anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As for Crimea, I have a hard time seeing it, you will continue to pay for it in the foreseeable future.

Don't worry - early Spring 2014, Russian not only took the Crimea, but also returned control over many of their strategic resource mining enterprises, and MADE(!) a few tens of billions of dollars. All that by having taken advantage of the sanctions and and the noise around them. And you are talking about "paying"? Your investors and even pension funds already paid.

Rent for the Sewastopol navy base was not cheap. That alone should turn the bill.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

No in the West, freedom of speech, or free press, or human rights, etc, etc. About what press freedom is about, if you constantly censor the press? RT under permanent sanctions - this is censorship. What about the human rights in question, if NATO countries attacking countries around the world and the killing of civilians, disrupting their main right - the right to life?
What kind of free market is it when we all have eyes the story unfolds with Embraer, and protective tariffs at 300%? What about trade quotas in the EU? What kind of freedom?
You say that the West is freedom, and in Russia it not? But in Russia you can't be imprisoned because of the word "Nigger", because in Russia it's not in a negative sense, and in Russia, there was racial segregation. We have the country's population of 180 different nationalities. We do not prohibit planting fruits and vegetables on their land.
In Russia, much much easier, or not a problem, unlike the EU and USA.

Corruption in Russia, by the way, is several times lower than in Ukraine and is approximately on the same level as in the United States.

- Does the west censor the press? Please give me your source. I have one:
* The Netherlands: 5
* Russia: 148
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

- "RT under permanent sanctions": Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda channel aimed at the west. And show me please where they are under permanent sanctions? If I wanted to, I could watch it, but why would I?

- If the west decides to attack a country, it needs to be cleared by a UNSC resolution (mandate from the UN, which the Russian Federation has inherited the permanent seat of the USSR). Or there needs to be some other way in which international law dictates some action must be taken. Most countries were a mess when actions were taken and the life of civilians are at stake. Civilians aren't targeted by western countries. So the question was to leave the barfight as it was or to try to stop it. Not unlike Russia is claiming to do in other neighboring countries.

- Don't know what you are claiming here. So the N word can be said in Russia and isn't a negative word, so there is freedom? In the Netherlands, you can say it, but you will be talked down (hopefully). 180 nationalities? Ok, but what is your point? I believe there are 181 nationalities in Amsterdam. In the west you can say anything about the current government and go and march in the streets against the government, can you without repercussions? Can journalist write whatever they want about the powers to be? Are gay's left alone in Russia without hassle from anyone, including the law? So I say the universal human rights chapters are much more lived by than in Russia. That can be objectively varied, just see what human right watch, amnesty international or other NGO's write about all countries.

- What is your point about planting fruits and vegetables? Ok, you can, fine. if you own land in the Netherlands you could as well, plant anything you want in your garden. Most don't because it is much easier to go to the store which in on almost any corner (or have it delivered if you wish). The Netherlands is vastly more populated though, so much less land available per person, so land is expensive in the Netherlands.
* Average in the world: 56 / sq km
* 30. The Netherlands: 404 / sq km
* 97. Russia: 9 / sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... on_density

Do you have any evidence of a western country which prohibits growing and eating your own fruits and vegetables?

- "Corruption in Russia, by the way, is several times lower than in Ukraine and is approximately on the same level as in the United States." please back this claim up as well. According to the index from Transparency international, this is not correct:
* The Netherlands: 8 / 176
* America: 18 / 176
* Russia: 131 / 176
* Ukraine: 131 / 176

Where do you get vastly different numbers from?

Could it be that you don't have a clue how the west is behaving and how the western countries work and what liberties western citizens have? Or at least have a distorted view of it? Something you continue to blame me (and others) about having of Russia.

All these ratings are numbers, written by men. People paid to Russia was terribly corrupt country, and these people write the ratings to Russia was terribly corrupt country. Come on, you know perfectly well that in the US corruption has long been official. Called "lobbying". Recently in offshore accounts found $10 000 000, which belongs to the Queen of Britain. Even earlier, I remember the terrible scandal with the arrest of the officials of sports committees. Recently in Estonia detained the Minister for fraud. Yes, in the Estonia, which in the ranking to 12th position. As I said earlier - the West is happy to accept Russian oligarchs, knowing that all of their fortunes amassed illegally.

About RT - whatever propaganda or channel in your opinion, the constant attacks on him and the constant restriction is censorship. What kind of free press you can then say?

If the west decides to attack a country, it needs to be cleared by a UNSC resolution

Yeah, he's the mandate, which did not have NATO troops invading Yugoslavia, or Libya, or Syria. Or in Vietnam, or Korea. And I only list the major conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of victims.

Civilians aren't targeted by western countries

too many of them died at the hands of NATO, not to be a target for Western countries.

So the question was to leave the barfight as it was or to try to stop it

This is how to extinguish the fire using a flamethrower.

I believe there are 181 nationalities in Amsterdam

A matter of faith, not knowledge. I know that Russia is home to 194 nationalities. That's not counting included in these ethnic groups. And all these nationalities in Russia there are more than one hundred years. For comparison, in the Netherlands there live representatives of 37 nationalities, most of whom emigrated only recently. In Russia, they are not immigrants - it's their home, here is their story, their culture.
So when I see in the West tell about some kind of Russian nationalism, I say this is bullshit. So I can only say someone who knows nothing about Russia and its history.

In the west you can say anything about the current government and go and march in the streets against the government, can you without repercussions?

Yeah, it's easy - just check first this March in the local town hall. And then for the protection this March will provide the police and arrange for the meeting venue. The problem is that the opposition prefers just not to do it, and conduct such activities with the violation of our laws.
Oh, my God, 50 metres from red square, I personally saw a man who a few hours sticking with a sign on which was written protests against the government - and NONE of these few hours never arrested him, never took and did not come to remove it all on camera. And many of these shares that are held without provocation, peaceful and quiet. But you also do not show - it is not usual to bring under the theme "Oh, the horror - to the terrible Russian people protest against the dictator."

Can journalist write whatever they want about the powers to be?

I too often think that our journalists could write something more objective than they usually write. In Russia at all, for any reason, up a huge hype. Now, in connection with the loss of payload resulting in a crash when launching from the spaceport "East" in the media there is a real hysteria. Media has reached the point that to blame Putin personally. Sat, probably, and wire in the booster "Frigate" sawing. Personally to worsen the life of people, I guess. A bloody dictator.

Are gay's left alone in Russia without hassle from anyone, including the law?

