Well, that's kind of what I meant by 'this whole thing is more beneficial to the interim government'.
Fishing in troubled waters is a popular discipline all around the world.

A cunning plan: to sacrifice part of the country for your legitimacy.

Everybody's discussing Russia's imperialism and geopolitical games, who's right and who's wrong. What should EU and US do.
Nobody is questioning your legitimacy or events of February the 22th (well, not loud enough).
And with everybody distracted, you can drop the word 'interim' and appoint 'the right people' for key positions. No, I'm pretty sure that unlike Crimea's referendum elections in May won't be a farce.
(Current list of the candidates is very interesting, by the way. But who cares? "Russia will soon be invading Europe").

As for Putin, well, he likes to fish in troubled waters too, like everybody else. Works for him usually.

Neither am I, but the international response if Russia does annex Crimea will ultimately be weak because politically Russia can just fall back on US double-standards, it's not "right" and two wrongs do not make a right, but effectively Russia can just put their fingers in their ears and yell "lalalalala Iraq, Afghanistan, NS spying on everybody lalalalala not listening" and the West will have to grin and bear it.

You can't preach to the world about cleaning up when your own hands are dirty.

Surely Wilno is a better example, given that you actually did invade Lithuania to grab it, with the excuse that it was to, er, "defend the right of self-determination of local Poles" and despite it being against the decisions of the League of Nations.

The main problem with all the arguments against is that everyone seems to think that this is a slippery slope. Well, if it is a slippery slope the west started running the water in 1999 with Kosovo, setting the precedent. Can't have the cake of Crimea being integrally Ukrainian but eat the cake of Kosovo not being integral to Serbia. We opened Pandora's Box, not the Russians, they just happen to be taking advantage of it at present.

And while the ethnic cleansing was shitty the tartars weren't even a plurality in Crimea in 1944, let alone a majority. Wikipedia says they were [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crimean-tatar-population-comparison-1987-2001.png]under a fifth of the population[/url], even then, with ethnic Russian being around 50%. So even if you doubled the number deported and added those numbers to the current, returned tartar population they'd still be only 25% of the population, and far less than the Russian proportion. It's a nifty construct to be sure because few people do the actual research on the numbers and genocide/ deportation gets emotional points, but implying that the secessionist sympathy would not be there without the deportations doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

So you are suggesting that we should approve all Russian invasions? "Oh, damn we spilled the milk in the past, let the Russian do whatever they want now. Let them screw Ukraine, Estonia, Finland. Whatever they want!"

Oh well, Eastern Europe, better start mass deportations of Russians out of your countries. It's the only way to be safe! ;)

That's why splitting off Kosovo was cretinously foolish. It's precedent setting, if you don't want others to follow the precedent then don't set the precedent in the first place. As it stands all the bluster and arguments amount to it being OK when we do it, but not OK when the Russians do it- because they're Russians and not us, duh.

Not an argument I find in the slightest bit convincing.

And, of course, the best way to deal with Russian minorities in other countries is the same as with all minorities, to make sure they're happy, treated fairly and well integrated, thus not wanting the protection of Mother Russia.

That doesnt guarantee anything. A country will do whatever suits them.

Just like the USA invaded Iraq on the basis of this 'nuclear threat', or whatever they called it (which turned out to be bs, as we all know now).

All that is needed to act is an excuse, and some manipulation, which opens up a lot of possibilities.

Thee are many more reasons than one that the US invaded Iraq. But some people only choose to see bad. The US invaded Iraq because there was a murdering madman called Saadam Hussein in power who was murdering the Kurds and Shiites, and oppressing his own people. You do not think these people deserved to live. At least when the US invades a country they leave the countries people in possession of that country and even try to help them run that country by leaving advisors and peace keeping forces. Otherwise Iraq would now be run by Warlords like Afghanistan is.

That whole region of the world including Russia is full of countries with a long history of ethnic cleansing and religous wars. Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanastan, The Entire Middle East, Israel, Etc...etc... Don't point a finger at the US as a bad guy. Obviously they are not lilly white by any stretch of the imagination. But there are far worse countries in the world..and a lot of them. Maybe we will just stop trying to help other countries and the whole area can just fight among themsleves till the whole area is smoking rubble, and nobody is left alive.

You... do remember that we were the ones who gave Saddam Hussein the weapons in the first place, right? And basically said, "have at it"? Wikipedia actually has a fairly decent summary of all the help and support we gave Saddam including money, training, arms, biological weapons, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Bull......Conpiracy nuts have no credability. Not everything you read on the internet is true. Was it written by a french model..

Yea we gave him all the equipment and weapons just so we could go in there and kick his behind..Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Somehow that picture does not add up..

You do realize that Wikis are editable by anyone don't you..

This is a bit of a thread de-rail, but yes I am aware of the nature of Wikipedia. I am also aware of the nature of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iran Revolution of 1979, and the Persian Gulf War. Especially since I have, in addition to all the various history books, newspapers, and contemporary magazines, first-hand accounts from my uncles and grandfather who fought over there in Operation Desert Storm. I'd recommend reading some of the National Geographic issues on the subject if you are curious. They tend to cover a lot of the relevant points.

Besides the fact this is talking about the Iraq/ Iran War started in 1980, and help that was given in 1980 and 81. Saddam was not even the dictator there till 1979. Who could have known he would end up being such a murderer. Ayatollah Khomeni the leader of Iran was a far bigger threat to world peace at that time. So how can you relate events that happened 20 years earlier to our invasion of Iraq....Situations change..

ANd also the fact that your family served in Desert Storm has absolutley nothing to do with a war 20 years earlier..

The US doesn't. have a long history of ethnic cleansing and religous wars.. They had battles with some American indians tribes as they expanded.. but not because we wanted to get rid of them but because the Indians themselves did not want us to live on their land. And again the goverment ended up relocating most of the tribes to reservations instead of just simply wiping them off the face of the earth as many countries have done to other ethnic groups than their own even though there was lots and lots of wide open spaces and plenty of room for everybody. And as far as an invitation from the goverment do you expect the Iraq goverment to say please invade us...we are evil.

But I apoligize I got way off the subject of this thread..

Yes, however there is a MASSIVE difference between invading a country because you think they're a threat to you and leaving once the regime has changed versus invading a country because you want their land and then keeping it.

I'm not defending Bush-era American foreign policy, or our tendency for double-standard which is MASSIVE, but I can see the obvious differences here. If the US invaded Canada and kept British Columbia you can damn well guarantee the international community would turn against us pretty strongly.

I thought they weren't going to annex it by force, but hold a referendum?

Either way, if we're getting into the comparison game here, I could say that the Kosovo deal was the same thing, the US (under the auspices of NATO) intervened in the Kosovo War, even going so far as to bomb the Serbian capital, which eventually resulted in NATO troops on the ground in Kosovo. Eventually Kosovo had a referendum for independence while those troops were still there.

Many countries still hold that Kosovo is not a state and it's part of Serbia.