Rostere

AAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! This is crazy awesome. Paradox and Obsidian logos both on the same game box will be like a fantastic dream come true. Paradox is pretty much the only publisher I know of which is definitely, 100% guaranteed more niche and "nerdy" than Obsidian is (or has potential to be if they had money to make more of their own PC-only titles...). Hopefully, this will lead to all sort of awesome. If PE is a smash hit (relatively speaking, we must consider the size of the target audience here), then maybe the money from that plus a new Kickstarter, plus a new publishing deal with Paradox will secure additional millions towards more awesome Obsidian RPGs For anyone worried about Paradox and boxes, Paradox was the last game company I know of to stop putting big manuals in their game boxes. My EU3 game came with a manual too big to fit in a DVD case. The HoI2 Anthology also arbitrarily came with a medal in the game case :S Considering boxes, Paradox has a better and more "conservative" history than Obsidian... Although it may be relevant that Obsidian also did not publish their games themselves.

The information in the article is outdated though, ThyssenKrupp will not be making submarines for Sweden in the future. The entire reason for ThyssenKrupp building submarines for Sweden is because the Swedish shipyard Kockums was sold to HDW (now owned by ThyssenKrupp) in the 00s. In recent years it's been clear that this was - of course - just a way for HDW (a German shipyard and the sole serious alternative to Kockums in the field of stealth submarines) to eliminate their competition. The Swedish state has however not been able to do business with ThyssenKrupp on favourable terms, so another alternative to ThyssenKrupp is now being investigated: Saab (the weapons manufacturer, not the car manufacturer of the same name). Due to complaints about organizational mismanagement and mercantilist practices (in favour of HDW versus Kockums), most of the Swedish submarine experts have already left Kockums for Saab. FMV own the blueprints to the A26 themselves, so it's just a matter of where exactly they will physically build it.

You should visit their site more often and check them out for yourself... http://www.aljazeera.com/ Al Jazeera is way more credible than RT. I fact, I think it's generally one of the best news sources when it comes to the ME and developing countries in general. To be honest, I have no idea why people would feel they are a bad news source. Maybe it's because uninformed bigots think "Al Jazeera" sounds like "Al Qaeda"? They obviously have a focus - the ME - which shapes what news they're interested in reporting (just like most American news channels have a focus on the US), but that's pretty much it. Personally, I think that their great coverage of the Iraq war (considering they were the only independent news source on the ground), and the later far more crucial role during the Arab Spring has made them the most important - with respect to how much they have changed the previous status quo - news channel thus far into this century. For people in the ME, real (non-English) journalism on TV not tied to their government or other political movements was often very scarce until Al Jazeera came along. AJ was also the first Arab news channel to feature Israelis on panels debating the I-P conflict and during Cast Lead they had an IDF spokesperson in pretty much every news update, that should say something about their intent of impartiality. To compare, name one US news channel which regularly features comment from Palestinian spokespersons on news updates about the I-P conflict. Here's a recent feature I watched the other day about international arms trade, featuring arms trade experts from SIPRI and Jane's Information Group. Watch yourself and see if you think it's professional and serious news TV. This is another feature I saw linked a lot on Facebook earlier. Their "Opinion" pieces by independent journalists can feature crackpots at times though, but at least they draw the line clearly to separate their serious journalism from "interesting opinions from unrelated people".

