Russia. All that concerns Russia.Аnswers questions citizen of Russia. (2014, people)

[erasure]

Originally Posted by musiqum

No, Putin couldn't do the same thing with eastern Ukraine. It would have been an illegal act by international law. It would have been looked like illegal annexation of a country land for real.
In case of Crimea, it is part of Russia that never belonged Ukraine. But Eastern Ukraine legally belongs Ukraine by the Decree of her founder V. Lenin. Historically and legally Ukraine is what was enacted by soviet govt after WWI. Putin couldn't violate this. But again, Crimea is the different story.
Besides, the vast majority of crimeans wanted to be with Russia. But eastern Ukraine was not so homogeneous in Russia thing as Crimea was. Some of eastern Ukrainians wanted to stay in Ukraine as an autonomy, some of them wished a total independence from both Russia and Ukraine, some of them wanted to be with Russia, some of them said about federalization etc. Yeah, many eastern ukrainians are ethnic russians. But they are citizens of an other independent state, and Putin couldn't accept them with such discord, disagreement and dissonance. It would have been against the people will. But crimeans rejoined with Russia by their own will. So, it was not the same thing with E. Ukraine morally, legally and historically.

Oh please spare me an attempt of regurgitated Putin's propaganda - an attempt to muddy the waters and to present things in a light convenient to Putin's administration.
Nice try, BUT; that's not how the real world operates.
By taking over officially Ukranian territory - (i.e. Crimea,) Putin already broke international law. The only difference with Donbass is, is that Crimea ( Sebastopol in particular) was representing the direct military/strategic interest for him, while Donbass - not so much.
Yes it's true that Russian population of Eastern Ukraine was not unanimously certain whether they wanted to join Russia or to stay autonomous, but one thing was definite; they didn't want their legitimately-elected government to be overthrown and they didn't want to become an easy target of the nationalist forces that came to power in Ukraine. That they were becoming a target of those nationalist forces was apparent for Putin from a start; that's the reason he made his infamous speech on "let them dare to shoot women and children - we'll be standing behind them" which led many Eastern Ukrainians believe in this offered protection. However apparently Putin's "economic think tank" talked him out of decisive actions, stating that "in the eyes of "Western partners" this will be too much. Hopefully Europeans will be more understanding regarding Crimea ( after all Americans were after that military base in Crimea, not Europeans,) but taking over Eastern Ukraine, which doesn't promise any dividends (financially speaking) is totally not worth it." And that's how those very Russian "women and children" ended up being shot.

[erasure]

Oh, and while I am at that, I meant to comment on your last post in "Putin's" thread, which was closed apparently for serving no good purpose.
Your post was worthy refuting it, but in the context of this thread - so I'll refer at least to the part that I find important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
To begin with - feelings are emotions.

You; Wrong. Love, for example, is feeling, not emotion. Feelings and emotions are not always synonyms.

So according to you, Russians are always acting upon their "love"? Since you are using it in this particular context;
"Emotions" is wrong definition. Russians act upon their spiritual feelings of fairness and truth that is imposible to express with mundane words and explanations.

Although granted - "emotions" do not always correlate with "feelings," it's silly to think that all Russians act exclusively upon their "feelings," not "emotions."

Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Another thing - it's a myth that all Russians unanimously act out of the "fairness and truth that "impossible to express in mundane words."
Only SOME of them do, but plenty of them act out of simple greed and selfishness. At that these people like to pretend that something of higher nature motivates them by default, since they belong to "spiritual nation."

You; We are not talking about all russians. It is impossible to squeeze all russians into one formula that would define all russians.

Very well, then you are not arguing with me, since I mentioned the word "SOME" while talking about Russians. See, the essence of the culture can be very spiritual indeed, but that doesn't make ALL representatives of that culture "spiritual" automatically.
And that's why when blatantly materialistic part of Russian population is trying to use the cover of "spirituality" *just because we belong to "spiritual nation"* - it's is patently WRONG.

