Posted on 04/07/2014 1:02:54 PM PDT by dangus
I don't claim to be able to peer into Putin's soul. I don't even claim to be an expert on Russia or the Ukraine. But if we're to have a chance of dealing intelligently in Eastern Europe, we should at least have a mastery of the basic facts. And that's where media sources, left, right and center have made complete fools of themselves. So without wanting to in any way defend the indefensible Yanukovich:
If the Russians hadn't been in Crimea, there's no way the Crimeans would've voted to join Russia.
Crimea has pretty much always been Russia since its first civilization, except for various times when the Turks had conquered it. It has never been part of the Ukraine, until 1992. It was not even part of the anti-communist Ukrainian Republic of the early 1920s. It only split from Russia when the Ukraine went democratic, but the Soviets still ran Russia. It voted in 1992 to become a fully autonomous region affiliated with the Ukraine, but then the Ukraine unilaterally revoked that autonomy. [From 1965 until 1991, it was part of the Ukrainian SSR].
The Russians want Crimea because of oil!
There is no oil in Crimea. There is no oil pipeline. The largest ports in the Ukraine are not in Crimea.
The Russians want Crimea because it is so wealthy!
Crimea possesses some potentially wonderful tourist beaches. But it is not wealthy. At all. Crimea's one of the poorest Oblasts in a poor nation; most of the wealth of the Ukraine is concentrated in Kiev.
It's 1930s Germany all over again!
Maybe. But not because of the Russians. When the mob took over Kiev, they installed several neo-Nazis to key posts.
That neo-Nazi talk is just Russian propaganda!
It refers to the Socialist-Nationalist party, also known as Svoboda, which idolizes the Banderites. The Banderites tried to prove to Adolf Hitler that they'd be valuable allies by killing an entire region's population of 80,000 Polish people. But at least the Banderites have never been ties to the Nazis' hatred of Jews. Svoboda blames Jews for ruling Russia.
Surely the HEADS of the Maidan aren't Nazis, though!
Julia Tymoshenko, the once and probably future Prime Minister of the Ukraine, was recorded in a phone conversation that the only way to establish secure rule over the Ukraine would be to kill all Russians.
No-one really wants to secede; it's just the Russians stirring trouble.
Did you miss the part about the Tymoshenko wanting all Russians killed? Was it just hot-blooded rhetoric? Perhaps, but after mobs overthrew the people they voted for, you can hardly blame the citizens of Donetsk Oblast for being wary when their leader calls for their genocide.
The Russians really just want a land bridge to Crimea.
Russia does not need a land bridge to Crimea. In fact, it would be insane to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles all the way around the Sea of Azov, instead of taking a two-mile planned bridge across the placid Straits of Kerch.
But the Russians have been causing trouble in the Ukraine all along! They poisoned President Yushenko!
My only point in bringing the following up is that the initial narrative is likely false, not to cast blame on other parties; It's really too shrouded in conspiracy to know what happened. But actually, Victor Yushenko himself believes he was poisoned by pro-EU former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's ally, Davyd Zhvanya. His initial diagnosis was refuted by a commission established by his own legislature. Why would Tymoshenko, from his own party, want Yushenko poisoned? His poisoning helped his election; once dead, she would lead the country.
No-one would want to join Russia! It is a godless, dying society.
Russia's birth rate is up 50% in the last few years. The abortion rate is down 80%. The life expectancy has gained 5 years in just 8 years. And more than 80% of Russians now identify as Christians (Yes, church attendance is in the single digits, but church attendance isn't seen as necessary as it is among Catholics and high-church Protestants.) It's the West which is now dying out.
No-one would want to join Russia! The Oligarchs control all the income!
The top 10% in Russia earn 33% of the income. In America, they control roughly half of the income. Family-run micro-farms produce 58% of the agricultural output. The GDP has increased by a factor of 10 since the post-Soviet economic collapse.
Putin doesn't allow opposition parties!
The opposition parties hold 47% of the seats in the Duma.
Putin is a Eurasianist! He's a neo-Stalinist! He's a Socialist!