I'd argue the U.S. didn't invade Iraq (solely) for oil, because destroying it destabilized the region and served the opposite purpose, making the supply of oil volatile and jacking up its prices. Retaining access would've been simpler if the U.S. appeased Saddam or attempted to replace him. Exactly. I do think that there were people who thought it might be a better idea to invade Iraq because of the oil, but it was probably not the deciding factor in itself. But let's look at the politicians who took the decisions here and here. Note that in the memo, they talk about manufacturing a threat towards the Kurds, a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, or some dispute over WMDs. "Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas about who will rule afterwards". Note that the timeline mentions Rumsfeld selling a "War on Terror" with PR efforts even before 9/11, and that small-scale CIA operations to smear Saddam to (indirectly) garner support in the US for a regime change had been in place already in the early nineties. The PNAC think-tank, which is in all but name synonymous with the GWB administration, had existed earlier (since 1997), as had the JINSA think-tank which also had a significant overlap with the GWB administration. The people who made the decision to invade Iraq had all held their views that Iraq should be invaded long before the actual invasion. Certainly oil was a part of it, but among the actual politicians most did not have direct connections to the oil industry. They were essentially the people who always advocated more military expenditures against the SU during the eighties and late seventies (if they were politically active at the time), and who supported every shady US-backed coup during the Cold War. Good old fashioned jingoists, chauvinists or "neocons" - the label for these people always seem to change during the periods their opinions fall out of fashion. I would encourage anyone who is interested to simply take a look at all the people close to Bush on Wikipedia and see what they have been doing earlier, it's really the best thing to do if you're interested in why they wanted the war in Iraq. The similarities between the US neocons and Putin's following in Russia (yes, the people who actually vote for him and think he's good) is probably marginal or none, it's just that they have different nations as a starting point for their ideologies. What? I would beg to differ... Also, what does it matter what you wrote about ethnic connections in 30000 BCE? Almost none - certainly none I can think of - of the peoples whom we make distinctions between today existed, or lived where they currently do. I would say there is no traceable culture left from that era, so what happened back then has no connection to today's cultures. Russians are a Slavic people, whose culture descends from the Indo-European culture, which pretty much every culture in Europe also descends from. They are pretty much just as European as most of eastern Europe.

BTW, I found a more detailed linguistic map here: http://t.co/gV3UYdUZ81

I kind of agree with this somewhat, with the exception of sanctions biting the EU and the US harder than Russia, which is simply not true. The EU should give the Ukraine a hand when they are ready to help themselves. Crimea was never really a part of the Ukraine to begin with and they are probably better off in the long run without it. Donetsk (and possibly Kharkov and Luhansk) would be way harder for Ukraine to part with feasibly though.

Ugh. The only thing the new so-called Thief game is good at is making me angry... I consider myself a grown-up person but still get crazy angry when people make **** out of game series you've known and loved in the past. I don't think I've been this mad at a **** sequel in my entire life.

