Ohhh, well, then that makes the annexation via military force totally fine.
Nonetheless, that's neither here nor there. You can't tell me Putin doesn't have aspirations of seeing a WARSAW-like pact again, and the Brexit could be a stepping stone towards that.
Why you call it military force? Do you remember Argentine-UK conflict? There was "military force". In Crimea no one was killed at time of "annexation", there was referendum with voting.Originally Posted by cdnmatt
I have 7 relatives who is living in Crimea now - 3 in Sevastopol (biggest city) and 4 in rural area. Everyone is happy with changes. I know it is small representation, but at least I have news from first hands: no nationalism and neo-nazi harassment anymore, no harassment from police, but still have some corruption in local government.
Moses. I respect your right to voice an opinion on any issues. I respect you as moderator. I do not think you can do both. It leads to a conflict of interest.
Moses (June 24th, 2016)
Agree with the first part. The second depends totally on how you define "any time soon". I suggest you read Paul Kennedy's excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". It's a good 30 years since he wrote it but the conclusions remain. Kennedy outlines the reasons why nations rise and, more importantly, why they fall. All empires fall - from the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, British etc. etc. He suggests that states at the peak of their power have usually by that time started a long period of economic decline which eventually makes it impossible for them to meet their defence commitments.
As an empire expands, so does the requirement for additional funding to police it. Thus there is a direct correlation between the creation of wealth and the military expenditure required to maintain the status of empire. The tipping point comes when too much of an empire's resources are devoted to military might. At various times since the start of the Cold War, the United States has substantially increased its military expenditure as a proportion of GDP. By the end of the Clinton Presidency it had dropped to around 3.5%. After 9/11, it rapidly increased to 4.6% in 2005, then 5% in 2008 and 5.7% in 2011. Obama has been able to reduce it again, but the USA is largely paying for it through printing money as a result of ongoing Quantitative Easing - effectively devaluing its currency (although you'd not think so today of all days!)
Ironically it is Trump who has hammered away at the over-expenditure though countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany not paying anything like their share of defence commitments. But the military's fondness for ever more lethal and up-to-date weapons alongside massive over-billing and rip-offs by contractors certainly doesn't help.
Like it or not China is already well on the way to becoming the next super power.
With the technological advances, the 2 million Chinese people employed by the government in the surveillance industry and a population of 1.4 billion (and rising) consumers China doesn't require the military strength that previous superpowers required. This will be a new form of colonialism and China will come to dominate the world like no other country ever has.
fountainhall (June 24th, 2016)
Thank you. I have rule: I never make moderation (excluding deleting of direct violations of rules such as spam, childporn and so on) of topics where I'm posting as a member of forum. Even without moderation I still have black triangle at the bottom left of each post and can call for Surfcrest's help (as everyone)
Alright Moses, fair enough.
Because the Russian military popped up during the domestic protests within Ukraine, and basically said, "ok, I think we'll own Crimea from now on"? A shot didn't need to be fired, because what the hell is Ukraine going to do against Russia? Ukraine isn't even a part of NATO, so they're basically defenseless, and definitely no match for Russia. Hell, Russia could probably bulldoze and annex the entire country in 72 hours if it wanted.
Then again, if the EU falls apart in the coming years, Russia may decide it's an opportune time to expand its aspirations. That could spell hell for the world.
Last edited by cdnmatt; June 24th, 2016 at 22:17.
The east part of Ukraine at time of spring 2014 already made the similar voting as Crimea did, and asked to be part of Russia. The answer was "no". Cuz Russia has enough problem with own land - it is undeveloped. The only people who say "Russia will take us" - are military weapon manufacturers and their lobbyists - they need explanation why they need so much money from budget and people who trust them.
Surfcrest (June 25th, 2016)
Are you Russian Moses? Because you are certainly pushing the Russian viewpoint. One country cannot chop off bits of another just because lots of the people who live there are historically and ethnically part of the larger (more aggressive) state. Moreover parts of a sovereign state cannot just hold their own referenda without the central government agreeing to it. The Ukraine crisis started because they looked towards the EU rather than Russia. So are you Russian?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote