Citing U.S. and European trade sanctions, Apple severs developer agreements in Crimea

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    You make a lot of sense. But I, nonetheless, remain disturbed when I hear a Putin spokesman speaking in the same terms about Estonia and the other Baltic states as you do about Crimea and the eastern Ukraine. Should the west simply turn them over to avoid bloodshed? I know it's an oversimplification, but the protection of ethnic Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia was a tune played once before by another who wanted to return his country to its "rightful" place in the world. My point being: where does this line of reasoning (or explanation) end?
  • Reply 22 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sirozha View Post


    I grew up in the mothership that spawned the Cuban revolution, and I am not talking out of my arse here.




    Clearly you have not been there lately. I have and I am fluent in spanish, which is my native language as a citizen of Panama.We still serve Cuba Libre where the bar tender is supposed to put 5 cents into a fund to liberate Cuba but naturally they often just put it in their pocket.

  • Reply 23 of 33
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Clearly you have not been there lately. I have and I am fluent in spanish, which is my native language as a citizen of Panama.


    I thought it was illegal for US citizens to visit Cuba - still. 

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    You make a lot of sense. But I, nonetheless, remain disturbed when I hear a Putin spokesman speaking in the same terms about Estonia and the other Baltic states as you do about Crimea and the eastern Ukraine. Should the west simply turn them over to avoid bloodshed? I know it's an oversimplification, but the protection of ethnic Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia was a tune played once before by another who wanted to return his country to its "rightful" place in the world. My point being: where does this line of reasoning (or explanation) end?



    Well, let's just say that Germany lost Sudetenland in WWI - whether those lands were taken away from Germany fairly or not is another question. But Germany lost those territories in a war, and that's the end of it. Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles that finalized the borders of Europe after WWI. German move into Sudetenland was a clear violation of the terms of its surrender in WWI. 

     

    Russia, on the other hand, never lost Crimea or Novorussia in any war. In fact, Russia, and the Soviet Union as its successor, were the rightful owners of those territories. Russia took Crimea from the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War and no one was ever able to take Crimea back from Russia by force. What happened was that a mentally unstable communist leader decided to gift this territory with all of its inhabitants to his home country - Ukraine. This was done in violation of any international norms. If the US, Europe, and the UN were agreeable to allow the inhabitants of Crimea to determine their fate post collapse of the Soviet Union, this territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine would have been solved two decades ago during the times of Eltsin, who may have been a drunk but was not a dictator like Putin for sure. Crimea was in dispute between the two countries since the collapse of the Soviet Union, with Russia having to rent facilities for its Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine for over two decades because the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet, which was predominantly Russian, suddenly had no place to moor after the collapse of the Soviet Union even though the Soviet Black See Fleet was a direct successor of the Russian Black Sea Fleet that was stationed in Crimea for 150 years prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore, this territorial dispute was very well known to the US, the European Union, and the UN for over two decades, and they did nothing to try and solve the dispute peacefully by a democratic referendum. Mind you, the US is quite adverse to the idea of referendums judging by the fact that there has never been a referendum held in the US to find out the public's opinion on any issue. So, Russians knew very well that the only way for them to ever see Crimea come back was by a show of force. The only question was when to exercise such a show of force so that the takeover would be as peaceful as possible. The situation presented itself in March of 2014 when the Ukrainian government fell apart. 

     

    I do not condone the way that Putin took over Crimea, but I also understand that there was no other way for Russia to ever get it, so the way it was done was amazingly effective and almost completely violence free, which is absolutely unheard of in the modern world. 

  • Reply 24 of 33
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

    But I still question how it is that a piece of territory separated from Russia by another country was "always" Russian.



    Because your OCD thinking is utter nonsense and meaningless to the argument.

     

    The Falklands were ALWAYS British, for example. Spain and its successors NEVER owned the islands and they were uninhabited before European colonization.

     

    Similarly, the Channel Islands are British, despite being closer, physically, to France. Alaska is no less American simply because we didn’t pay off the Canucks for colonization rights to Oregon Country.

     

    The argument, I believe, regarding Crimea is that its history of ownership by Rus (and its many successors up to the current Federation) is longer than that of ownership by Ukraine.

     

    ?The problem with that is one of, well, abrogation.

     

    Puerto Rico has been American for less time than it was Spanish, but Spain has no claim there. Cuba should have been was American for less time than it was Spanish. If Spain tried to reclaim Puerto Rico today, citing we had it longer”… Well, the idea is just militarily laughable. It was laughable in 1898, even.

     

    The question, then, becomes a matter of law (local and international), as well as history. Crimea held a plebiscite to join Russia. They voted to join. The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for Crimea (specifically) to vote to secede, but it also does not allow for the parliament to remove the president without impeachment.

     

    And, well, Russian forces won the battle for the peninsula. Borders can change. People need to get over that.

     

    ?Anyway, Crimea was treated as an autonomous republic within Ukraine before this happened. If historys any teacher (It is, and she daily bangs her head on a desk made of Logic crafted by Reason), giving portions of your country more rights than others will lead to trouble with integrity. See: Catalonia, et. al.

     

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Was Ukraine's control of Crimea area disputed at the time of the break up of the USSR? Why is Russia just now reclaiming it?

     

    Because the people asked for it.

  • Reply 25 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Was Ukraine's control of Crimea area disputed at the time of the break up of the USSR? Why is Russia just now reclaiming it?

     

    Because the people asked for it.


    People ask/demand a lot of shit that will never happen and if they revolt another autocratic authoritarian government will seize control, rinse and repeat.

  • Reply 26 of 33
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    People ask/demand a lot of shit that will never happen



    Sure. But this did.

  • Reply 27 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

    Sure. But this did.

    Careful what you wish for

  • Reply 28 of 33
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sirozha View Post

     
    I thought it was illegal for US citizens to visit Cuba - still. 


    I wouldn't know about that but I can buy a mid-century brownstone with three stories for $20K in central Havana.

  • Reply 29 of 33
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Careful what you wish for

     

    I didn’t wish for it. It’s in the past. It happened. Pretending it didn’t happen isn’t going to make it go away. Wishing for it to happen wouldn’t make it happen, either. 

     

    :???:

     

    Russia getting the band back together means a lot of things for a lot of people.

  • Reply 30 of 33
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    Originally Posted by dklebedev View Post

    People have such a short-lived memory that they can't recall the name of the only country to ever use an A-bomb.

     

    Yep, the starvation of an entire archipelago and the direct deaths of 5-10 million would have been so much better¡

     

    Then again, the US probably would have taken land in WWII if we’d been forced to go through with Downfall, so that’s tempting.

  • Reply 32 of 33
    dklebedev wrote: »
    Russia is evil. The media says that so it must be true. Contrary to the U.S. who delivers democracy packed in cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition, gases and napalm.
    People have such a short-lived memory that they can't recall the name of the only country to ever use an A-bomb.

    Don't forget about Russia's militarism so fast. There's plenty of bad that both countries have committed under their leaders.
  • Reply 33 of 33
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.