Problem is that it isn't getting rid of the spider at the heart of the web of corruption- it's swapping the spider out for another one. I've seen Yanukovich's house, but I've also seen, for example, Yulia Tymoshenko's house. And the new government with its new broom has appointed... a bunch of oligarchs (most of whom got to be oligarchs the way everyone in the ex USSR did, via corruption) as regional governors. That isn't a new broom, it's same old same old, jobs for those they think will keep the east quiescent via the old methods of patronage. But we're talking about Yanukovich right now. I haven't uttered a word about who I would see replace him. Of course me and everyone else with some sense in their heads are also sceptical towards Timoshenko. What happens to the previous leader has nothing to do with who you choose as your next one. I'm addressing the fact that things were going to hell very quickly economically in Ukraine during Yanukovich's reign. I haven't defended the new (temporary) government, but at this point almost everything would be better than Yanukovich. Like you say, Ukraine has some serious stability problems due to the political split over Russian alignment. People who self-identify as Russians tend to support similar-thinking leaders because of this, and the other way around of course. This creates a lot of leeway for corruption. Imagine a country roughly split in half along ethnic lines where, say 30% of the population would always support a candidate aligned with one ethnicity and 30% would always support one from the other. Being a post-Communism nation is only the beginning of Ukraine's worries. Ethnic particularism is the perfect fertile soil for corrupt leaders. Although the new government consists of 10% far-right politicians, the government itself is remarkably (everything is relative) free from oligarchs and establishment cronies of all sorts. The people you mention are the recently appointed governors of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk (I think). I don't think you correctly assess what is happening there - this is not a "new broom" and nobody ever wanted it to seem like that either - it's the other way around, these appointments were made to appease Russian particularists, the new government are in effect selling these appointments as more of "the old broom" to calm secessionist sentiments. Naturally these oligarchs are the ones who have the most to lose from instability, or being forced to compete in the "pro league" of Russian corrupt kleptocrats if they should secede to Russia. This is a by-effect of the ethnic split of Ukraine and one of the reasons it will be good to "amputate" largely Russian-aligned areas such as Crimea. In the best of worlds, there would be no ethnic particularists, but as long as people succeed in banging that drum you must build democracy from the bottom up starting with giving the different areas of Ukraine sufficient autonomy to ease tension and if that means putting popular kleptocrats into power, so be it. The alternative might be having the secessionists in power there, admitting that independence or secession is a solution. Personally, seeing how Donetsk is the richest part of the Ukraine I don't see how a Donetskian secession could not end up in war. I care about setting the record straight. Amounts he embezzled are relevant only in the sense that they should make his due prosecution that much easier. Kicking him out of office NAO by whatever means and possibly summarily executing him as you suggest isn't going to make the money he stole reappear in Ukraine's coffers. Sticking to the feb 21 agreement would have gone a long way towards preserving constitutional stability and preventing secessionist sentiments from being inflamed. As the President is supposed to be the guarantor of constitutional order, removing him without regards for due process is tantamount to abrogating the Constitution—anything goes from that point on. As it stands, the new government lacks both the force and legal legitimacy to effectively deal with separatists, and this is ostensibly a result of the way they have handled things as much as it is of Russia's meddling. In other news, Ukrainian backbencher suggests nuclear re-armament in light of Russia's violation of Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. Yep. I'm sure that's not going to be a tough sell to the same people who are getting their pensions slashed in half. Not at all. Believe me when I say that I would prefer a much more peaceful solution. In a larger context, pressure from far-right groups and "unconstitutional" (or at least questionable) moves is a harmful influence. Therefore, their sanction will require dire circumstances. But you must agree that extreme circumstances require extreme reactions. Would you lecture George Washington on how he led an "unconstitutional" revolution against the British Crown? Nelson Mandela? There has been an awful lot of "unconstitutional" leaders who have broke the law throughout history who we hold in high esteem today. I would like to compare it with how you use radiation and poisons (focused and under as controlled circumstances as possible) to treat cancer or amputation to prevent gangrene. In most normal circumstances, you would not saw your hand off. But there are extreme situations where you might need to do that in order to save your life. Every problem has it's solution, and when you're already ****ed, chances are the solution won't be pretty. There are two things to weigh in here: one, the potential harmful effects of violating the law. Two, the severity of the current situation. I think we agree on the former, but not on the latter. There are no sacred cows and no unbreakable laws as long as the situation is bad enough.

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2014/03/12/lets-play-a-game-of-female-armor-bingo-pic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geeksAreSexyTechnologyNews+%28[Geeks+are+Sexy]+technology+news%29

Who cares about whether Yanukovich was lawfully dismissed or not? Have you seen his estate? That man is essentially the spider in a web of corruption in the heart of darkness. The amounts of money that have been embezzled from the Ukrainian people can never be returned - even if European countries now have seized the European assets of Yanukovich and his "family" of corrupt kleptocrats. I know I'm usually a law-and-order guy, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's this type of corruption and theft of a nation's resources. With the kinds of sums involved, this has turned into another game entirely - of course the best thing would be to see Yanukovich et compani in front of the ICC. But if an easier solution is that he is hung, drawn and quartered by the Ukrainians, then so be it. Escaping to Russia is really getting away without sufficient punishment in his case. Yanukovich' depletion of monetary reserves might very well plunge Ukraine into the same fiery pit as Greece (or worse), and in the end it will of course be the people, as always, who will suffer for choosing criminals such as him for their leaders. Yanukovich might well have stolen the future of some 45 million Ukrainians, which makes him one of the worst traitors imaginable.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mrloganrhoades/man-goes-to-magic-the-gathering-tournament-poses-next-to-but

It's not illegal to pee in a public place if the police recognizes you did your best to prevent it, if you didn't destroy of deface any property, if you hid yourself and so on. This is really a technicality: the crime of public urination falls under the category of disorderly conduct (which does not in a legal sense mean the same thing in Sweden as in the US). Now if the only reason you were spotted is that the police actively made an effort to find you out, that does not count as disorderly conduct since you weren't offending anyone. The actual crime is not peeing in a public place, but the offensive act of peeing in front of somebody. There are probably a lot more of bureaucratic legal stuff in Sweden than in other countries, but I think that as far as crimes go the law tends to be very lenient if you haven't really hurt anybody.

