Merged: Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

How many governments ago was that?

This serious incident occurred in 1961, not so long ago.

Belgium is still a close ally of the United States of America (and, frankly, a little too close to my taste).

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Ukraine doesn't seem to be asking for a new referendum in Crimea. Why? Probably because they know very well they would lose it. Ukraine seems to have zero interest in democracy, and the West supports these people.

What requires Ukraine to hold another referendum? Because as far as I'm aware they don't have to do anything at all.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Wildy

What requires Ukraine to hold another referendum? Because as far as I'm aware they don't have to do anything at all.

Ukraine is a country which has an armed conflict within its borders since 2014 (War in Donbass, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)), and it is in its interest to solve this conflict.

According to the Minsk agreements, Ukraine was supposed to grant self-governance to the two people's republics (not to hold new referendums). They refused to do that, and this (with some other reasons) led to a disastrous Russian invasion. When you don't want to have missiles falling on your barracks (and, sometimes, on your houses) during the night, sometimes it may be of interest to wake up politically, and make the right concessions, but Ukraine prefers pretending it is an immaculate victim, and always demands more money, more weapons and more sanctions (not on them, of course, on Russia).

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This serious incident occurred in 1961, not so long ago...

Not so long ago?

Seventy-one years ago is "not so long ago"?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Ukraine is a country which has an armed conflict within its borders since 2014 (War in Donbass, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)), and it is in its interest to solve this conflict.

According to the Minsk agreements, Ukraine was supposed to grant self-governance to the two people's republics (not to hold new referendums). They refused to do that, and this (with some other reasons) led to a disastrous Russian invasion. When you don't want to have missiles falling on your barracks (and, sometimes, on your houses) during the night, sometimes it may be of interest to wake up politically, and make the right concessions, but Ukraine prefers pretending it is an immaculate victim, and always demands more money, more weapons and more sanctions (not on them, of course, on Russia).

All well and good but we were talking about the Crimea not the Donbass. My question still stands.

But since you're talking about this the agreement you're talking about refers to self-governance which is not independence. Assuming the agreement was actually put into place the Donbass separatists still wouldn't have the right to leave Ukraine.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Not so long ago?

Seventy-one years ago is "not so long ago"?

Not 71, 61 (2022 - 1961 = 61).

The geopolitical situation of Belgium hasn't changed a lot since 1961.

Doesn't this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3WHwRHtyg remind you of a recent event?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Wildy

All well and good but we were talking about the Crimea not the Donbass. My question still stands.

But since you're talking about this the agreement you're talking about refers to self-governance which is not independence. Assuming the agreement was actually put into place the Donbass separatists still wouldn't have the right to leave Ukraine.

I don't think that Ukraine is required to hold referendum(s) anywhere.

But it is often very interesting to base (political) conflict resolution on the principle of self-determination of peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination, note that this is a principle, not a law in Ukraine or elsewhere). If people get what they want and like, they're not going to start an insurgency, and countries can more easily focus on issues like climate protection.

Use of this principle could greatly help people, not only in Donetsk (https://www.rt.com/russia/560241-ukr...l-journalists/), but also in many other places, like Taiwan or Kosovo for example.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think that Ukraine is required to hold referendum(s) anywhere.

And yet you spend your time complaining that they don't, or that they don't accept illegitimate ones.

Quote:

But it is often very interesting to base (political) conflict resolution on the principle of self-determination of peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination, note that this is a principle, not a law in Ukraine or elsewhere).

I have noticed that. It's been rather funny that you consistently act as if it's some kind of right that allows far more than it actually does.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not 71, 61 (2022 - 1961 = 61).

The geopolitical situation of Belgium hasn't changed a lot since 1961.

Doesn't this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3WHwRHtyg remind you of a recent event?

Stop embarrassing yourself. Belgium is a real country, with a legitimate government, independent judiciary and working democracy. You can't say any of those things of Russia. Russia is a collection of polities run by thugs uninfluenced or improved by the example of a European functioning democracies. You don't have referendums about being part of Russia. You don't negotiate with Russia. The only successful strategy in dealing with Russia is forming alliances against it and arming yourself to the teeth.

