this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)
World News
32304 readers
379 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there's some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.
Interesting, I didn't realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
It's probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it's not all that useful.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
The timeline you're proposing doesn't even make sense. Yanukovych was out of power by February 22, 2014. Russia was laying the groundwork for the annexation of Crimea at roughly the same time. The next day, protestors were in place in Crimea. In under a week, Russian special forces invaded. The central Ukrainian government was still trying to get its britches on. There was no time available to be "doing pograms".
Russia had a deal with the existing democratically elected government in Ukraine to have a base in Crimea. Claiming this was laying groundwork for annexation is ridiculous because there was no reason for any sort of annexation if Ukraine stayed on friendly relations with Russia.
Meanwhile, the pogroms were already happening before the regime took power. I've linked you the sources for this at least a dozen times. The fact that you continue to pretend none of this happened makes it pretty clear that facts don't actually matter to you.
I hold no quarrel with their base in Crimea, as I have said numerous times on this post. The red line was sending special forces ("little green men") to take over the government and later hold a sham election.
I have to ask, do you hold the same quarrel over these events? https://archive.ph/BAxYc
That answer is frankly a steaming pile of bullshit. Take this:
A plain reading of other quotes in the answer about the CIA is that the covert nature and problematic track record of the CIA is anathema to building open democratic institutions. The ideal of the NED is to be a more open and transparent organization. This pattern is repeated again and again: take a quote, then misread it to a level of incompetence that borders on malice.
They also equate the NED to the CIA multiple times without actually showing that is true. They show merely that the NED took over some functions that the CIA used to perform and do them in the clear. From what I understand, this happened in the 1970's and 1980's as the excesses of the CIA in the post-WW2 era were coming to light. Congress and the public demanded better behavior. The intelligence agencies have never gotten to be perfect angels, but on the plus side they stopped trying to mind control people with drugs (likely).
Then take this quote:
This is a common structure in the US, notably with the RAND think tank. RAND is run separately from the US government but with a federal budget allocation. The advantage is having someone outside of government who can operate with some independence. RAND can produce ideas without being beholden to politicians or orthodoxy. China is looking into creating a similar think tank to generate ideas that would otherwise be shut down by the party. Given this person has no familiarity with this structure, my conclusion is they have no idea what they're talking about.
The sources are also sometimes extremely questionable. Take Paul Craig Roberts, who they cite for multiple claims of CIA involvement on behalf of establishing military bases, including Ukraine in NATO, and profiteering by taking over Ukraine's economy. Obviously the author's only criteria for inclusion was "agrees with me", because the guy is an absolute nutter. 9/11 truther, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and has rather revisionist views of the Holocaust.
By relying on an article, you rely on their vetting of sources. They showed that they freely used at least one unreliable source.