This is a very stupid accusation. In fact, it is so often used, that's annoying. And shows a complete ignorance saying those things about the situation in Russia.
First, you yourself said that you know that in Russia a popular traditional family values. So. In Russia there is a Patriarchal traditionalism. Traditional gender roles - the man is the breadwinner and protector, the woman is a homemaker and teacher of children.
Nobody forbids someone to be gay, lesbian, transvestite or something. But in a society you do not explicitly add yourself to the popularity of such behavior. More than that - everything that happens in your bedroom should stay in the bedroom. The fact that Russia is limited by law in this respect is the fact that prohibited propaganda of homosexuality and other perversions. Primarily it is aimed at protecting our childs from this propaganda. Secondly - to protect the sexual minorities. The society does not want legalization is the right companies. No one will force you to take the test on heterosexuality, others do NOT WANT to KNOW about how and what you indulge yourself in the bedroom.Please respect our right not to know about your sexual preferences. We don't need and we don't want to have anything to do. And all the problems with the law you will not.
By the way, you do not mind that Russian LGBT people often organize events with posters, on which the inscription in English?

That can be objectively varied, just see what human right watch, amnesty international or other NGO's write about all countries

These organizations are just another tools of Western propaganda, and no matter how many times you call them "objective", they will not be objective.
I live in Russia, and I can certainly see how different real life is from the picture, which is created by the Western media.
In order to understand that over the last 18 years of his life in Russia is changing for the better, I don't need to read Newspapers or watch TV. I have enough to go out and look around.

I could go on debunking everything, but that clearly has no use. So could you tell me where do you get your information from? What are your sources for news and these statistics and things you present here as facts?

WIederling wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As for Crimea, I have a hard time seeing it, you will continue to pay for it in the foreseeable future.

Don't worry - early Spring 2014, Russian not only took the Crimea, but also returned control over many of their strategic resource mining enterprises, and MADE(!) a few tens of billions of dollars. All that by having taken advantage of the sanctions and and the noise around them. And you are talking about "paying"? Your investors and even pension funds already paid.

Rent for the Sewastopol navy base was not cheap. That alone should turn the bill.

yup, stealing something will indeed lower the total bill.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As for Crimea, I have a hard time seeing it, you will continue to pay for it in the foreseeable future.

Don't worry - early Spring 2014, Russian not only took the Crimea, but also returned control over many of their strategic resource mining enterprises, and MADE(!) a few tens of billions of dollars. All that by having taken advantage of the sanctions and and the noise around them. And you are talking about "paying"? Your investors and even pension funds already paid.

So again you are saying Russia stole from my pension fund, ok check.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We will see in 25 years.

25 years in 21st century is a VERY long time. Too much can happen. Your EU and/or NATO can fall apart; it's enough time for a few wars between European nations, and even for 3rd world war. Let alone for stop of Ukrainian support. The whole Europe (or at least as we know it today) is likely to stop existing in 25 years.

So your horizon is 1 year, 5 years?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

They don't have to listen to me, but why do they have to listen to you?

But you still don't get it. Until there is a legitimate annexation, the Crimea will be Russia's Tibet or Russia's Western Sahara or Russia's Golan Heights. The world doesn't recognize it. You might not care, but that severely limits the economic potential of the region.

The overwhelming majority you speak of, how do you know and that is the whole point. The wish needs to be respected, I fully agree with that, but their wishes should be first taken in in a legitimate way, without fraud, without armed men inside the voting chambers, with a decent and free debate. Do you get it now?

What do I not get? They don't have to listen to neither you nor to me. They have a right to determine their future, and they did exactly that. Speaking of legitimacy - Crimeans themselves believe it was perfectly legitimate, and so do Russians. What you, or some "the rest of the world" think of legitimacy - doesn't really matter to them. You can't possibly "defraud" a vote into 80-90% (realistically 4-5 percentage points), and you can't possibly make 2.5 million people to go to a referendum and vote certain way by the means of 3-4 thousands of military. Just no way. Crimeans also had 25 years of Ukrainian rule for their debates, and they were done with that long before winter 2014.

Speaking of economic potential - it's still by far greater with Russians, than under Ukraine.

Quite easy to test your hypothesis: have a real democratic referendum, under UN control, with a free debate for a period of 1 year, without Russian or Ukraine control.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

They don't have to listen to me, but why do they have to listen to you?

But you still don't get it. Until there is a legitimate annexation, the Crimea will be Russia's Tibet or Russia's Western Sahara or Russia's Golan Heights. The world doesn't recognize it. You might not care, but that severely limits the economic potential of the region.

The overwhelming majority you speak of, how do you know and that is the whole point. The wish needs to be respected, I fully agree with that, but their wishes should be first taken in in a legitimate way, without fraud, without armed men inside the voting chambers, with a decent and free debate. Do you get it now?

What do I not get? They don't have to listen to neither you nor to me. They have a right to determine their future, and they did exactly that. Speaking of legitimacy - Crimeans themselves believe it was perfectly legitimate, and so do Russians. What you, or some "the rest of the world" think of legitimacy - doesn't really matter to them. You can't possibly "defraud" a vote into 80-90% (realistically 4-5 percentage points), and you can't possibly make 2.5 million people to go to a referendum and vote certain way by the means of 3-4 thousands of military. Just no way. Crimeans also had 25 years of Ukrainian rule for their debates, and they were done with that long before winter 2014.

Speaking of economic potential - it's still by far greater with Russians, than under Ukraine.

Quite easy to test your hypothesis: have a real democratic referendum, under UN control, with a free debate for a period of 1 year, without Russian or Ukraine control.

How long do you want to do that: "Voting until the result matches your preconceptions".

There have been enough referenda with rather homogenous results already.
buy another horse, man!

WIederling wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

What do I not get? They don't have to listen to neither you nor to me. They have a right to determine their future, and they did exactly that. Speaking of legitimacy - Crimeans themselves believe it was perfectly legitimate, and so do Russians. What you, or some "the rest of the world" think of legitimacy - doesn't really matter to them. You can't possibly "defraud" a vote into 80-90% (realistically 4-5 percentage points), and you can't possibly make 2.5 million people to go to a referendum and vote certain way by the means of 3-4 thousands of military. Just no way. Crimeans also had 25 years of Ukrainian rule for their debates, and they were done with that long before winter 2014.

Speaking of economic potential - it's still by far greater with Russians, than under Ukraine.

Quite easy to test your hypothesis: have a real democratic referendum, under UN control, with a free debate for a period of 1 year, without Russian or Ukraine control.

How long do you want to do that: "Voting until the result matches your preconceptions".

There have been enough referenda with rather homogenous results already.
buy another horse, man!

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one Pinnocio referendum.

Dutchy wrote:

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one Pinnocio referendum.

