. And why.

Anyway, I actually agree with Hauptmann in one aspect (and I posted this way earlier than he did btw): there won't be no major war over Crimea. There probably won't even be major sanctions. Crimea will become the next South Ossetia. Next Winter, we'll all return back to fossil fuel business as usual.

I just don't think there's any reason to cheer. The time is very near where every sane person in the Western World - especially continental Europeans, the unmatched hypocrites of world politics - will look back at 'Pax Americana' with nostalgia.

Of course , Russia has very legitimate claims on Crimea. It was "gifted" to the Ukraine in 1954, since it was economical more reasonable to have it be part of only one soviet republic, rather than two. Nikita Khrushchev never expected the Soviet Union to fall and Crimea to be the centrepiece of a borderdispute between two independent nations.

Edited 3/9/2014 00:07:31

Watch this video guys, explains a bit more about Ukraine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2nklduvThs

I found it helpful to me..