You; But if you were studying russian culture, russian literature, russian national character etc. then you will admit that so called "russian soul" is what I was saying above. The search of truth is what russian spiritual aspiration is. It's hidden deeply in russian national soul. It's russian destiny. Don't tell me that I am wrong, better read the works of russian philosophers of the silver age like M. Voloshin, N. Berdyaev, I. Il'in (И. Ильин), P. Florensky etc. to get some idea on the subject, and after that we will continue our conversation.


No, I am not saying that you are WRONG in this case; in fact you are very correct, but that's when things are getting even better. Think what the major figure behind the post-Soviet "privatization" and "father of Russian oligarchs" - i.e. Mr. A. Chubais - darling of IMF and Clinton's administration apparently, said on this subject; Â«Я перечитывал Достоевского. И я испытываю почти физическую ненависть к этому человеку. Он, безусловно, гений, но его представление о русских как об избранном, святом народе, его культ страдания и тот ложный выбор, который он предлагает, вызывают у меня желание разорвать его на куски».
( "I was re-reading Dostoyevsky. I experience almost physical hatred towards this man. He is undoubtedly genius, but his idea of Russians as of chosen, holly people, his cult of suffering and this FALSE choice that he offers, brings the desire in me to shred him into pieces.")

So what you need to understand, is that people who came to power after the fall of the USSR and sit there until today ( and that includes Putin), are in fact represent the force, that goes directly against the very essence of "Russian national soul," and "spiritual aspirations" mentioned by you above.

[musiqum]

Originally Posted by erasure

Oh please spare me an attempt of regurgitated Putin's propaganda - an attempt to muddy the waters and to present things in a light convenient to Putin's administration.
Nice try, BUT; that's not how the real world operates.

It's not a try to present things in a light convenient to Putin. It's just obvious to anyone who will take a look at the situation without the "Putin is bad" prejudice. But how the real world "operates" we can see by example on the war in Syria. We can see in the UN' meetings all kind of hypocrisy, double standards, groundless allegations and brazen lies. And so called "the real world" is applauding this unlawful disgrace. So maybe this lying world is not the real world at all?

Originally Posted by erasure

By taking over officially Ukranian territory - (i.e. Crimea,) Putin already broke international law.

No, he didn't. Crimeans voted to re-join with Russia voluntarily, by their own will and without any pressure from Putin. It's not him took Crimea, it's crimeans left Ukraine themselves. And the crimean referendum met the international laws requirements.

Originally Posted by erasure

The only difference with Donbass is, is that Crimea ( Sebastopol in particular) was representing the direct military/strategic interest for him,

Crimea was representing the military/strategic interest for Russia, not for him personally.
You have a very strong anti-Putin bias. And your view above is greatly demonstrates it.

Originally Posted by erasure

while Donbass - not so much. Yes it's true that Russian population of Eastern Ukraine was not unanimously certain whether they wanted to join Russia or to stay autonomous, but one thing was definite; they didn't want their legitimately-elected government to be overthrown and they didn't want to become an easy target of the nationalist forces that came to power in Ukraine. That they were becoming a target of those nationalist forces was apparent for Putin from a start; that's the reason he made his infamous speech on "let them dare to shoot women and children - we'll be standing behind them" which led many Eastern Ukrainians believe in this offered protection. However apparently Putin's "economic think tank" talked him out of decisive actions, stating that "in the eyes of "Western partners" this will be too much. Hopefully Europeans will be more understanding regarding Crimea ( after all Americans were after that military base in Crimea, not Europeans,) but taking over Eastern Ukraine, which doesn't promise any dividends (financially speaking) is totally not worth it." And that's how those very Russian "women and children" ended up being shot.