16 March 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol will be held all-Crimean referendum on status of Crimea.
The first referendum in territory of Crimea (the first in the history of the USSR referendum) was held 20 January 1991. The decision to hold it was adopted on 12 November 1990 at an extraordinary session of the Crimean regional Council of people's deputies. To the vote the question was put: "are You for the reconstruction of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as subject of USSR and participant of allied agreement?" The right to vote was 1,777,841 million Crimean. In the referendum participated 1,441 million (81.3%), including residents of Sevastopol. Responded positively 1,343,855 million persons (93,26%). The vote was boycotted by most Crimean Tatars. However, on 12 February, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the law on the restoration of the Crimean ASSR within the Ukrainian SSR. Four months later the appropriate changes were made to the Constitution of the USSR in 1978, and the Crimean oblast was transformed into the Crimean ASSR.
5 may 1992 at the session of the Crimean Parliament adopted the act on the state independence of the Republic of Crimea, which was to enter into force after confirmation of his all-Crimean referendum scheduled for 2 August. The participants had to answer two questions: "are You for an independent Crimea in Union with other States?" and "do You confirm the act on the state independence of the Republic of Crimea?". May 13, the Supreme Council of Ukraine declared the decision of the Crimean Parliament on the proclamation of the act on the state independence and hold a referendum as contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine and has suspended their action. July 9, the Supreme Council of Crimea declared a moratorium on its resolution to hold a referendum.
In March 1995, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada and President of Ukraine, the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea was abolished, the post of President was abolished. April 25, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted the decision to hold the June 25 all-Crimean referendum. Crimeans were asked to answer the following questions: "1. Do you argue the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, canceled the Supreme Council of Ukraine unilaterally, March 17, 1995? 2. Do you support the law of Ukraine "On the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" of 17 March 1995?". However, on 31 may, the Crimean Parliament reversed its decision on the referendum, agreeing with the proposal of the Supreme Council of Ukraine adopted the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic on the basis of the law of Ukraine "On delimitation of powers between Ukraine and Crimea".
In 1998 the agenda of the session of the Supreme Council of the Crimea was made on holding a referendum, including on the issue of granting the Russian language official status, as well as the removal of the moratorium on a referendum on the status of Crimea. However, the deputies did not agree on holding a referendum.
February 22, 2006, the Supreme Council of the Crimea again attempted to hold a March 26 referendum on the status of the Russian language. The initiative belonged to the Party of regions, Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukrainian Central election Commission banned the precinct election commissions in Crimea to vote on this issue.
16 Dec 2006 Crimeans in an informal national referendum voted against the policy of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko to join NATO. Crimean authorities have refused to provide premises for a vote, and the organizers of the Crimean people's Assembly held a referendum on the streets. Against Ukraine's membership in NATO in favor 98.7% of the nearly 900 thousand citizens, who took part in the vote. Legal force of the referendum had not.


Read more on TASS:
http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1043447

Dutchy wrote:

they build up their institutions and continue to fight corruption !!!

Oh please when the new president is more corrupt than the one he replaced this isn’t going to happen. The Navy are building new patrol vessels but instead of building them at one of the experienced navy yards in Nikolaev they are being build at a yard in Kiev owned by the President , this yard has spent almost its entire existance repairing river vessels and now it’s building naval vessels.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one Pinnocio referendum.

16 March 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol will be held all-Crimean referendum on status of Crimea.
The first referendum in territory of Crimea (the first in the history of the USSR referendum) was held 20 January 1991. The decision to hold it was adopted on 12 November 1990 at an extraordinary session of the Crimean regional Council of people's deputies. To the vote the question was put: "are You for the reconstruction of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as subject of USSR and participant of allied agreement?" The right to vote was 1,777,841 million Crimean. In the referendum participated 1,441 million (81.3%), including residents of Sevastopol. Responded positively 1,343,855 million persons (93,26%). The vote was boycotted by most Crimean Tatars. However, on 12 February, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the law on the restoration of the Crimean ASSR within the Ukrainian SSR. Four months later the appropriate changes were made to the Constitution of the USSR in 1978, and the Crimean oblast was transformed into the Crimean ASSR.
5 may 1992 at the session of the Crimean Parliament adopted the act on the state independence of the Republic of Crimea, which was to enter into force after confirmation of his all-Crimean referendum scheduled for 2 August. The participants had to answer two questions: "are You for an independent Crimea in Union with other States?" and "do You confirm the act on the state independence of the Republic of Crimea?". May 13, the Supreme Council of Ukraine declared the decision of the Crimean Parliament on the proclamation of the act on the state independence and hold a referendum as contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine and has suspended their action. July 9, the Supreme Council of Crimea declared a moratorium on its resolution to hold a referendum.
In March 1995, the decision of the Verkhovna Rada and President of Ukraine, the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea was abolished, the post of President was abolished. April 25, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted the decision to hold the June 25 all-Crimean referendum. Crimeans were asked to answer the following questions: "1. Do you argue the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, canceled the Supreme Council of Ukraine unilaterally, March 17, 1995? 2. Do you support the law of Ukraine "On the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" of 17 March 1995?". However, on 31 may, the Crimean Parliament reversed its decision on the referendum, agreeing with the proposal of the Supreme Council of Ukraine adopted the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic on the basis of the law of Ukraine "On delimitation of powers between Ukraine and Crimea".
In 1998 the agenda of the session of the Supreme Council of the Crimea was made on holding a referendum, including on the issue of granting the Russian language official status, as well as the removal of the moratorium on a referendum on the status of Crimea. However, the deputies did not agree on holding a referendum.
February 22, 2006, the Supreme Council of the Crimea again attempted to hold a March 26 referendum on the status of the Russian language. The initiative belonged to the Party of regions, Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukrainian Central election Commission banned the precinct election commissions in Crimea to vote on this issue.
16 Dec 2006 Crimeans in an informal national referendum voted against the policy of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko to join NATO. Crimean authorities have refused to provide premises for a vote, and the organizers of the Crimean people's Assembly held a referendum on the streets. Against Ukraine's membership in NATO in favor 98.7% of the nearly 900 thousand citizens, who took part in the vote. Legal force of the referendum had not.


Read more on TASS:
http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1043447

So no recent legal vote on this issue. Thanks for showing WIederling wrong.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

they build up their institutions and continue to fight corruption !!!

Oh please when the new president is more corrupt than the one he replaced this isn’t going to happen. The Navy are building new patrol vessels but instead of building them at one of the experienced navy yards in Nikolaev they are being build at a yard in Kiev owned by the President , this yard has spent almost its entire existance repairing river vessels and now it’s building naval vessels.

Yup, the current Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia never said anything to the contrary. Yet they have more a chance to change than under the former president and under the spell of Putin, which took corruption to a whole nother level.

Dutchy wrote:

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one referendum.

using loaded descriptive terms doesn't help towards an objective answer.

German or use google translate:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_ ... Geschichte

WIederling wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one referendum.

using loaded descriptive terms doesn't help towards an objective answer.