[Craig4]

And Russia confirmed they are hostage takers with the offer of our unlawfully detained Americans they're holding in exchange for an arms dealer and murderer. They also want some of their hackers we've imprisoned so they can continue their kleptocracy.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

It seems to me the term "counter-referendum" is slightly misleading, because (fortunately) the "Donetsk people's republic referendum" on the one hand, and the so-called "counter-referendum" seem to apply to different territories: the people's republic referendum took place (roughly) in the south-east of the Ukrainian Donetsk oblast, while the counter-referendum took place in the north-western part of the Ukrainian Donetsk oblast (according to Ukraine).

Having said this, I respect the results of the counter-referendum too, just the way I respect the results of the republic's referendum. I don't feel I know enough to be able to distinguish quality-wise. What this "counter-referendum" means, in my opinion, is that an effort by the Donetsk people's republic to extend the territory it controls nort-west has no democratic legitimacy.

I'm rather relieved to read that.

Both referendums took place in Donetsk Oblast, one in the insurgent-controlled East and the other in the government-controlled West. If you trust these referendums sufficiently to take them as your guide to the will of the people who lived there, Eastern Donetsk wanted a federal-style independence from Kyiv and Western Donetsk did not. Neither wanted to be invaded and annexed by Russia.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Ukraine is a country which has an armed conflict within its borders since 2014

Yes. Conflict deliberately provoked and encouraged by Russian interference. Russia encouraged the turning of Ukraine's political arguments into an armed insurgency. Russia used the insurgency it created as an excuse to invade, thinking it could do the insurgents job better by itself. Russia has now discovered this is not another Georgia and a prepared Ukraine cannot be steamrollered by Russia's military. The rest of the world has now seen that endemic corruption has left Russia's armed forces remarkably ineffective for their size.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Stop embarrassing yourself. Belgium is a real country, with a legitimate government, independent judiciary and working democracy. You can't say any of those things of Russia. Russia is a collection of polities run by thugs uninfluenced or improved by the example of a European functioning democracies. You don't have referendums about being part of Russia. You don't negotiate with Russia. The only successful strategy in dealing with Russia is forming alliances against it and arming yourself to the teeth.

Belgium is a kingdom, while Russia is a republic (with a president), so Russia does in a sense have a more modern and democratic form of government.

Unlike Russia, Belgium doesn't secretly poison and murder some of its opponents (this is a very good point for Belgium), but Belgium does show a tendency to participate in US and NATO crimes (as a rather modest contributor).

For example, the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, or the failed conquest of Afghanistan around 2001, or the economic war on Russia through sanctions after the innocent and democratic (as far as I know, I should say) annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. I assume these economic persecutions of Russia have created the public support in Russia for the current "special military operation".

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Yes. Conflict deliberately provoked and encouraged by Russian interference.

I am not convinced this is really true. Ukraine is a divided country (between those who favor close links with the European Union and NATO, those who are neutral, and those who favor a close relationship with Russia), and this situation is not necessarily Russia's fault. Russia isn't responsible for the fact that about 30% of Ukrainian are native Russian speakers, and for the fact that the Ukrainian government has adopted some controversial policies to try to favor the use of the Ukrainian language.

In my opinion, the best policy for Ukraine is to try to have good relations with all its neighbors (something France and Germany managed to do after three deadly conflicts), stop impose specific language use, and buy cheap Russian energy products (gas and oil).

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I am not convinced this is really true.

Unsurprising. You bend over backwards to give Russia the benefit of any fragment of doubt.

Quote:

Ukraine is a divided country (between those who favor close links with the European Union and NATO, those who are neutral, and those who favor a close relationship with Russia), and this situation is not necessarily Russia's fault. Russia isn't responsible for the fact that about 30% of Ukrainian are native Russian speakers, and for the fact that the Ukrainian government has adopted some controversial policies to try to favor the use of the Ukrainian language.

Historically the Moscow regime absolutely is responsible for the large proportion of Russian speakers in Ukraine and for Ukrainian resentment of the way their nation was treated in the Holodomor. Areas depopulated in that famine were resettled by Russians, particularly in the regions where the modern day insurgency took place.

