"Hagel Warns Russia Not to Intervene in Ukraine"

[max]

h***man wrote:
"And now, thanks to Bill Clinton setting the precedent in Kosovo, Russia is free to play another Ossetia scenario...."

As usual we have a well defined, skewed and myopic point of view from the provocateur *(:>*

OK, h***man, so tells us, in your own words where, why and how, exactly, is my postulate skewed, myopic and inaccurate.....

[haikuman]

Because you are about empty and vacuous spew that begs the mindless dialogue of an
atttttention whhhhore . . . sir


http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/...le_sidebar






Perhaps the issue is our species . . . as we can see about half the world is in some kind of conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ong..._conflicts

[Ted King]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...lash-point

In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Ukraine a gift: Crimea. At the time, it seemed like a routine move, but six decades later, that gift is having .

The transfer merited only a paragraph in Pravda, the official Soviet newspaper, on Feb. 27, 1954. The story was one long sentence and dense with detail. Here's what it said:

"Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."

And with that, a region that had been was "gifted" to Ukraine.

"Gifted" because Khrushchev's transfer was ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. And he probably didn't think the Soviet Union would be gone less than 40 years later.

But, asks Lewis Siegelbaum, a historian at Michigan State University, "what motivated such generosity?" Writing on the website , he says:

"After all, Crimea, the rugged peninsula jutting into the Black Sea, had not become territorially contiguous with Ukraine all of a sudden."

Siegelbaum argues that Crimea's cultural links with Russia were far stronger, and, at the time, there were slightly more than three Russians in Crimea for each Ukrainian. (Stalin had expelled the entire local Tatar population a .)

And, Siegelbaum says, the idea that Crimea and Ukraine had economic similarities, as Pravda noted, was a stretch, since the peninsula was mostly a tourist destination for the rest of the Soviet Union.

There were other reasons for the handover, though.

Ukraine's great famine, or Holodomor, was created by Joseph Stalin, Khrushchev's predecessor; millions died. Stalin died in 1953, and when Khrushchev took over, "the idea was that they really needed to democratize the system, to centralize it less," says Nina Khrushcheva, Khruschev's great-granddaughter and an associate professor of international affairs at The New School in New York.

"It was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine," she tells NPR's David Greene. "So I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."

[haikuman]

Eggggactly Ted . . .Purge and genocide prevailed ~!~

" The Soviet government was hostile to Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture; there were mass repressions of Ukrainian poets, historians and linguists. Then there was a genocide of Ukrainians: millions of people starved to death in 1932 and 1933 in the Holodomor. After the 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR's territory was enlarged westward. During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army tried to reestablish Ukrainian independence and fought against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But in 1941 Ukraine was occupied by Nazi Germany, being liberated in 1944. In 1945, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.[8] In 1954, it expanded to the south with the transfer of the Crimea."

[Ted King]

I suspect if there is going to be a mostly peaceful resolution of the differences then the Ukraine will have to basically give up the Crimea - or at least give it so much autonomy that it will for the most part be just symbolically part of the Ukraine.

On the other hand, if Putin is set on getting Yanukovych back in power, it's hard to see how this can end without a lot of violence.

[haikuman]

And in the long run Russias' take over of the Crimea will only be temporary . . .
History has a way of repeating its self and I believe Ukrainians have very long memories.

Putin backing Yanukovych is like Putin backing Assad at the end of the day Putin is
spending what little character he has like a drunk sailor in a port of political whhhoreeesss . . . ymmv

[max]

haikuman wrote:
Because you are about empty and vacuous spew that begs the mindless dialogue of an
atttttention whhhhore . . . sir
http://edition.cnn.com/

And still one word of his own to make any point on the subject from our hate filled poster of slimes and silly smilies ....