German or use google translate:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_ ... Geschichte

You claimed more than one referendum, besides the Pinocchio referendum, could you please show it to us? Your link doesn't give it.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

they build up their institutions and continue to fight corruption !!!

Oh please when the new president is more corrupt than the one he replaced this isn’t going to happen. The Navy are building new patrol vessels but instead of building them at one of the experienced navy yards in Nikolaev they are being build at a yard in Kiev owned by the President , this yard has spent almost its entire existance repairing river vessels and now it’s building naval vessels.

Yup, the current Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia never said anything to the contrary. Yet they have more a chance to change than under the former president and under the spell of Putin, which took corruption to a whole nother level.

They have no chance to change so long as the political elite are also the oligarchs who use political power to increase there wealth, they don’t care about the little guy, what’s amusing is the US is fast heading down the path where the 1% (the near enough US version of an oligarch) has taken control of the economy and the govt.

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Which other referendum has been conducted in this regard? I only know of one referendum.

using loaded descriptive terms doesn't help towards an objective answer.

German or use google translate:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_ ... Geschichte

You claimed more than one referendum, besides the Pinocchio referendum, could you please show it to us? Your link doesn't give it.

Since 91 there’s been three votes on Crimeas future, none of them have had pro Ukrainian results. You can go to Wikipedia and look them up for yourself. iMO you could hold 100 referendums on Crimea separating from Ukraine and the result will be the same in all of them. I’ve been visiting in Crimea since 2008, I’ve never met anyone who was happy with the (then current) political situation.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

using loaded descriptive terms doesn't help towards an objective answer.

German or use google translate:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_ ... Geschichte

You claimed more than one referendum, besides the Pinocchio referendum, could you please show it to us? Your link doesn't give it.

Since 91 there’s been three votes on Crimeas future, none of them have had pro Ukrainian results. You can go to Wikipedia and look them up for yourself. iMO you could hold 100 referendums on Crimea separating from Ukraine and the result will be the same in all of them. I’ve been visiting in Crimea since 2008, I’ve never met anyone who was happy with the (then current) political situation.

So all I am asking for is one legitimate referendum, if everyone is so sure of the outcome, why not doing that and the west is forced to recognize it and some of the sanctions might be lifted. All good news for Putin and his gang, what are they afraid of?

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Oh please when the new president is more corrupt than the one he replaced this isn’t going to happen. The Navy are building new patrol vessels but instead of building them at one of the experienced navy yards in Nikolaev they are being build at a yard in Kiev owned by the President , this yard has spent almost its entire existance repairing river vessels and now it’s building naval vessels.

Yup, the current Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia never said anything to the contrary. Yet they have more a chance to change than under the former president and under the spell of Putin, which took corruption to a whole nother level.

They have no chance to change so long as the political elite are also the oligarchs who use political power to increase there wealth, they don’t care about the little guy, what’s amusing is the US is fast heading down the path where the 1% (the near enough US version of an oligarch) has taken control of the economy and the govt.

And again, I agree with you, on both accounts. Do you agree that Putin's Russia is as bad as Ukraine?

3 December in Russia, starting from 2014, the Day of the Unknown Soldier – in memory of Russian and Soviet soldiers killed in the fighting on the territory of our country or abroad.

Your name is unknown - your deed is immortal.

Dutchy wrote:

So again you are saying Russia stole from my pension fund, ok check.

Aaaaaahhhhahahahahahahaaaaa!!! Russia stole! Do you even know what went on?

See, sanctions can work sometimes at the stage of threats, producing uncertainty. Once they are imposed and reality around them is clear, much of their impact is gone. And over time, as market operators understand them, they also find their ways around them. North Korea became good at it and even buys U.S. military equipment for their missile program.

Back to Crimea. It was all aggressive and tough talk around the sanctions, by US and European politicians. As it was heating up, shares and stakes in those Russian enterprises were up for sale on he market, more and more, cheaper and cheaper. Until one day it was all bought up by some Cyprus firms. Once transactions cleared and dust settled, it became known that it was Russian government behind them. So what now? Go and sue Victoria Nuland, John Kerry, Donald Tusk, Katherine Ashton, Frederica Mogerini for market manipulation, if you like. They blew it.

Dutchy wrote:

And again, I agree with you, on both accounts. Do you agree that Putin's Russia is as bad as Ukraine?

"Bad" in what sense? There is no war, established and functional economy, state's institutions aren't used by business clans to figure out market shares. That's to say the least.

Dutchy wrote:

So all I am asking for is one legitimate referendum, if everyone is so sure of the outcome, why not doing that and the west is forced to recognize it and some of the sanctions might be lifted. All good news for Putin and his gang, what are they afraid of?

You don't understand - it's not up to you or some "west" to define what a legitimate referendum is. It's up to Crimeans to decide, was their referendum legitimate or not. And given 80% turnout, nobody in Crimea has any doubts in its legitimacy, and neither should West.

And - before the polls, Western organization such as OSCE, European Council, were offered to send monitors to watch the polls. They didn't do it; just some journalists were there, and none of those reported anything similar to "forced vote" you are describing. You were invited to ensure accuracy of vote counts, legitimacy, but didn't want to show up to do it. What grounds do you have left to argue about "legitimacy"?

Dutchy wrote:

So your horizon is 1 year, 5 years?

Things are moving fast and unpredictably. For Ukrainian statehood - one year is quite a while, 5 - nobody is convinced that country has that much life left in it. Unless Ukrainian Putin shows up and starts fixing things, but clearly it will not be a pro-European or even "democratic" Ukraine in that case.

5 years for NATO/EU - who knows. One year for them - probably there won't be noticeable differences given inertia of those institutions.

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Rent for the Sewastopol navy base was not cheap. That alone should turn the bill.[/quote

yup, stealing something will indeed lower the total bill.

The budget for Crimean bridge alone is about 40 annual rents of that base, to be fair. Plus pipelines and powerline connections, rebuilding the whole energy grid of South Western Russia to support Crimea. Hence the total bill wasn't a consideration, of course.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yup, the current Ukraine is as corrupt as Russia never said anything to the contrary. Yet they have more a chance to change than under the former president and under the spell of Putin, which took corruption to a whole nother level.

They have no chance to change so long as the political elite are also the oligarchs who use political power to increase there wealth, they don’t care about the little guy, what’s amusing is the US is fast heading down the path where the 1% (the near enough US version of an oligarch) has taken control of the economy and the govt.

And again, I agree with you, on both accounts. Do you agree that Putin's Russia is as bad as Ukraine?

From a business perspective Ukraine is far worse, it’s much easier working with Russians. I was in St Petersburg and Vyborg last week, signed a big contract, had an excellent steak to celebrate, I have no complaints with Russia.

anrec80 wrote:

Until one day it was all bought up by some Cyprus firms. Once transactions cleared and dust settled, it became known that it was Russian government behind them.

