It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Euphoria over ‘return’ of Crimea has passed among Russians

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Report: Euphoria over ‘return’ of Crimea has passed among Russians
March 30, 2015 Yekaterina Sinelschikova, RBTH
A new report suggests that the number of Russians who see the acquisition of Crimea in 2014 one year ago as a positive achievement is decreasing. The authors of the report believe that the reason for that is the fading of the initial euphoria over the "Crimean Spring." But political analysts say that this is a trend – a reassessment of last year's action by the authorities is underway in the country.

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

The new study by independent sociological research organization Levada Center, titled "Crimea and the Expansion of Russian Borders," shows that while the majority of Russians still believe that the acquisition of the peninsula was a great achievement whose positive effects will be felt in the future, the share of those convinced of this has fallen from 79 to 69 percent compared to last year.
In addition, more and more people are starting to believe that the events of the past year are instead indicative of a growing adventurism by the Russian leadership, which is seeking to distract Russians from social and economic problems (the percentage of Russians who believe this has increased from nine to 14 percent since March 2014).

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

Although the awareness of the problems associated with the acquisition of Crimea has grown over the year, while people with higher levels of education and income have become less supportive of the decision taken by the leadership, this is no reason to speak of a trend to decrease support, says the sociologist.


Russia Behind The Headlines [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

This survey speaks for itself. As better informed Russians evaluate the situation, they are beginning to see how problematical the idea of having a Russian enclave on the peninsula is. There is no safe land route for goods and people, making it necessary to utilize ships and ferries to provision the populace. A proposed bridge is too expensive and will take too long to build. Crimea lacks any real economic asset besides its location; it is a year round port. The new oblast is likely to require more tax money than it provides the central government.

On the whole, Russia would have been better off if it simply continued to pay rent on its naval bases.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I get the impression you believe this. Why is that?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


Probably he does because it does not seem to be a Russian government propaganda piece and because, evidently, he may have a bit of knowledge about the whole situation.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: DJW001

I get the impression you believe this. Why is that?


I get the impression you do not believe this. Why is that?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


On the whole, Russia would have been better off if it simply continued to pay rent on its naval bases.


How can you believe this? Do you really think the current Ukrainian government, NATO and the US would let Russia keep the navel base maybe along side of NATO ships/subs and warheads? It was the reason NATO wanted Crimea in the first place. Russia was not stupid. Sentiment might be changing from an NGO perspective but not from my sources.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: stanislas

If NATO wanted Crimea, it would have sent in a fleet to blockade it. Kyiv would have allowed Russia to keep its bases because that would be a reliable income stream, and allowed Ukraine to maintain "neutrality" in a military sense, even though it strengthened its economic ties with Western Europe. Naturally, it would never have become a member of NATO in this case. Unfortunately, now that Ukraine has lost Crimea.to.Putin's greed, there is no real incentive not to join NATO!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: stanislas
Really?? NATO would have sent its fleet if it wanted Crimea? You are joking right? If NATO wanted CRIMEA directly in such a way it would have automatically declared war with Russia. Where do you come up with this stuff?

You really have your head screwed the wrong way around and you are making assumptions that would make global geo politicians laugh out loud. And Putin's greed? Really...

There is no incentive not to join NATO? I am guessing your talking about the new leadership in Ukraine right? Now I am interested. Tell me why? Why would they want to join and how is that so detrimental to Crimea?

NATO is 22% funded by the US and 18% funded by Germany, what's in it for these two countries and where is the benefit for Ukraine?

Can you spell it out because right now, all I see is IMF lending money, GMO's coming in cheap... not that much for a future in Ukraine. As my Crimean friends say, saved just in time.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: stanislas

Putin's aggression has reminded all of the former SSRs and Soviet satellites that they are vulnerable militarily. Why on Earth do you assume NATO was in the least interested in Crimea, when it has a stranglehold on the Black Sea with Turkey as a member? Your understanding of geopolitics is sad, rather than risible.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I believe you are totally wrong in that "assumption" because that is what it is an "assumption". Russia has not been aggressive but has been protecting its interests and its own borders. Any other country would do the same if they could.

The fact that you call it "Putin aggression" rather than Russian aggression says it all to me. You are following the mainstream narrative from Washington/Media and I have proof that they lie all the time.

NATO has been interested in what? What do you think that is? Why does NATO exist today? What is their purpose?

You can be as sad as you like about my geopolitical views, I am far from being alone and especially in the international arena.

Answer my above questions please. I am enjoying this conversation but time for bed. Will continue tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Crimea has been part of Russia since 1783. I'm not saying Putins actions were justified here. But 69% of the population still think it was a good idea. I don't see how this is seen as any sort of drastic shift in thinking. If they held a vote right now to join Russia it would pass. To me this is simply more propaganda to vilify Russia as some sort of aggressor.
edit on 1-4-2015 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Quoting a "negativity" figure that has gone from a tiny 9% to an almost as tiny 14%, really just shows how positive the feeling of the re-acquisition actually is.

