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

a reply to: DJW001

Then I'll conclude that you'd like to withdraw your comment. I can respect that.

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: DJW001

Then I'll conclude that you'd like to withdraw your comment. I can respect that.

You can conclude whatever you want... even if your conclusion is wrong.

a reply to: DJW001

Nonsense. You asked me to comment on something that I didn't say. I asked you to clarify what you did say. Can you see the difference?

Again. Are you stating that supporting revanchism, means that, that person is likely to be fascist?

originally posted by: JAY1980
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.

1783 to 1954, I guess who owned it the last 60 years doesn't matter...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm completely in agreement with JAY1980 here. The problem was that the Ukrainian leader of the USSR, decided, without asking anyone what they wanted, to snip off Crimea from Russia, and hand it on a plate, to Ukraine. It's been a very sore point for those 60 years. If you were Russian, you would understand that. And that's why, Russians, overwhelmingly, support Putin on this.

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm completely in agreement with JAY1980 here. The problem was that the Ukrainian leader of the USSR, decided, without asking anyone what they wanted, to snip off Crimea from Russia, and hand it on a plate, to Ukraine. It's been a very sore point for those 60 years. If you were Russian, you would understand that. And that's why, Russians, overwhelmingly, support Putin on this.

Sore point or not, it became Ukrainian land in 1991 when Ukrainian became an independent country from Russia. I would think any talk about this should have taken place 25 years ago, not as what happened today. The old a day late, dollar short...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Russia had, itself, just become an independent state of the USSR, and had more than enough problems to deal with back then. A higher priority was to de-arm, a new nuclear state, on it's border. The US may very well have re-configured those weapons, had they stayed. Who knew for sure. But certainly, Ukraine had just become the world's third most powerful nuclear state.

Also, remember that those making the decisions back then, are not the people in power, now.

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm completely in agreement with JAY1980 here. The problem was that the Ukrainian leader of the USSR, decided, without asking anyone what they wanted, to snip off Crimea from Russia, and hand it on a plate, to Ukraine. It's been a very sore point for those 60 years. If you were Russian, you would understand that. And that's why, Russians, overwhelmingly, support Putin on this.

The problem is that Ukraine itself was a part of Russia historically. It is like saying that New Orleans is a part of America, and if Louisiana secedes from the United States again, New Orleans will remain a part of the United States. Russians applaud Putin's gambit because the down side has no voice. Eventually, Crimeans will start to move to Moscow and Peter in search of employment, and the locals will treat them with the contempt they usually show for Chechens and Kazakhs.

a reply to: DJW001

You've over analysed this. Crimea is often spoke about by grandparents - it's in living memory. Russians applaud Putin's gambit simply because most agree with Putin. You speak as if people are so uneducated and can only get their news spoon-fed via Russian media. The TV just doesn't have the central importance as it does in the West. You write as to show some knowledge, but it appears very academic and dated. Those under 40 are more likely to use the internet than the TV for news. The down-side, people feel, and still most wouldn't change a thing.

The residents of St. P. are very different than those of Moscow. And Russians from Crimea, look like Russians or are Tartars (and please don't try to explain Tartars). Most don't look like those from the Asian republics, and are likely, typically in Moscow, to be treated like anyone else not from the capital.

a reply to: DJW001

What did you expect .. for Russians to keep dancing and singing forever ..? lol
They have to get along with their jobs and lives to protect their nation .. the enemy is at the gates ..

a reply to: junglimogli

They have to get along with their jobs and lives to protect their nation .. the enemy is at the gates ..

No the enemy annexed them from a sovereign country.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: junglimogli

They have to get along with their jobs and lives to protect their nation .. the enemy is at the gates ..

No the enemy annexed them from a sovereign country.

You're wrong, period.

originally posted by: junglimogli
a reply to: DJW001

What did you expect .. for Russians to keep dancing and singing forever ..? lol
They have to get along with their jobs and lives to protect their nation .. the enemy is at the gates ..

The enemy is already inside the gates. Russian boys are dying and the man who ordered them to their death is covering it up.

a reply to: Meduzi

Russians applaud Putin's gambit simply because most agree with Putin.

Would they agree with Putin if they knew how much blood and treasure this annexation is eventually going to cost? That's my point: there was never a fact finding committee, never an independent "white paper," never an official cost benefit analysis, never a public debate or referendum in Russia, just post facto triumphalism.

a reply to: DJW001

Do you have access to news sources unavailable in Russia?

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: DJW001

Do you have access to news sources unavailable in Russia?

I'm not a Russian citizen, nor do I live in Russia, so I certainly have different news sources available. Why do you ask?

a reply to: DJW001

Because you appear to be suggesting, by your comment "if they knew", that your sources of information, must not be available within Russia. Otherwise, "they" would know.

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: DJW001

Because you appear to be suggesting, by your comment "if they knew", that your sources of information, must not be available within Russia. Otherwise, "they" would know.

Could you please link to a Russian source that discusses the potential negative financial impact of the annexation of Crimea? I know of none.

a reply to: DJW001

Why does it need to be Russian?

originally posted by: Meduzi
a reply to: DJW001

Why does it need to be Russian?

Because this thread is about how Russians really feel about the financial impact of a major decision they had no say in. Developing the infra-structure necessary to re-integrate Crimea with Russia without annexing all of Eastern Ukraine would be prohibitively expensive in terms of treasure. Annexing Eastern Ukraine has already cost a great deal of blood. In order to evaluate whether Putin's unilateral decision was wise, Russians would need access to such studies. I have seen no evidence that these studies, if they even exist, have been made known to the Russian public. If you do not know the implications of an act, how can you decide whether you approve it or not?