Quote:

In my opinion, the best policy for Ukraine is to try to have good relations with all its neighbors (something France and Germany managed to do after three deadly conflicts), stop impose specific language use, and buy cheap Russian energy products (gas and oil).

Well that does warn anyone wondering if your opinion should be taken as good advice. Germany made peace with France by founding what became the EU, creating an interdependence between the nations' industries deliberately intended to make war impossible. Germany tried the same thing with Russia, treating it as if it were a reasonable and trustworthy partner and aiming to create an interdependence as seller and buyer of natural gas which neither side would want to disrupt. Germany hoped that treating Russia like a reasonable country might make it into a reasonable country. That hasn't turned out so well, to put it mildly.

Now you think the best thing for Ukraine to do is copy Germany's mistake.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Unsurprising. You bend over backwards to give Russia the benefit of any fragment of doubt.

Historically the Moscow regime absolutely is responsible for the large proportion of Russian speakers in Ukraine and for Ukrainian resentment of the way their nation was treated in the Holodomor. Areas depopulated in that famine were resettled by Russians, particularly in the regions where the modern day insurgency took place.

One could perhaps also say a few things about Ukraine's collaboration with Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...h_Nazi_Germany).
Anyway, I don't think Putin is responsible for the percentage of Russian speakers in Ukraine that he inherited when he became president in 2000.

Quote:

Well that does warn anyone wondering if your opinion should be taken as good advice. Germany made peace with France by founding what became the EU, creating an interdependence between the nations' industries deliberately intended to make war impossible. Germany tried the same thing with Russia, treating it as if it were a reasonable and trustworthy partner and aiming to create an interdependence as seller and buyer of natural gas which neither side would want to disrupt. Germany hoped that treating Russia like a reasonable country might make it into a reasonable country. That hasn't turned out so well, to put it mildly.

Now you think the best thing for Ukraine to do is copy Germany's mistake.

Yes, Germany is currently facing some difficulties in its gas supplies from Russia, but it is largely itself responsible for this situation because it (with other European countries ) imposed heavy sanctions on Russia, in addition to supplying weapons to Ukrainian soldiers who are killing Russian soldiers.

Here is what former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder said recently, in a politico.eu article:

Quote:

He also urged the German government to reconsider its position on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Berlin halted the undersea pipeline in late February citing Russia’s incursion into Ukraine.

“If you don’t want to use Nord Stream 2, you have to bear the consequences. And they will be huge in Germany, too,” he told Stern. “If things get really tight, there is this pipeline, and with both Nord Stream pipelines there would be no supply problem for German industry and German households.”

(https://www.politico.eu/article/schr...nord-stream-2/).

The difficulties with Nord Stream 1 are also related to sanctions (in this case, sanctions imposed by Canada also played a role, see https://www.rt.com/business/560232-g...complications/).

If Germany (which invaded the Soviet Union in 1941) had been more cautious this time, and had remained politely neutral in this current conflict (while perhaps refusing to supply weapons to any of the belligerents in case of war - this could be mentioned in contracts), presumably there would have been no problem at all. I believe Russia generally has the reputation of being a reliable energy supplier.

To become potentially more independent of Russia, it might be a good thing for both Germany and Ukraine to build some LNG terminals, as explained here: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...-energy-future.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

One could perhaps also say a few things about Ukraine's collaboration with Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...h_Nazi_Germany).

Anyway, I don't think Putin is responsible for the percentage of Russian speakers in Ukraine that he inherited when he became president in 2000.



Yes, Germany is currently facing some difficulties in its gas supplies from Russia, but it is largely itself responsible for this situation because ...

Sure you could drag up the couple of hundred thousand Ukrainians who joined the Nazis against the Soviets. Or the 4 million or so who joined the red army and fought against the Nazis. What's your point?

And Putin is not personally responsible for the historic animosity of Ukrainians to Russians due to the Holodomor but again so what? He's absolutely responsible for the thousands dying this year. Isn't that enough?