This is very typical of very engaged people in several areas of debate who become more addicted to the struggle itself rather than standing firm regarding actual political objectives, the one example I see most often is probably in Swedish anti-racism discussions. Now Sweden is generally a very anti-racist country (although quite possibly very difficult to come to as a refugee) to begin with, so while there are some nasty racist types the public opinion is generally very sympathetic to all forms of organized anti-racism, here I'm comparing to the other Nordic nations. Now very recently there was a demonstration in central Stockholm followed by a ridiculous debate on who could really hold legitimate opinions on racism. Everybody wants to be a unique snowflake and all, but when you reach the point where so-called anti-racists want to exclude people from demonstrations based on the colour of their skin... To a lot of these people, the struggle is a very large part of their identity. This creates a need among them to take ridiculous contrarian positions in order to be able to continue their struggle in every environment they're in, no matter what the reality looks like. Let's just face the obvious facts: men might never understand just how women feel on a personal level, but any human being is just as capable of understanding harmful institutionalized gender discrimination on a systemic level, and that's what really matters.

Has anyone else been concerned that a policy of "They speak our language, they're our citizens" effectively means the UK is obliged to invade most of the planet? Well, I don't think that is really what you mean to say. You should formulate it more like "A nation never has an inherent right to rule over people of another nation". The difference is that while you can never claim that all English-speaking areas should be a part of the UK, you have a legitimate reason to intervene when formerly British people or people with British culture in another nation are threatened. Because of how the 19th and 20th centuries turned out, there has not been a lot of problems of this type for the British. But suppose things turned out differently and, say, New Zealand was a part of Japan. Suppose further that opinion polls showed that New Zealanders wanted to secede - and that a clear majority of the population in New Zealand were not Japanese. Naturally, in this situation, Japan has no legitimate right to rule over that territory. The UK would probably be the first country to assert the rights of the New Zealanders because of their (mostly) British heritage, but that action would be based on a general principle - every country should reject imperialism of every form (but in this case it would be natural that the British did so first). But maybe we should leave all this to the Ukraine thread.

What. Sanctions either way between China, EU other the US would be devastating. It would be the financial equivalent of a global nuclear war. Multinational corporations would be scrambling to keep sanctions out of the way if they heard so much as a whisper about it. But let's read what the EU and the US has to say. The trade relations between the US and the EU is the most powerful financial flow in the entire world. I would think that any actual sanctions would be impossible to reinforce though, especially considering the recent financial crisis.

Haha, WTF? But yeah, you're right in that parts of Russia could claim independence. Soviet imperialism still lingers. Except Crimea isn't Estonia or Latvia, both historically independent nations. Not to mention the fact that Crimea is about three times smaller than either and its only land-based access is through Ukraine and would likely be blocked permanently by Ukraine, in retaliation. Also, Putin be trippin' Estonia and Latvia, historically independent nations? Surely you are joking. I don't question their independence, but throughout history they have sadly almost constantly been a part of one empire or another. Crimea three times smaller? What are you talking about? The population of Crimea is larger than both that of Latvia and that of Estonia. The area of Crimea is larger than that of Israel. The size of Crimea is not an issue. Iceland has no land access to any other nation. Does that mean it's not a viable state? Sevastopol is the most important port city in the Black Sea. If they should lose land access I bet they would hardly even notice.