Got some link for that? ( would be even more amusing then the plainly visible fallout from sanctions and that funny turks gyrations to get his arm back to the front.)

anrec80 wrote:

The budget for Crimean bridge alone is about 40 annual rents of that base, to be fair. Plus pipelines and powerline connections, rebuilding the whole energy grid of South Western Russia to support Crimea. Hence the total bill wasn't a consideration, of course.

WIederling argument, not mine.

So indeed, Russians will continue to pay for the annexation of Crimea.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So your horizon is 1 year, 5 years?

Things are moving fast and unpredictably. For Ukrainian statehood - one year is quite a while, 5 - nobody is convinced that country has that much life left in it. Unless Ukrainian Putin shows up and starts fixing things, but clearly it will not be a pro-European or even "democratic" Ukraine in that case.

5 years for NATO/EU - who knows. One year for them - probably there won't be noticeable differences given inertia of those institutions.

Again not my argumentation. As for NATO/EU most notably, things will move slowly for the better. Why not talk about the potential instability of Russia in the same time period?
- what will happen if Putin dies ( he is 65 )
- what will happen if the population rises up against the massive corruption?
- what will happen if the money stops flowing when the world transitioned to renewable energy?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Rent for the Sewastopol navy base was not cheap. That alone should turn the bill.[/quote

yup, stealing something will indeed lower the total bill.

The budget for Crimean bridge alone is about 40 annual rents of that base, to be fair. Plus pipelines and powerline connections, rebuilding the whole energy grid of South Western Russia to support Crimea. Hence the total bill wasn't a consideration, of course.

This seems to be a false statement from your side.

rent was 30% rebates on gas delivered. consumption 78,000 million m³/a @ $0.486/m³ --> $10..15b/a magnitude
( Ukraine is one of the biggest energy squanderers around )

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So all I am asking for is one legitimate referendum, if everyone is so sure of the outcome, why not doing that and the west is forced to recognize it and some of the sanctions might be lifted. All good news for Putin and his gang, what are they afraid of?

You don't understand - it's not up to you or some "west" to define what a legitimate referendum is. It's up to Crimeans to decide, was their referendum legitimate or not. And given 80% turnout, nobody in Crimea has any doubts in its legitimacy, and neither should West.

And - before the polls, Western organization such as OSCE, European Council, were offered to send monitors to watch the polls. They didn't do it; just some journalists were there, and none of those reported anything similar to "forced vote" you are describing. You were invited to ensure accuracy of vote counts, legitimacy, but didn't want to show up to do it. What grounds do you have left to argue about "legitimacy"?

The flaw in that argumentation is the following: neither does Russia. It is not up to Putin's Russia to decide what the Crimeans want. What a free and legitimate referendum is, is well established by now. And what "Crimean parliament" did, wasn't it. You only have to look at the timeline:

March 1, 2014: President Putin got the green light (by Russian Federation council), to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine (an act of war!).
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament decided by decree that the Crimea will be part of Russia
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is annexed by Russie

OSCE isn't western, there are 57 member states, including Russia.
Council of Europe isn't western, there are 47 member states, including Russia.

So with this timeline and with all the turmoil, illegal Russian troops, a declared independence (no referendum about that), how can anyone feel that this Pinocchio referendum was legit? What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do? You cannot have a free debate when the territory is invaded by Russia and the timeline is 10(!) days. So the OSCE and Council of Europe did the only sensible thing, keep away otherwise, like you claim here, they are implicit in the outcome. Perhaps most people would have voted for annexation, but what is the point if the run-up to this Pinocchio referendum wasn't fair and thus from the outset wasn't democratic.

So the grounds to call it a Pinocchio referendum, and thus question its legitimacy, lies within the timeline and the occupational forces. May I ask why you - and other Putin defenders - consistently call it legit?

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And again, I agree with you, on both accounts. Do you agree that Putin's Russia is as bad as Ukraine?

"Bad" in what sense? There is no war, established and functional economy, state's institutions aren't used by business clans to figure out market shares. That's to say the least.

The state is the business clan. State institutions are misused, just look at the justice system. Putin lives way beyond its mediocre state salary. It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows. So bad in the sense of corruption.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So again you are saying Russia stole from my pension fund, ok check.

Aaaaaahhhhahahahahahahaaaaa!!! Russia stole! Do you even know what went on?

See, sanctions can work sometimes at the stage of threats, producing uncertainty. Once they are imposed and reality around them is clear, much of their impact is gone. And over time, as market operators understand them, they also find their ways around them. North Korea became good at it and even buys U.S. military equipment for their missile program.

Back to Crimea. It was all aggressive and tough talk around the sanctions, by US and European politicians. As it was heating up, shares and stakes in those Russian enterprises were up for sale on he market, more and more, cheaper and cheaper. Until one day it was all bought up by some Cyprus firms. Once transactions cleared and dust settled, it became known that it was Russian government behind them. So what now? Go and sue Victoria Nuland, John Kerry, Donald Tusk, Katherine Ashton, Frederica Mogerini for market manipulation, if you like. They blew it.

So yes, Russia stole. Why would the Russian state invest in Russian companies? No free market there, looks like a perfect way to funnel some more money to Putin and his oligarchs. Thanks for underpinning my point.

WIederling wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The budget for Crimean bridge alone is about 40 annual rents of that base, to be fair. Plus pipelines and powerline connections, rebuilding the whole energy grid of South Western Russia to support Crimea. Hence the total bill wasn't a consideration, of course.

This seems to be a false statement from your side.

rent was 30% rebates on gas delivered. consumption 78,000 million m³/a @ $0.486/m³ --> $10..15b/a magnitude
( Ukraine is one of the biggest energy squanderers around )

Could you two please agree on a strategy for defending Putin? Thanks.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So your horizon is 1 year, 5 years?

Things are moving fast and unpredictably. For Ukrainian statehood - one year is quite a while, 5 - nobody is convinced that country has that much life left in it. Unless Ukrainian Putin shows up and starts fixing things, but clearly it will not be a pro-European or even "democratic" Ukraine in that case.

5 years for NATO/EU - who knows. One year for them - probably there won't be noticeable differences given inertia of those institutions.

Again not my argumentation. As for NATO/EU most notably, things will move slowly for the better. Why not talk about the potential instability of Russia in the same time period?
- what will happen if Putin dies ( he is 65 )
- what will happen if the population rises up against the massive corruption?
- what will happen if the money stops flowing when the world transitioned to renewable energy?