Please don't be offended, but your reasoning here is in the vein of some average philistine who has a little understanding of the state strategic in a hidden political chess play. Putin knew from the day one that so called "western partners" will do everything to pull in Russia in war with Ukraine. There would be numerous provocations, false flag operations and incitements to get Putin starting the war with Ukraine. The Obama administration desired this war to weaken Russia and EU and to strengthen U$ dollar with one shot. I also thought Putin will send the russian troops after the fascists act of burning of people in Odessa. But Putin stayed cold and very balanced because he knew that the war with Ukraine is what exactly want enemies of Russia and Ukraine. Same thing with Donbass. If Putin would have sent his troops in Donbass, then it would have been looked like an illegal act of military aggression from his part against a sovereign state for real! Not by western media lies, but for real! Russia would have been turned into aggressor in the eyes of the world by the real fact, not by anti-russia propaganda! But most important thing is that - Putin, in no way, could NOT admit the real war between two brotherly countries and, in fact, inside of one nation. He understood that a political regime will change sooner or later, but friendly relationship between ukrainian and russian people must stay anyway.
But lets be honest. Donbass was not left by Russia (Putin). There were literal hundreds of humanitarian convoys with food, clothes, medicine, medical equipments, hardware, construction materials etc. So, take a pen and try to reckon how much money have lost your "greedy" Putin with it.
Now regarding Putin's "infamous speech"...
All politicians in the world use some "restraint rhetoric" to damp down the hot heads of their opponents. It gives some psychological effect, or how it would have been explained in russian slang - брать на понт. Yes, Putin could say that publically to send his massage to the kievan junta hoping they would calm down a little bit. But! Putin didn't want any war with Ukraine at all costs. He couldn't allow himself to fall down under CIA provocation (i.e. instigation). Just think about that. Putin is not so stupid or a monster (as you think) who don't care what's going on on Russia's borders. He is very accountable and responsible man who will avoid making any rash action. It's obvious.

[musiqum]

Originally Posted by erasure

Your post was worthy refuting it...

Ha-ha-ha. Are you serious? You can NOT refute a thing in my post, because all of your refutations are your own subjective opinion with many mistaken views and wrong understanding of what I was saying at all. By your post, it's clear to me that you didn't catch my thought correctly but use a manipulative trick in our conversation.
And this is a bright example of it :

You; Wrong. Love, for example, is feeling, not emotion. Feelings and emotions are not always synonyms.

So according to you, Russians are always acting upon their "love"? Since you are using it in this particular context;
"Emotions" is wrong definition. Russians act upon their spiritual feelings of fairness and truth that is imposible to express with mundane words and explanations.

Although granted - "emotions" do not always correlate with "feelings," it's silly to think that all Russians act exclusively upon their "feelings," not "emotions."

Hello? I re-read my previous post again and couldn't come to the conclusion that I promote the idea that Russians are always acting upon their "love".
And I didn't say that ALL russians .. and so on.. I am talking about Russian character but you transfer it into russian population as the whole. If, for example, I will say that Gypsies like travelling and this is their national trait, you probably will start to argue with me saying I am wrong and that not all gypsies travel, and some of them live in their dwellings all their lives.

P.S. erasure, I am sorry, I have no time to answer all questions of your post. I just must disconnect from internet and go.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by musiqum

It's not a try to present things in a light convenient to Putin. It's just obvious to anyone who will take a look at the situation without the "Putin is bad" prejudice.

No it's obvious to YOU, not to "anyone."

But how the real world "operates" we can see by example on the war in Syria. We can see in the UN' meetings all kind of hypocrisy, double standards, groundless allegations and brazen lies. And so called "the real world" is applauding this unlawful disgrace. So maybe this lying world is not the real world at all?

You are bringing an irrelevant subject in this conversation at this point. The way real world operates is there are official laws, and according to this official laws, Putin's Russia took over a territory of a neighboring state. You can wiggle around all you want, and create stories as in "Crimea never belonged to Ukraine," or "people voted in Crimea," but the fact remains, that according to international laws, Russia illegally acquired this territory. Now if you are questioning the countries/governing bodies creating these laws and find them hypocritical/disgraceful and so on - that's the whole different story. I might agree with you on this one, however that does not mean that I perceive Putin as some kind of a "world savior" that showed up to teach all these faulty countries some kind of a moral lesson and "show them the light."