And Germany didn't impose sanctions on Russia on a whim for no reason. It was for Russia's intolerable aggression, and that is entirely a creation of Putin.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Belgium is a kingdom, while Russia is a republic (with a president), so Russia does in a sense have a more modern and democratic form of government.

Unlike Russia, Belgium doesn't secretly poison and murder some of its opponents (this is a very good point for Belgium), but Belgium does show a tendency to participate in US and NATO crimes (as a rather modest contributor).

For example, the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, or the failed conquest of Afghanistan around 2001, or the economic war on Russia through sanctions after the innocent and democratic (as far as I know, I should say) annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. I assume these economic persecutions of Russia have created the public support in Russia for the current "special military operation".

Stop lying Crimea was not annexed. Russia invaded and continues to occupy Ukrainian Crimea.

You've embarrassed yourself again by saying Russia is democratic. What a sick joke. Democratic nations don't poison opposition candidates.

The way things are going, Ukrainians who collaborate with the Russian occupation forces in Crimea should maybe start thinking of an exit plan. I suspect when Ukraine regains its territory their prosecutors will not look favorably with people who helped a hostile government in their occupation of Ukrainian soil.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Stop lying Crimea was not annexed. Russia invaded and continues to occupy Ukrainian Crimea.

You've embarrassed yourself again by saying Russia is democratic. What a sick joke. Democratic nations don't poison opposition candidates.

The way things are going, Ukrainians who collaborate with the Russian occupation forces in Crimea should maybe start thinking of an exit plan. I suspect when Ukraine regains its territory their prosecutors will not look favorably with people who helped a hostile government in their occupation of Ukrainian soil.

Quote:

Stop lying Crimea was not annexed

Do you think wikipedia is lying too? :

Quote:

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation)

Quote:

You've embarrassed yourself again by saying Russia is democratic. What a sick joke. Democratic nations don't poison opposition candidates.

Some terrible things have happened, but Russia is democratic nevertheless, because it has significant elections. I don't claim to be an expert on Russia, but I think that, if you want to run for an election in Russia, you should be careful: don't look like a "traitor", don't side with foreigners too much, do not receive money from abroad, try to be polite and respectful with the current president.

In November 2016, Hillary Clinton received about 66 million votes, while Trump received about 63 million. And yet it was Trump who was elected.

How democratic is that? My answer: not democratic, the U.S. has an obsolete constitution, but is too conceited and pretentious to modernize and improve it. They prefer keeping themselves busy by constantly attacking Russia and China. This does look so much more exciting, doesn't it?

Quote:

The way things are going, Ukrainians who collaborate with the Russian occupation forces in Crimea should maybe start thinking of an exit plan.

According to the latest news I have seen, Ukraine is not winning, and is not about to take back Crimea. If they do, then they are probably conquerors themselves who ignore the wishes of the local population.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Sure you could drag up the couple of hundred thousand Ukrainians who joined the Nazis against the Soviets. Or the 4 million or so who joined the red army and fought against the Nazis. What's your point?

And Putin is not personally responsible for the historic animosity of Ukrainians to Russians due to the Holodomor but again so what? He's absolutely responsible for the thousands dying this year. Isn't that enough?

And Germany didn't impose sanctions on Russia on a whim for no reason. It was for Russia's intolerable aggression, and that is entirely a creation of Putin.

You might also say: "Obviously, Chancellor Adolf Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union in 1941 for no reason". Many sanctions were imposed on Russia (and Crimea) after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which was a mostly respectable democratic process.

If you want to make a moral judgment about Putin's invasion of 2022 (which I think you have every right to criticize), you ought to consider also NATO's crimes, for example the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. You cannot have very rigorous criteria for Russia, and, at the same time very loose criteria for the US and NATO. You cannot do that, it's unfair.

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Do you think wikipedia is lying too? :

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation)

Some terrible things have happened, but Russia is democratic nevertheless, because it has significant elections. I don't claim to be an expert on Russia, but I think that, if you want to run for an election in Russia, you should be careful: don't look like a "traitor", don't side with foreigners too much, do not receive money from abroad, try to be polite and respectful with the current president.