- what will happen if Putin dies ( he is 65 )

another compromise will be found for the Russian elite figure.

what will happen if the population rises up against the massive corruption?

not earlier than in the US and the EU the people will rise against capitalism.

what will happen if the money stops flowing when the world transitioned to renewable energy?

there would be a fluttering of pink ponies and shit rainbows. Because the transition to renewable energy is impossible without a breakthrough in energy and physics. With the same success it is possible to speculate on what will happen to Russia if the Earth is attacked by aliens.

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So all I am asking for is one legitimate referendum, if everyone is so sure of the outcome, why not doing that and the west is forced to recognize it and some of the sanctions might be lifted. All good news for Putin and his gang, what are they afraid of?

You don't understand - it's not up to you or some "west" to define what a legitimate referendum is. It's up to Crimeans to decide, was their referendum legitimate or not. And given 80% turnout, nobody in Crimea has any doubts in its legitimacy, and neither should West.

And - before the polls, Western organization such as OSCE, European Council, were offered to send monitors to watch the polls. They didn't do it; just some journalists were there, and none of those reported anything similar to "forced vote" you are describing. You were invited to ensure accuracy of vote counts, legitimacy, but didn't want to show up to do it. What grounds do you have left to argue about "legitimacy"?

The flaw in that argumentation is the following: neither does Russia. It is not up to Putin's Russia to decide what the Crimeans want. What a free and legitimate referendum is, is well established by now. And what "Crimean parliament" did, wasn't it. You only have to look at the timeline:

March 1, 2014: President Putin got the green light (by Russian Federation council), to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine (an act of war!).
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament decided by decree that the Crimea will be part of Russia
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is annexed by Russie

OSCE isn't western, there are 57 member states, including Russia.
Council of Europe isn't western, there are 47 member states, including Russia.

So with this timeline and with all the turmoil, illegal Russian troops, a declared independence (no referendum about that), how can anyone feel that this Pinocchio referendum was legit? What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do? You cannot have a free debate when the territory is invaded by Russia and the timeline is 10(!) days. So the OSCE and Council of Europe did the only sensible thing, keep away otherwise, like you claim here, they are implicit in the outcome. Perhaps most people would have voted for annexation, but what is the point if the run-up to this Pinocchio referendum wasn't fair and thus from the outset wasn't democratic.

So the grounds to call it a Pinocchio referendum, and thus question its legitimacy, lies within the timeline and the occupational forces. May I ask why you - and other Putin defenders - consistently call it legit?

What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do?

maybe not to support the illegal seizure of power in Kiev? Then in Ukraine was not now a war, and perhaps the Crimea would remain Ukrainian?

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And again, I agree with you, on both accounts. Do you agree that Putin's Russia is as bad as Ukraine?

"Bad" in what sense? There is no war, established and functional economy, state's institutions aren't used by business clans to figure out market shares. That's to say the least.

The state is the business clan. State institutions are misused, just look at the justice system. Putin lives way beyond its mediocre state salary. It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows. So bad in the sense of corruption.

It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows

.
Yeah, but nobody found any trace of these 200bn. But whether they exist at all?

Scorpius wrote:

another compromise will be found for the Russian elite figure.

So the same corrupt elite will continue to "govern"? Just like Jeltsin sought someone whom would protect him and his family, like Putin has done for the mayor of St. Petersburg after he stole western aid money which was meant to feet St. Petersburg and Putin protected him. Bit cynical but ok, I wish more for the Russian people than continuing like this.

Scorpius wrote:

not earlier than in the US and the EU the people will rise against capitalism.

They will never rise against capitalism as such, they may rise at the excessive capitalism we see now in some areas. Then the democratic institutions will start to kick in. So I see no problems there. But in Russia, a rise will mean revolution and the powers in control have a lot more to lose.

Scorpius wrote:

there would be a fluttering of pink ponies and shit rainbows. Because the transition to renewable energy is impossible without a breakthrough in energy and physics. With the same success, it is possible to speculate on what will happen to Russia if the Earth is attacked by aliens.

Not true, if we wanted to, we can run our countries on renewable fuels (except some specific areas), we only need the political will to do it. When the world came together in Paris - including Russia - we set a goal to effectively be energy (without global warming gasses) neutral in 2050. This is the way forward and China is leading this.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

You don't understand - it's not up to you or some "west" to define what a legitimate referendum is. It's up to Crimeans to decide, was their referendum legitimate or not. And given 80% turnout, nobody in Crimea has any doubts in its legitimacy, and neither should West.

And - before the polls, Western organization such as OSCE, European Council, were offered to send monitors to watch the polls. They didn't do it; just some journalists were there, and none of those reported anything similar to "forced vote" you are describing. You were invited to ensure accuracy of vote counts, legitimacy, but didn't want to show up to do it. What grounds do you have left to argue about "legitimacy"?

The flaw in that argumentation is the following: neither does Russia. It is not up to Putin's Russia to decide what the Crimeans want. What a free and legitimate referendum is, is well established by now. And what "Crimean parliament" did, wasn't it. You only have to look at the timeline:

March 1, 2014: President Putin got the green light (by Russian Federation council), to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine (an act of war!).
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament decided by decree that the Crimea will be part of Russia
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is annexed by Russie

OSCE isn't western, there are 57 member states, including Russia.
Council of Europe isn't western, there are 47 member states, including Russia.

So with this timeline and with all the turmoil, illegal Russian troops, a declared independence (no referendum about that), how can anyone feel that this Pinocchio referendum was legit? What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do? You cannot have a free debate when the territory is invaded by Russia and the timeline is 10(!) days. So the OSCE and Council of Europe did the only sensible thing, keep away otherwise, like you claim here, they are implicit in the outcome. Perhaps most people would have voted for annexation, but what is the point if the run-up to this Pinocchio referendum wasn't fair and thus from the outset wasn't democratic.

So the grounds to call it a Pinocchio referendum, and thus question its legitimacy, lies within the timeline and the occupational forces. May I ask why you - and other Putin defenders - consistently call it legit?

What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do?

maybe not to support the illegal seizure of power in Kiev? Then in Ukraine was not now a war, and perhaps the Crimea would remain Ukrainian?

Whataboutism, the question was on the legitimacy of the Pinocchio referendum, so do you believe this was a legit referendum.

BTW you forgot to answer some questions, so perhaps you could find the time to answer them?

http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
What did you leave out using?

and:
I didn't "forget".

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

"Bad" in what sense? There is no war, established and functional economy, state's institutions aren't used by business clans to figure out market shares. That's to say the least.

The state is the business clan. State institutions are misused, just look at the justice system. Putin lives way beyond its mediocre state salary. It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows. So bad in the sense of corruption.

It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows

.
Yeah, but nobody found any trace of these 200bn. But whether they exist at all?

Such a shame you don't understand English, you are missing out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0

So how much do you think Putin is worth? 100bn, 50bn, 25bn, 10bn, 5bn, 1bn, 0,5bn, 0,1bn? Nothing can be explained for the salary of a civil servant, which Putin has been all his "official" life.