In the US, 74% of people believe in an invisible magical being, of whom, apparently, loves us, yet kills members of our families, in sometimes awful ways, whenever it feels like it. Yet there is no evidence that it even exists.

What's your point again?


edit on 1-4-2015 by Meduzi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Meduzi


What's your point again?


Dissatisfaction with the acquisition of Crimea by order of Putin (it was not put to a vote in Russia) is trending upwards. If Svoboda getting 5% of the vote means the government is Kyiv is Nazi, what does it mean when 14% of Russians disapprove of Putin's policies? Revolution?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980


If they held a vote right now to join Russia it would pass.


This is a survey of Russians, not Crimeans. The Russians had no choice in the matter. If their tax money gets thrown into a bottomless pit on the Black Sea, there is nothing they can do about it.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stanislas


The fact that you call it "Putin aggression" rather than Russian aggression says it all to me. You are following the mainstream narrative from Washington/Media and I have proof that they lie all the time.


And I have proof that Russian media lies. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.


NATO has been interested in what?


After the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO went through a period where it looked like it no longer served a purpose. It was designed as a mutual defense treaty, but for a brief while it appeared that the formation of the EU and the collapse of the Soviet Union made the prospect of war in Europe seem ludicrous. The dissolution of Yugoslavia brought war back to Europe. More recently, NATO has served to provide cover for projecting power internationally in order to shore up domestic politics. The return of war to Europe (thank you, Mr. Putin) has left the alliance paralyzed. They know they should enforce the Budapest Memorandum, but they blanch at the thought of engaging a near-peer military.


What do you think that is?


Right now, they are interested in avoiding a fight that they are bound by agreement to fight.


Why does NATO exist today?


Because they did not disband when they should have. The European nations thought it looked like a cheap alternative to building the capacity to project force internationally on their own.


What is their purpose?


See above. If they do not give Putin a bloody nose they might as well disband now.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Incidentally, I don't expect to see any of the usual Putin fans contributing to this thread. They will award stars but don't dare bump it.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
I get the impression you do not believe this. Why is that?


Curious... it's absent on Levada's web site...
www.levada.ru...

o_O

It certainly isn't absent because they shy away from controversial polls and results, because their list has many such topics, most with more potential for public scrutiny than this propaganda in the OP. It would have also been nice for there to have been some sort of statistics placed on the claim "people with higher levels of education and income have become less supportive of the decision taken by the leadership." What are we talking here? 1% difference between higher educated and lower educated opinions, or 50% difference? That difference could well fall within the standard error and background noise and, since they went out of their way to make a divisive comment such as that and provided no empirical data to support that claim (while going into great empirical detail on the rest of the poll), the most logical solution is to reject the claim for unsubstantiation.

(oh, and 69% favorable? US politicians would KILL and have killed for 69% approval ratings for a controversial action. Democrats soiled themselves in 2010 when polls showed 50-51% American public approval of Obamacare, calling it a "clear statement of voter approval" and yet we're sitting here expected to point and laugh at 69% approval over the annexation of Crimea?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Incidentally, I don't expect to see any of the usual Putin fans contributing to this thread. They will award stars but don't dare bump it.


Out of 7 members positing in the thread, 2 have supported the OP theory (and that 2 includes yourself, OP) while 5 have questioned it... Are we trying to make our own reality again?


I believe the poll, but I find the poll's attempt at manufacturing conclusions to be... lacking. One could even call it propagandized, baseless horsecrap if one was so inclined.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Well, that's because most of us know when is enough! I mean, don't you think it's time to let some other members discuss this whole situation, and not just the same people on both sides? Plus, it's a work day, so I'm guessing people are working right now...including you.


But i will add one thing though. If you seriously don't know why is Crimea so important to both sides, then I think you've got no right to expect anyone to believe in what you are saying, because it just shows a lack of understanding from your side. It basically shows that you've got no idea what you are talking about, and all that you really do is post what is the MSM reporting!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: stanislas

I think Putin saw the weakness of Obama and WENT for it. NOTHING will seperate them from it and I think it would be a mistake to try as they have saught that asset for decades and will sacrifice MUCH to keep it.
Ukraine?
Not sure, at a guess maybe the launch facilities there but it scares the world when countries try to gobble up others so they should have just left well enough alone,instead of pushing so hard.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
NATO should have been abolished and Russia and the US SHOULD have linked up to co-develop. BUT bankers wouldn't like that THEY wanted the money instead,so HERE we are cold war 2.
Russia: all crowded into a small piece of their continent and the US with MILLIONS of restless people without a purpose.
DAMN shame.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join