In November 2016, Hillary Clinton received about 66 million votes, while Trump received about 63 million. And yet it was Trump who was elected.

How democratic is that? My answer: not democratic, the U.S. has an obsolete constitution, but is too conceited and pretentious to modernize and improve it. They prefer keeping themselves busy by constantly attacking Russia and China. This does look so much more exciting, doesn't it?

According to the latest news I have seen, Ukraine is not winning, and is not about to take back Crimea. If they do, then they are probably conquerors themselves who ignore the wishes of the local population.

Russia is democratic like my dick gives milk.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Do you think wikipedia is lying too? :

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexa...ian_Federation)

About the annexation of Crimea? Yes. Yes I do. Wikipedia is not magic. It is just as susceptible to ideological capture and propaganda efforts as any other source of information on the Internet.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

You might also say: "Obviously, Chancellor Adolf Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union in 1941 for no reason".

I might if I was an idiot who thought Barbarossa was a fine idea. You're now comparing the violent invasion of another country to the imposition of sanctions trying to halt the violent invasion of another country. Do you see those as moral equivalents? You already said Germany should have pretended not to notice Russia invading Ukraine in the hope that Russia would leave Germany alone. Do you see that as a viable strategy for anyone's peace and security? I sure don't.

Quote:

Many sanctions were imposed on Russia (and Crimea) after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which was a mostly respectable democratic process.

Many countries do not endorse the principle of large countries snapping up desirable parts of smaller neighbouring countries. Crimea had not voted to be grabbed by Russia before it was grabbed by Russia. If a woman was required to marry her rapist would you endorse the wedding ceremony as "mostly respectable"?

[Craig4]

We don't know what the people of Crimea want because the only data we have came after the Russian invasion and occupation.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Russia is democratic like my dick gives milk.

Russia is democratic in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia isn't responsible for the fact that about 30% of Ukrainian are native Russian speakers, and for the fact that the Ukrainian government has adopted some controversial policies to try to favor the use of the Ukrainian language.

They absolutely are responsible for the first fact. Until Ukraine's independence, Russia had policies of Russification going on for centuries. You complain about the Ukrainisation of Ukraine as if it's some kind of evil but what happens the moment Russia comes in and takes control of parts of Ukraine? That's right - straight back to the Russification of the region.

Quote:

In my opinion, the best policy for Ukraine is to try to have good relations with all its neighbors (something France and Germany managed to do after three deadly conflicts), stop impose specific language use, and buy cheap Russian energy products (gas and oil).

"Good relations with all its neighbours" to you is just "bow down to the bully". And what happens with the bully doesn't like the good relations Ukraine has with certain neighbours? Should Ukraine just break those and have bad relations with those countries simply because Russia will bully them into it?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Russia is democratic in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic.

This doesn't seem to be a good comparison, the people of North Korea do not elect their leader (currently Kim Jong-un).

Regarding democracy in Russia, the Wilson Center has an interesting publication:

Quote:

Putin and the Russian Tradition: Illiberal but Democratic?
...
While the speakers acknowledged that President Vladimir Putin had instituted a number of illiberal policies, they argued that he is a democratically elected leader and that his policies reflect the real wishes of the majority of the Russian people.

(written in 2006, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ral-democratic)

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This doesn't seem to be a good comparison, the people of North Korea do not elect their leader (currently Kim Jong-un).

Regarding democracy in Russia, the Wilson Center has an interesting publication:

(written in 2006, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ral-democratic)

2006 huh?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Craig4

2006 huh?

Check out what happens when you plot turnout Vs Putin's lead for the polling stations in Russian elections.

https://twitter.com/hippopedoid/stat...xecXHjQinPjdMw

Note the grid pattern. that's not what you get except from people faking the results

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

2006 huh?

If you want something more recent, I can perhaps quote statista.com:

Quote:

In June 2022, over 80 percent of Russians approved of activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The popularity level saw an increase during the Russian invasion of Ukraine that started at the end of February 2022.

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rating-russia/).

Putin is enjoying approval ratings which are much higher than his U.S. colleague: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

If you want something more recent, I can perhaps quote statista.com:

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rating-russia/).