LOL, you know, that can really be said of any nation. There are a lot of countries which are way smaller than Crimea would be but are still viable. Estonia and Latvia were my previous examples. Don't we have any Estonians on this forum? I'm sure they can vouch for their nation being viably independent. I concede that "Armchair" is a very apt prefix. "Imperialism" though? "Armchair anti-imperialism" would be much more fitting, considering I'm promoting autonomy and de-colonialization, not the other way around. It's also not "random perceptions" - ethnicity has been the basis of nationhood since the dawn of the modern republic. No matter how much we wish it wasn't that way (trust me, I really do), ethnicity is already a dividing line - in Ukrainian politics also. Do you know why the heck Africa and the Middle East are such cluster****s with wars going on all the time? It's because during the time of imperialism, Western colonial powers drew the borders with basis in what was aesthetically pleasing on the maps, not with regards to which peoples lived where. That is why big distinct cultures such as the Kurds still lack their own nation, and certain nations seems to be plagued with perpetual civil wars. In a similar fashion, Crimea became Ukrainian during the time of Soviet imperialism. Chamberlain has got a lot of flak for all the wrong reasons. The British diplomats offered the Germans the solution of a plebiscite on the fate of the Sudetenland, which in my mind is a completely fair solution. Then Hitler went ahead and grabbed the Sudetenland anyway - which is not that different in the end, since the Nazis had a lot of support there (the largest percentage of support in any German-speaking territory), and the population were mostly German as well. That's not that unfair. The Munich agreement was not that awful in itself (you can quote me on that) - the real catastrophe was the completely unmotivated Nazi occupation of Czech Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. At that point, Chamberlain should have known that war was inevitable, and indeed also utterly necessary. The analogy today would be if Putin invaded and occupied Western Ukraine. Sadly, the Munich agreement has become a symbol of appeasement when in reality the real mistake was the British unpreparedness for war and half-hearted efforts in playing out Italy and the USSR against Germany. Chamberlain was entirely mistaken in his method of negotiation. A diplomat should have a carrot in one hand, and a whip (or an atomic bomb) in the other. If we look at Britain's military preparations, Chamberlain was essentially bluffing all the time during his negotiations with Hitler. You can't negotiate if you have no whip and your counterpart is free to take the carrot by himself. Hitler had Von Manstein's (and Guderian's) ingenious plan for the victory over France. What plan did Chamberlain have for a complete and utter victory over Germany in the case of war? "If you want peace, prepare for war". It's very telling now in hindsight that even when war was declared, France and Britain sat around doing nothing under Chamberlain's leadership. If they had been ready to implement a "reverse" version of von Manstein's plan, Germany would have been annihilated with large parts of it's army in Poland. If France had put all the money invested in the Maginot Line on tanks and tactical bombers instead, the Allies would have had a mighty whip in the negotiations. Sadly, you can't threaten someone with a fortress (do as I say or I'll lock myself up in my castle!). Similarly, Western armies today should be organized after the principle that offence is the best defence. And I say that as the most peace-loving person you can find - you can't make war in a "peaceful" or defensive way, you can only ever win in the same fashion that your enemy would win over you. That is also what counts when you make the threat of war in diplomacy. There are of course also economic-diplomatic ways to ensure peace by economic integration, but that is a preventive measure - you can't work on that when your enemy is already hostile.

Who established what Crimea wants? was there any vote, attempts to resolve the situation, or any kind of international forum to assess the situation? Because it looks like more Russian single minded self interests aggression like in Georgia. No, there has not been a referendum yet. But if only the Western powers could get their **** together, they could stop this pointless argument over a territory that is fundamentally not Ukrainian, and see to it that an internationally observed and legitimate referendum takes place. That would be in everyone's best interest. First of all he didn't gave it to "Ukraine" but he made adjustments to districts within the soviet union which Ukraine was part of. Russia has no more claims to either districts of former Soviet union, then imperialist UK to any of its colonies or Germany to territories of Nazi Germany.(even if they have a nice German majority) Otherwise tomorrow they can decides to invade Belarus for example. Sigh. This entire paragraph above is just an entire misconception. Russia has no inherent legitimate claim on former administrative divisions of the USSR. That is not what I'm saying. In fact, that is pretty much the opposite to what I'm saying. Take a look at the maps here and here, take a deep breath and think. What if the Soviet Union controlled your country and gave away control of it to Ukraine for no reason? Of course the UK has no legitimate claim on India - India is not British, it's simple as that. But do they have a legitimate claim on the Falkland Islands? Yes, in my opinion they might have, since the British have lived there as far back as people can remember anyone living there. It's down to holding a referendum among the Falklanders. Of course the Falklands can also opt for independence - that is their right, but there is no reason for an adjacent country - with hardly no connection at all to them other than geographical adjacency - to claim control over them. Exchange the Falklands for Crimea and Argentina for Ukraine and you've got a rough equivalent of the current situation. Now what if the entire Europe had been part of the USSR, with the constituent union republics having roughly the borders of their predecessors. Then, out of the blue Khrushchev decides that Brittany should be a part of the British SSR, and Crimea should be a part of the Ukrainian SSR. Said and done, but fast forward 50 years and the USSR has disintegrated. For some reason the Brits will not relinquish control over Brittany (even though it's hardly British) and Ukraine won't relinquish control over Crimea (even though it's hardly Ukrainian). It's not Russia which hinges it's claims on the arbitrary USSR partition of control, it's Ukraine. Crimea is today in every respect an UKRAINIAN colony, not a Russian one (of course, the Crimean Tatars would have it that both of these sides are guilty of imperialism, even though at that point of the discussion we are back in the 18th century). Of course Putin has his own motives in this, but I couldn't care less if he did all this for the glory of the giant spaghetti monster when we can give independence to a country which should never have been Ukrainian to begin with, if it was not for the arbitrariness of Khrushchev. And if the Crimeans want to be part of Russia, let them be that, although I highly doubt it will happen. True, but they support Ukrainie, in fact they have been the major force in pro-Ukrainian against separatism in recent Crimean protest. They are instinctively sceptical towards Russia because of what happened under Stalin. But the provisional pro-independence government has promised to set aside money to resettle Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan. I'm not talking about Crimea forcibly being subjected to Russian military rule - me and every other forum member except one are probably against that. A referendum is the only thing which could settle this dispute.