Dutchy wrote:

So indeed, Russians will continue to pay for the annexation of Crimea.

They aren't "paying" for it; they are investing into it. The region will become self-sufficient over time. Speaking of paying - your farmers are paying for it, with loss of market share. EU has to pay them subsidies. Western industrial conglomerates are losing markets to competitors who aren't into "making someone pay" via sanctions. There are costs to you as well, and not insignificant. Or - are you gonna say that those market shares were also "stolen" somehow?

Dutchy wrote:

So yes, Russia stole. Why would the Russian state invest in Russian companies? No free market there, looks like a perfect way to funnel some more money to Putin and his oligarchs. Thanks for underpinning my point.

Well - Russian state invests into Russian companies as well, and quite heavily. Space programs, much of their military re-arming programs, aircraft building are invested into by Russian state. Russian Railways (state owned) is also a major investor into the economy. What are the issues with Russian state investments? And last but not least - they also invest into human capital - population growth, education, healthcare. Does West invest there much at all?

About the development of Russia over the past 15 years and the national projects:
- When the vehicle has 99 holes — with the best desire is impossible to fix them all at once. In fact, they all have the right to be "national projects". All your favourites — Yes, important emergency. As for agriculture and destroyed the village (which recently vigorously reminded the government Yury Luzhkov), is not the first decade burns and destroy the village, here and extreme necessity: we are not only drawn into the hungry addiction, but also lose the right to engaged in our country's land space.

On political parties:
- The party bad we have to grow because they are unnatural for us form. Today our party only hinder the development of democracy. (I repeatedly wrote and said that I condemn the idea of "political parties" as a form of "collective selfishness" at the expense of others, the "others". Recall the classic dictum of Trotsky: "neither party is worth nothing if it has no purpose, the seizure of power.") A healthy democratic system can patiently grow only from below, from local associations of local importance and gradually bond with each other, and then gradually the election. The only way presenters will interest a reasonable and universal — industrial, professional, environmental, cultural, educational and other similar.

On the political path of Russia:
- Yes, we acted on the most thoughtless obezyanstvo. And Yes: the current Western democracy is in serious crisis, and not to predict how it will come out of it.
For us the correct way to trace the samples, and without departing from democratic principles, physical and moral welfare of the people.

About Xenophobia and fascism:
- Xenophobia historically were not Russian property, otherwise it would not hold the Empire from 120 Nations. And the word "fascism" we throw irresponsible as a convenient pejorative to not give up the Russian identity. But German national socialism was based on the-exaltation of the German nation (fed long before Hitler) is such a rebuke will not leave the current endangered and humiliated Russian people.
To suppress the great in favor of other Russian Nations was one of the Central and persistent ideas of Lenin and is firmly held in the form of "Leninist national policy". She was steadily continued under Stalin, despite its hypocritical statements late. (And in our current Constitution the word "Russian" is non-existent!) For decades it's all the accumulated bitterness in the Russian consciousness.
And with the collapse of all social guarantees, but the advent of "freedom of expression" — ugly, distorted, dangerously manifested in the current aggressive antics, attacks and murders committed by unenlightened youth. Yes, we need beskhlebny power measures to stop these wild attacks and killings that threaten our very society. And need for General improvement — clear to investigate and seriously deal with the causes, the origins of these aggressive attitudes.

The clash of civilizations:
- World conflict is most accurately defined as: the Third World against the Golden Billion. This is all-human, historical resentment and the requirement of poverty to wealth. (Saudi Arabia, etc. do not constitute principled exceptions, they only use high-handed secularism of the West as a convenient target. This triumphant secularism and causes the greatest indignation in Muslim countries. Russia is in our eyes freed from it, besides, can scarcely be attributed to the "Golden billion".)
The theory of a "clash of civilizations" concealed essence: propstei the difference in the welfare of the population.
Even in spite of the global weakening of Christian influence and military pressure of the Islamism — on reached now the level of General consciousness does not see the possibility of religious wars on the scale of the planet or continents.
Russia in any case should not be drawn into any global conflict.

About Islam and the extinction of the Russian people:
Russian Islam in Chechnya, Dagestan is now used in violent forms; in other Muslim areas it actively, but steadily. The policy of the current Russian authorities of peaceful and respectful coexistence with Islam is undoubtedly correct. However, current physical extinction of the Russian people, of course, there is the prospect of replacement of Russian culture on the territory of Russia by other religions and cultures (including Chinese). It's bitter for us process, but it is done.

About Geopolitics. USA, Kosovo, Afghanistan
- The United States placed its occupation troops in one country after another. This is the actual situation in Bosnia for 9 years, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan for 5 years in Iraq until 3, but it will take some time. The actions of NATO and a separate US actions differ unimportant. Clearly seeing that today's Russia does not pose any threat to them, NATO is methodically and persistently developing its military machine — into the East of Europe and the continental coverage of Russia from the South. Here and open material and ideological support for the "color" revolutions, paradoxical implementation of the North-Atlantic interests in Central Asia. All this leaves no doubt that preparing a complete encirclement of Russia, and then the loss of its sovereignty. No, Russia's accession to this Euro-Atlantic Alliance, which conducts propaganda and violent introduction in different part of the world of ideology and forms of today's Western democracy would lead to the expansion and decline of Christian civilization.

About Ukraine and the separation of the Russian nation:
- What is happening in Ukraine, even from the falsely constructed wording for the referendum of 1991 year (I already wrote about it and told), is my constant bitterness and pain. Fanatical suppression and persecution of the Russian language (which in past surveys has been recognized by its major more than 60% of Ukraine's population) is a brutal measure, and against the cultural perspective of the Ukraine. The vast expanse, never refers to historical Ukraine as Novorossiya, Crimea and the entire southeastern region, cramping in the present Ukrainian state and its policies eagerly desired accession to NATO. For the time of Yeltsin, none of his meeting with the Ukrainian President was not without capitulation and concessions on his part. Eradication of the black sea fleet from Sevastopol (never under Khrushchev ceded the USSR) is a low-lying malicious mockery of the whole Russian history of the XIX and XX centuries.
Under all these circumstances, Russia in any form not dare to betray indifference multimillion Russian population in Ukraine and renounce our unity with it.

About the extinction of the Russian language:
- Despite the current reckless obstruction of the Russian language by the frivolous jargon and the influx of Anglo-American vocabulary (not referring to the natural use of technical terminology, and fashionable, comically important interceptions) — I firmly believe that Russian language is not shaken and will not permanently clog — until it exists on Earth, though the rest of the Russian people.
The same applies to Russian literature. Despite the abundant littering, it retains a clear and conscientious basis and will give us samples that support our spirit and consciousness.
An interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the newspaper "Moscow news" [28.04.2006]

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The state is the business clan. State institutions are misused, just look at the justice system. Putin lives way beyond its mediocre state salary. It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows. So bad in the sense of corruption.