Putin is enjoying approval ratings which are much higher than his U.S. colleague: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/.

More data tainted by Russia. Hardly reliable.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

More data tainted by Russia. Hardly reliable.

I see no reason to believe that the statista.com data are "tainted by Russia". That Putin is popular in Russia is a widely accepted fact, I had read before about this.

[Craig4]

I don't care what polls from a country run by thugs without free media and where dissidents disappear say. Poll data isn't reliable when dissent sends you to a prison camp. Don't act like a poll done in Russia is as valid as one done in a legitimate country.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Wildy

"Good relations with all its neighbours" to you is just "bow down to the bully". And what happens with the bully doesn't like the good relations Ukraine has with certain neighbours? Should Ukraine just break those and have bad relations with those countries simply because Russia will bully them into it?

Ukraine can have excellent relations with European Union countries (Germany, France, Italy, and many others) without necessarily being a member of an organization which seems to be obsessed with "sanctioning" Russia.

I don't think Russia would object to that.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong about Ukraine having good relations with the U.S., as long as these relations are not used to plot against Russia.

[Craig4]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...-a-pole-2022-8

Typical Russians.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I don't care what polls from a country run by thugs without free media and where dissidents disappear say. Poll data isn't reliable when dissent sends you to a prison camp. Don't act like a poll done in Russia is as valid as one done in a legitimate country.

The Guardian (a well known British newspaper) wrote, on 9 May 2022:

Quote:

Just as in 2014, there has been a rise in the approval rating of the operation and its commander in chief. Once again, Putin is polling at above 80%, 12 points higher than in February. The government and prime minister are also polling well. Even the state Duma, which normally languishes in negative territory, is basking in positive ratings.

(https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-terrified-too).

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

The Guardian (a well known British newspaper) wrote, on 9 May 2022:

(https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-terrified-too).

Another poll taken in a country that crushes dissent. So what? It came out of Russia so it can't be trusted.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Ukraine can have excellent relations with European Union countries (Germany, France, Italy, and many others) without necessarily being a member of an organization which seems to be obsessed with "sanctioning" Russia.

I don't think Russia would object to that.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong about Ukraine having good relations with the U.S., as long as these relations are not used to plot against Russia.

Why should Ukraine care whether Russia objects? Oh, wait, I know the answer. Because Russia will invade otherwise.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Another poll taken in a country that crushes dissent. So what? It came out of Russia so it can't be trusted.

Obviously, you won't be able to find Putin's approval rating in Russia by interviewing people in London.

But the professional journalists of the Guardian make sure they use reliable and trusted sources, it's part of their job.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I might if I was an idiot who thought Barbarossa was a fine idea. You're now comparing the violent invasion of another country to the imposition of sanctions trying to halt the violent invasion of another country. Do you see those as moral equivalents? You already said Germany should have pretended not to notice Russia invading Ukraine in the hope that Russia would leave Germany alone. Do you see that as a viable strategy for anyone's peace and security? I sure don't.


Many countries do not endorse the principle of large countries snapping up desirable parts of smaller neighbouring countries. Crimea had not voted to be grabbed by Russia before it was grabbed by Russia.

The 2014 Crimean status referendum was held on March 16, 2014.

Quote:

The next day after the referendum, the parliament of Crimea asked the Russian Federation "to admit the Republic of Crimea as a new subject with the status of a republic".[218] Later on the same day, March 17, Putin issued a decree formally recognizing Crimea as an independent state.[219] On March 18, the Russian, Crimean, and Sevastopolian leadership signed the Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia,[220] which was ratified by the Russian Federal Assembly on March 21.[221] A transition period was in force for integrating Crimean governmental institutions, ending on January 1, 2015.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...ndum#Aftermath)

So, Crimea wasn't part of Russia when the referendum took place.

Regarding a possible comparison between Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, which started on 22 June 1941), and the imposition of heavy sanctions by Ukraine and its Western accomplices on Russia after the (mostly) democratic process of Crimea joining Russia, I would say that the former crime is still much worse than the latter.