Sure, we can call it "ethnic cleansing" or even a petty genocide if you want, but that is really a red herring - it is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The native population of Crimea were not ethnic Ukrainians but Crimean Tatars, as I have said. They are not related ethnically with Ukrainians. They speak a Turkic language. It's a completely different people. They don't belong in Ukraine any more than India belongs in England. The end line of that is that it leaves Ukraine with no serious claim on Crimea, since the only reason Crimea belonged to Ukraine in the first place is that Khrushchev happened to draw the border that way during some crayon session in the Kremlin. Let them have a referendum on independence and we'll see what they think. Like I wrote, the provisional government has already begun wooing them for their support. 1. Well it surly is not irrelevant - I suppose you are not from post soviet country so you cant probably understand 2. what left there of Tatars feels as part of Ukraine, definetely not part of Russia (but becasue they are not mayority there after Stalin reign you probably dont know about it but a lot of people still remeber how their fathers where deported to concentration camps by Stain - at least most of his statues where torn down during that revolution (at least something positive happend there) Nevertheless, in the current situation about 60% of the population in Crimea self-identify as Russians. Indications point towards that Crimean Tatars (about 10% of the current population) are generally more friendly towards being a part of Ukraine than being a part of Russia. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if a majority of Crimeans would be for complete independence. But I guess only a referendum can settle that dispute? I guess you'd have to clarify what you mean by "reasonable", but pending that, the comment is off the mark in my experience. Catalonia, where the push for independence is more politically solid, is mostly "meh" about the issue, as illustrated by the low turnout of the unofficial town "referendums" conducted in the past five years or so. They will only rally to the independence cause if somebody makes a point of telling them that they do not actually have a right to be independent. In the Basque Country, actual independentism is more a politicized topic that parties love to trump up than an actual issue for people (Euskera is a difficult language and is still very much minoritary). Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for giving people the political freedom to secede—something that is not present in the current Spanish Constitution—but you should not mistake the propaganda efforts of a bunch of loud-mouthed corrupt buffoons for the actual will of the people. Exactly - but I was talking about regions which would have a right to secede if they wanted to. As you said, it is in the end a matter of holding a referendum. If a minority wants a secession that is not enough. Just because certain regions would have a right to secede does not mean I would want them to, I often think rather the opposite. The case of Crimea is interesting because the majority of Crimeans are Russians, who still somehow due to the arbitrariness of authoritarian leaders of old have ended up in Ukraine. Since there is a lot of political tension between Russia and the EU, which Ukrainians want to align with, I think that an entirely independent Crimea would greatly help to defuse the situation and also stabilize the Ukrainian democracy.

Sure, we can call it "ethnic cleansing" or even a petty genocide if you want, but that is really a red herring - it is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. The native population of Crimea were not ethnic Ukrainians but Crimean Tatars, as I have said. They are not related ethnically with Ukrainians. They speak a Turkic language. It's a completely different people. They don't belong in Ukraine any more than India belongs in England. The end line of that is that it leaves Ukraine with no serious claim on Crimea, since the only reason Crimea belonged to Ukraine in the first place is that Khrushchev happened to draw the border that way during some crayon session in the Kremlin. Let them have a referendum on independence and we'll see what they think. Like I wrote, the provisional government has already begun wooing them for their support.