It is said that Putin owns 200bn, those are estimates, nobody knows

.
Yeah, but nobody found any trace of these 200bn. But whether they exist at all?

Such a shame you don't understand English, you are missing out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0

So how much do you think Putin is worth? 100bn, 50bn, 25bn, 10bn, 5bn, 1bn, 0,5bn, 0,1bn? Nothing can be explained for the salary of a civil servant, which Putin has been all his "official" life.

Nothing can be explained for the salary of a civil servant, which Putin has been all his "official" life

LOL, you don't even know that in Russia the content of the President or the Prime Minister entirely by the state. None of the residences of Putin does not belong to him - they all state, intended for the President of the Russian Federation.

Dutchy wrote:

The flaw in that argumentation is the following: neither does Russia. It is not up to Putin's Russia to decide what the Crimeans want. What a free and legitimate referendum is, is well established by now. And what "Crimean parliament" did, wasn't it. You only have to look at the timeline:

March 1, 2014: President Putin got the green light (by Russian Federation council), to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine (an act of war!).
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament decided by decree that the Crimea will be part of Russia
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is annexed by Russie

OSCE isn't western, there are 57 member states, including Russia.
Council of Europe isn't western, there are 47 member states, including Russia.

So with this timeline and with all the turmoil, illegal Russian troops, a declared independence (no referendum about that), how can anyone feel that this Pinocchio referendum was legit? What were the OSCE and Council of Europe supposed to do? You cannot have a free debate when the territory is invaded by Russia and the timeline is 10(!) days. So the OSCE and Council of Europe did the only sensible thing, keep away otherwise, like you claim here, they are implicit in the outcome. Perhaps most people would have voted for annexation, but what is the point if the run-up to this Pinocchio referendum wasn't fair and thus from the outset wasn't democratic.

So the grounds to call it a Pinocchio referendum, and thus question its legitimacy, lies within the timeline and the occupational forces. May I ask why you - and other Putin defenders - consistently call it legit?

First flaw with your argument is using the sentence "Crimean parliament" in quotes. Crimea since Soviet times had its own regional parliament. The Parliament that made the decision about the referendum was legitimately and democratically elected according to Ukrainian legislature; there were international monitors during its election, the results were internationally recognized. That Parliament does have all the mandate to represent the will of Crimean people, including that decision of that referendum for cessation from Ukraine.

OSCE and Council of Europe's mandates, as they themselves put it, "monitor the respect for human rights". OSCE - even sillier. It stands for "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe". And you are saying that the decision to stay away in a situation with "troops and turmoil" is sensible? By their mandate and very reasons of existence, they should have been the first ones to seek entry there, not even waiting to be invited. They didn't have to express any opinion as to legitimacy of the territory changing hands, or recommendations for recognition of such decision even.

Based on your own words, most people voted to enter Russia. Any discussions regarding being in Ukraine had been held for the preceding 2 decades. Given turnout on the vote and its results, nearly all Crimeans see it as perfectly legitimate, and important to them. If people somewhere deem an election or a poll illegitimate - they simply won't go there. Example - Ukrainian elections slightly later that year; turnout in Southern and Eastern regions was very low. And what was the "free discussion" there like - with roaming Nazi gangs, mass killings a-la Odessa and trowing people into garbage tanks?

Dutchy wrote:

March 1, 2014: President Putin got the green light (by Russian Federation council), to deploy Russian troops in Ukraine (an act of war!).
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament decided by decree that the Crimea will be part of Russia
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is annexed by Russie

And - let's review the timeline.
March 1, 2014: Yes, he got the green light - so what? Inside the country they can talk anything they want. Obama in Libya, Syria didn't bother with any green lights from Congress at all.
March 6, 2014: Crimean Parliament voted - as legitimate representative of Crimean people, they could have done that. There was no Lenin of some sort to "issue a decree".
March 11, 2014: Independence is declared
March 16, 2014: Referendum is held
March 18, 2914: Crimea is not annexed - Russia recognized independence of Crimea, based on referendum results and decision of legitimately and democratically elected regional parliament, and signed union treaty.

Dutchy wrote:

So how much do you think Putin is worth? 100bn, 50bn, 25bn, 10bn, 5bn, 1bn, 0,5bn, 0,1bn? Nothing can be explained for the salary of a civil servant, which Putin has been all his "official" life.

Why don't you focus on counting your own money? What's your business how much is Putin worth? Given his approval ratings in Russia, his Russian voters are happy with him regardless how much he is worth. The rest is none of your business (assuming you aren't a Russian citizen of course). And yes - he is entitled to a lot, as any President - use state-owned residences (Kremlin, Moscow, Sochi) for living and work, assistants, etc. Salary of course - but given all entitlements he hardly gets to use any.

Dutchy wrote:

Could you two please agree on a strategy for defending Putin? Thanks.

Why do we need a strategy? We aren't defending anyone, we are just expressing our opinion. And you, in Europe, perhaps should think how to get that Islamic terrorism under control, or else you may need such a strategy.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So indeed, Russians will continue to pay for the annexation of Crimea.

They aren't "paying" for it; they are investing into it. The region will become self-sufficient over time. Speaking of paying - your farmers are paying for it, with loss of market share. EU has to pay them subsidies. Western industrial conglomerates are losing markets to competitors who aren't into "making someone pay" via sanctions. There are costs to you as well, and not insignificant. Or - are you gonna say that those market shares were also "stolen" somehow?

Russia's economy, roughly the size of the BeNeLux or Italy, don't overestimate the importance. Yes, some farmers were affected, but Russia was also a high-risk market. If Putin didn't like something, some insects were mystery discovered, bugs which hadn't affected these products or years. That is one way Putin's Russia was extorting the west. Perhaps better not to trade with Russia anymore, too arbitrary to consider a real trading partner or the yields must be accordingly.

And btw, Russia is imposing those sanctions you are talking about, not the west. Yes, those were a reaction to sanctions imposed on the oligarchs around Putin and some political top brasses, but those were a reaction to the illegal annexation of the Crimea and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine and a direct result of the killing of 298 people, including 198 of my fellow countrymen. So if we have to pay a little to compensate some entrepreneurs for that, I am fine with that.

It only shows that we need to get rid of fossil fuels asap (or another reason), not to be in the hands of Putin and his little oligarchs.

anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Could you two please agree on a strategy for defending Putin? Thanks.

Why do we need a strategy? We aren't defending anyone, we are just expressing our opinion. And you, in Europe, perhaps should think how to get that Islamic terrorism under control, or else you may need such a strategy.

Whataboutism.....