No, he didn't. Crimeans voted to re-join with Russia voluntarily, by their own will and without any pressure from Putin.

Anyone can say anything. According to the international law, there should be a proof of it, with independent observers and representatives. Otherwise the situation when the population "unanimously vote" in the presence of the foreign military base, casts a lot of doubts as far as international community is concerned, particularly when keeping in consideration that predominantly Russian Sebastopol is NOT all that there is to Crimea.
And while we are at that, talking about the "unanimous vote" in Crimea's referendum that was so important to secession of Crimea according to you, what happened to the referendum in Donbass? Didn't they want to join Russia as well, but wasn't the question in their referendum miraculously changed to "Do you support the independence of Donetsk Republic" with no option of joining Russia, with followed recommendations by Putin personally to "postpone" the referendum.
When you look closer at what took place in Crimea and Donbass, you get pretty good idea how the whole thing was orchestrated and whom, so all these fairy-tales about "Crimea wanted to join Russia and Donbass did not," become just that - the convenient fairy-tales.

It's not him took Crimea, it's crimeans left Ukraine themselves. And the crimean referendum met the international laws requirements.

For some strange reason or the other the international community does not agree with your conclusion.
That you want to point your figure at this very international community and ask an eternal Russian question "And who are the judges?" is not all that relevant in this case.

Crimea was representing the military/strategic interest for Russia, not for him personally.

Absolutely. Crimea is a matter of a national security for Russia, and in this particular case the interests of the ruling class AND the national interest of Russia coincided. But it's not always a case. Far away from it.

You have a very strong anti-Putin bias. And your view above is greatly demonstrates it.

I make no secret out of it.

Please don't be offended, but your reasoning here is in the vein of some average philistine who has a little understanding of the state strategic in a hidden political chess play.
Putin knew from the day one that so called "western partners" will do everything to pull in Russia in war with Ukraine. There would be numerous provocations, false flag operations and incitements to get Putin starting the war with Ukraine. The Obama administration desired this war to weaken Russia and EU and to strengthen U$ dollar with one shot.

Oh, I am a "philistine" - I see. But do you have any proofs any chance to all these conspiracy theories, or these concoctions dubbed as a "smart-ass Putin's plan" dubbed among skeptical Russians as "ХПП" ( "Хитрый План Путина") are simply created to justify his failures?

I also thought Putin will send the russian troops after the fascists act of burning of people in Odessa.

What do you mean? Did Odessa had appropriate referendum with 100% voices to join Russia?
Why would he send his troops there?

But Putin stayed cold and very balanced because he knew that the war with Ukraine is what exactly want enemies of Russia and Ukraine. Same thing with Donbass. If Putin would have sent his troops in Donbass, then it would have been looked like an illegal act of military aggression from his part against a sovereign state for real! Not by western media lies, but for real! Russia would have been turned into aggressor in the eyes of the world by the real fact, not by anti-russia propaganda!

Yeah right. Crimea - that was not "for real," but Donbass - that would be "for real")))
As I've said, I don't need these fairy-tales, delusions of grandeur created by Putin's propagandists.

But most important thing is that - Putin, in no way, could NOT admit the real war between two brotherly countries and, in fact, inside of one nation. He understood that a political regime will change sooner or later, but friendly relationship between ukrainian and russian people must stay anyway.

There would have been NO war between "brotherly people" keeping in mind the state of affairs in Ukrainian army by then, and the rejection of the South- East of the "new democratic authorities" in Kiev. Now it's too late of course for resolving the situation in appropriate manner. The time is gone.

But lets be honest. Donbass was not left by Russia (Putin). There were literal hundreds of humanitarian convoys with food, clothes, medicine, medical equipments, hardware, construction materials etc. So, take a pen and try to reckon how much money have lost your "greedy" Putin with it.