Yes, and it was also the reasoning of Garibaldi, Bismarck, Michael Collins, and every national hero there ever was. Just because Hitler said something doesn't mean it was wrong. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Do you use that as an (so-called I guess) argument against vegetarianism? I don't think New Mexico wants to be part of Mexico, but if they wanted to, there would be no reason to stop them. Do you know what ruling over foreign peoples against their will is called? Imperialism. And it's not a good thing. EDIT: Oh, I found a page for you: http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/hitler.html Er... what he ate may be unrelated to his politics. But I think it's safe to say that how he wanted States to be defined was, you know, somehow a bit political. It was just a case of pointing out that an individual may be wrong on one issue and right on another. That German territories should be ruled over by Germans makes as much sense as American territories should be rules over by Americans, et cetera (if you don't agree to this general principle, maybe you should cede the Falkland Islands to Argentina?). That was not the part of his ideology which caused trouble. Just because Hitler was an awful person in general does not mean that he was wrong on every point. That is a logical fallacy. Derp, no. By supporting Crimean independence, Russia is betting that Crimea will side with them instead of the EU. They have already lost Ukraine or otherwise they wouldn't be doing this, which will upset Ukraine to the point where no immediate reconciliation is possible. If Russia subjects Crimea to a military regime against their will, then that would be awful - but not them allowing the Crimeans a chance at independence. These are two different things. It is very unrealistic and disrespectful to say that Crimea cannot be a viable independent country. A counter-example would be the Baltic countries - both Estonia and Latvia have a far lower population than Crimea, but they are still viable independent countries. Or would you argue that "Russia will be only country that can offer economical and military aid for Latvia/Estonia, as Russia will block any help from other countries"? It makes as much sense to put America there as it does Russia. Right now Russia has only prepared Crimea against any aggression, like that in Kiev and I seriously doubt they will want to make it part of the Russian federation. What will happen is that it will most likely declare independence. You comparing Russia with the Nazis is just cheap propaganda and doesn't bring anything to the discussion. Its not cheap, its exactly what is happening, Russia invaded Ukraine becaus 'Russans living there might be oppresed' wouldnt be easier to just invite them back to Russia and helping them there instead of invading other country? People there are just excuse how to lock down access to black sea and their military power in region You can't "invite Crimean Russians back to Russia". That's a nonsensical statement. Ukrainians have never been living in Crimea in any large numbers. Crimea has never been part of Ukraine until the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, himself a half-Ukrainian, gave it to Ukraine. Crimean Russians shouldn't go back to Russia from Ukraine because Crimea is not a natural part of Ukraine any more than Brittany belongs to the UK or Poland to Germany. The Russians certainly did not displace any Ukrainians when they moved there. The "native" population of Crimea were the Crimean Tatars, which by the way the provisional Crimean government have promised resettlement plans (the ones who were moved to Russia during the Soviet times, that is). I think it's hilariously funny and ironic when people's Machiavellian plans force them into doing good. In this case, the Crimean provisional government wooing Crimean Tatars before the referendum on March 30 will in effect heal an old wound caused by Soviet-era ethnic cleansing.

So far it nothing, they agreed to talk.. i.e. this the usual jerk off smile and shakes to the camera announcing procedural triumph as progress Yeah those cheeky Russian bastards in the Caucasus playing Imperialist! actually everyone are .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe Actually I am critical of Russian imperialism, but what I was criticizing right now was Ukrainian imperialism. If Crimea wants to be independent, Ukraine should not stop them since they have no sensible claim on that territory. But this is fundamentally a question of how many people support secession, and on what grounds. I think there are several parts of Europe which have some reasonable claim for independence: Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland, Wales, North Ireland might reasonably be governed by Ireland and I'm sure there are several places I forget. Anyway, it all boils down to holding a referendum on independence. Ultimately, this decision should be made by the people. And it looks like Scotland will hold a referendum soon, with a likely "no" to independence - which is well and good in my mind since I think people are better off in general staying together (as long as - crucially - there is support in the public opinion for that). Additionally, from my personal point of view Sweden needs a strong British voice in the EU because of our similar views on economic policies. Fighting secessionists is imperialism ? Ask Gandhi, I guess?