The main opposition parties are Zhirinovski's Eurasianists, the communists, and the Nationalist-Socialists. Putin regularly campaigns against socialism, economic centralization, and government control in a way few but the most ballsy Westerners do. And THAT'S why socialist Lebedev, whose newspapers' commentary dominate Western reporting on Russia, hates him.
I lean towards your interpretation of events, but the incredible thing is how unnecessary it is to interpret events! If Crimea weren’t so pro-Russian, there’s no way Putin would want — or be able to afford — a restive, occupied province. He’s got his hands full. Is he Macchiavellian? Before answering that, people should note the central thesis of Macchiavelli was that his sponsor should NOT occupy Corsica.
“Poor form?” Whose stylebook are you using? I would argue that it is “poor form” to present debatable conjectures as “encyclopedic knowledge.”
Agreed! And, I certainly agree with Putin on several issues. But, he did invade another country for shaky reasons (yeah, I know we invaded Irag for shaky reasons, so spare me that comment please........).
In addition, he is dropping hints at invading other countries including Finland.
So, minimally, Putin remains on the “dubious” list.
Of course. Those Russian troops that crossed the border simply "lost their way."
I agree that the MSM narrative is being contradicted by your thread.
RINOS and the GOP-e probably don’t agree, though.
Don’t bother. The erasing of posts seems to extend to some by not all. I use Ad Homs IN REPLY to Ad Homs hurled at me (without provocation) and nothing apparently gets done. OTOH, when I...
Oh, please. The notion that Zyuganov is a buddy of Putin is so idiotic it is impossible to comment on.
The parliament only ousted Yanukovich after he had already fled the country and the parliament literally had armed mobs occupying its halls. They might as well have announced, “Ratify our actions or die!”
The 22K income per capita is by far the highest its even been in Russia, wealthier than the vast majority of the Earth, and six times what it was when Putin took over in the 1990s.
More "encyclopedic knowledge?"
Russia is the largest country in the world. The last thing
Putin needs is more territory.
OK, which one of these posts (besides the Yushenko poisoning) do you even consider debatable?
Is there some contention as to who owned Crimea in 1650? 1750? 1850? 1950?
Is there some contention as to which are the largest ports in the Ukraine?
Is there some contention as to whether or not there are pipelines through the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether Kiev is really the wealthiest part of the Ukraine, as opposed to the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether or not Svoboda glorifies the Banderites? Or whether the Banderites wiped out the Poles in Western Ukraine?
Is there some contention about how far around the Sea of Azov you have to travel to go from Russian to Crimea? Or that a bridge is being built to make the trip just two miles across the straits of Kerch?
You tell me where I posted a contestible point as fact, and I’ll happily note it.
One way to start would be to compare your last post with your original. Note which “items” you left off the second list, and you’ll have a good idea what’s debatable.
The pathetic, laughable thing is that every one of the “myths” I contradict has been presumed true by mainstream AND “conservative” authors without anyone fact-checking, let alone sourcing.
So your “encyclopedic” sources are contradicted by others, encyclopedic or otherwise?
They risk it. Mother Russia can be cruel to unfaithful...
Oh please! I stopped because I thought I had beaten a dead horse long enough! Is it contestible that Tymoshenko was recorded calling for the death of all Russians in the Ukraine? No; I noted her intents by saying that were contestible, and I avoided drawing the conclusion that she wanted them all dead. I only allowed the reader to draw their own conclusion whether a Russian in Donetsk might not want her as their ruler. So again, which item do you debate?
Now, I admit I have actually been contradicted in the past with conspiracists that the UN echoed the falsified data regarding Russian birth rates, death rates, etc., But that quickly fell into the argument that no source was good enough (except my opponent’s own intuition). But again, just go look that up in Wikipedia, and you’ll find endless sources.
Now you’re being purposely stupid. I noted that there was no fact-checking at all, let alone sourcing.
I’m confused.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3127835/posts?page=27#27
Nobody cares about any of your opinions. Therefore your points are moot.
You have made it clear on this forum that you desire to disparage others for expressing opinions. Even if they post vanity threads to debate those opinions with others you pop in (instead of just turning off the vanity posts in your settings) to tell them how much you despise vanity threads.
Your attitude and the intellectual vacuum from which it derives negates any contemplation of your input which might otherwise occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.