Yes, let's be honest. Of course Putin couldn't just leave Donbass ( Ukraine in general) alone and let it fell under American influence. Of course he supports the conflict in Donbass ( but why? what difference does it make for him, if these people "didn't-vote-unanimously-for-joining-Russia-as-they-did-in-Crimea?")
He turned Donbass into his bargaining chip, using it as a tool of his slimy game. Which would be OK, except for as the result of this game very real people are getting bombed and killed, but it doesn't matter, since he gets his gains at expense of their lives.
As for "clothes, medicines and medical equipment" - that's collected by your average Russians that know the dire situation there, and you should hear their opinions regarding Putin.

Now regarding Putin's "infamous speech"...
All politicians in the world use some "restraint rhetoric" to damp down the hot heads of their opponents. It gives some psychological effect, or how it would have been explained in russian slang - брать на понт. Yes, Putin could say that publically to send his massage to the kievan junta hoping they would calm down a little bit. But! Putin didn't want any war with Ukraine at all costs. He couldn't allow himself to fall down under CIA provocation (i.e. instigation). Just think about that. Putin is not so stupid or a monster (as you think) who don't care what's going on on Russia's borders. He is very accountable and responsible man who will avoid making any rash action. It's obvious.

As I've said - please spare these conspiracy theories what Putin "can allow" and what's not. They don't have any proof. That's number one, and number two - I don't consider Putin to be "a monster."
He is just a shrewd KGB dude that served Soviet ideology in the past, and now became a turn-coat, serving the "capitalist ideals," stuffing his pockets in the process and bargaining people's lives away. And he sits on top of the very corrupt pyramid, while pretending to be the world's new messiah, pointing the finger at his hypocritical Western counterparts. That's about it.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by musiqum

Ha-ha-ha. Are you serious? You can NOT refute a thing in my post, because all of your refutations are your own subjective opinion with many mistaken views and wrong understanding of what I was saying at all. By your post, it's clear to me that you didn't catch my thought correctly but use a manipulative trick in our conversation.

And my "mistaken views" are not "mistaken" according to your subjective opinion by any chance?
( No, of course not - why I even bother to ask))
Of course I "catch" your thought, but see - there is not only ONE way ( Russian way that is) to look at things.

Hello? I re-read my previous post again and couldn't come to the conclusion that I promote the idea that Russians are always acting upon their "love".
And I didn't say that ALL russians .. and so on.. I am talking about Russian character but you transfer it into russian population as the whole.

But what is "Russian character" without Russian population? Russian population reflects this very "Russian character" and I am merely pointing that only PART of Russians posses these positive qualities, and Putin and his ilk don't belong to this part.

If, for example, I will say that Gypsies like travelling and this is their national trait, you probably will start to argue with me saying I am wrong and that not all gypsies travel, and some of them live in their dwellings all their lives.

They probably do, but at this point it does not make any difference, while being put into a different context it might.

P.S. erasure, I am sorry, I have no time to answer all questions of your post. I just must disconnect from internet and go.

All right then. I don't have any questions, but see you next time.

[Ariete]

Garry Kasparov column about Russia and the Free World: The U.S.S.R. Fell

[snj90]

I don't think that ambassador deserved to die. But Russia has absolutely no moral authority to condemn terrorism. Russia is just a massive terrorist-supporting state. What goes around comes around. But I still hope innocent people won't lose their lives. Russia has caused a lot of that already.

[Scrat335]

You can place some blame in their court but the west has done far and away more to promote terrorism than Russia ever has. Look at the Ukraine. After the US sponsored coup your masters in Kiev attacked their own people. No doubt on orders from the west.

[Alec Solano]

Originally Posted by Scrat335

You can place some blame in their court but the west has done far and away more to promote terrorism than Russia ever has. Look at the Ukraine. After the US sponsored coup your masters in Kiev attacked their own people. No doubt on orders from the west.

This Russian terrorists invaded and violated peace at eastern Ukraine.