Yes, and it was also the reasoning of Garibaldi, Bismarck, Michael Collins, and every national hero there ever was. Just because Hitler said something doesn't mean it was wrong. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Do you use that as an (so-called I guess) argument against vegetarianism? I don't think New Mexico wants to be part of Mexico, but if they wanted to, there would be no reason to stop them. Do you know what ruling over foreign peoples against their will is called? Imperialism. And it's not a good thing. EDIT: Oh, I found a page for you: http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/hitler.html Of course Putin is not doing charity work. You believe in capitalism, right? People can act out of self-interest and still contribute to the common good. In this case, Putin wants to keep Sevastopol out of the EU/Nato. Therefore, he has helped the Crimeans with the military power they otherwise would lack completely. Of course, in return for that service, he expects Crimea to not also join the EU. Who knows how right Putin is right in that bet - we can only know that in his mind it would be impossible that the protests in Maidan were made out of genuine desire to join the EU, genuine fear towards Russian imperialism, and a rejection of Russian standards of government in favour of European ones (really, try to put yourself in his mind). I think that to him, it's inconceivable that the Russians in Crimea would choose alignment to the EU over Russia by their own choice. Personally, I don't care about Putin's motives as long as he's doing more good than harm.

Crimea has been a part of Russia since long before it was Ukrainian. There live very few ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea. I'd say, let them have their referendum and possibly their own, independent nation (or let them become part of Russia, but I doubt they want that). Crimea is as Russian and as non-Ukrainian as the Falkland Islands are British, Åland is Swedish, Kurdistan is Kurdish, Tibet is Tibetan and Ireland is Irish. I'm sure they didn't fare too bad in Ukraine but there is really no particular reason they are Ukrainian to begin with, other than that a 20th century communist dictatorship decided that the area was easier administrated from the Ukrainian SSR than from the Russian SFSR. And even that was considered a very dubious decision back then. Of course Putin is stirring up conflict and Russian media is scaring people with "Ukrainian fascists" (as if they suddenly appeared out of nowhere!), but there is really no reason why Crimea should not have it's independence if they want to. Hell, I think Ukraine would be better off with an independent Crimea since then they can concentrate on being Ukrainians and not having elections based around tribal loyalties. An independent Crimea (including Sevastopol) would mean 2,5 million people out of the pocket of pro-Russian sectarianist political parties.

I've discussed this question a lot before, and it's pretty clear that it boils down to a moral question: some people believe it would be wrong to outlaw private ownership of weapons, regardless of what statistics and common sense (might) say. Sometimes the argument moves towards statistics and which point of view those would favour. It's a very similar discussion to the one you have with people who want to legalize prostitution, or heavy addictive and psychoactive drugs. Ultimately it shows a difference between people's ethical points of view - some people believe that you should never outlaw something which MIGHT not be harmful, while some people believe that you should always outlaw something that is (or seems) generally harmful. Sure, there are instances where prostitution might be 100% consensual, cocaine might be used for legitimate experimental or recreational purposes (without anyone coming to harm) and guns might be used for good. But me and many others simply do not want to live in a society which make such bets. But there are some people who stand on the opposite side in this, and I greatly respect that - there being two sides is essential to the political debate. Generally speaking, the existence of both naïve moral liberals (in American: "libertarians") and pragmatists is crucial to the political debate, so that we have a vigorous discussion on every law that is passed. Of course I believe that the pragmatist approach towards reaching correct decisions is fundamentally the correct one, but a strong liberal opposition to everything makes it harder for awful special interest groups to trick politicians into banning things they really should not. I mean to say that there is obviously a gradual scale - soft air guns and beer can also be harmful to society, but in the big picture they are not. Without people pushing hard from both sides it would be difficult for the law to converge to the "sweet spot" of this scale. There are also people who say any country should be allowed to construct nuclear weapons, that would be the analogue of this discussion with nations in the place of people and WMDs in the place of guns.