[quote from="Kalevala_R" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/546736-self-determination-of-crimea?comment=21"]However, if they do desire to leave the Ukraine and join Russia, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Having a pro-Russian faction seize control of the local government by force and invite in the Russian Army is the wrong way.
What if the pro-West Ukrainians prevented the pro-Russia Ukrainians from having their way "legally", and the pro-Russia Ukrainians really wanted their way?
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.Ukraine's new government (conditionally radicals) will keep your teeth for the sovereignty of the nation, otherwise they will fall into the minus rating.But at the same time, Russia will never reduce the number of troops in the Crimea, is an extremely important strategic outlet to the Black Sea (Mediterranean Sea so too).But there is one more detail. In Crimea does not have its fresh water. It comes with all the basic territory of Ukraine, and any serious division lead to overlap the channel. So, the autonomy of Crimea - is not only the desire of the population
Three posts ever all of which support the Russian narrative about Ukraine. Imperfect English. Jump from talking point to talking point without reason.
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.Ukraine's new government (conditionally radicals) will keep your teeth for the sovereignty of the nation, otherwise they will fall into the minus rating.But at the same time, Russia will never reduce the number of troops in the Crimea, is an extremely important strategic outlet to the Black Sea (Mediterranean Sea so too).But there is one more detail. In Crimea does not have its fresh water. It comes with all the basic territory of Ukraine, and any serious division lead to overlap the channel. So, the autonomy of Crimea - is not only the desire of the population
Three posts ever all of which support the Russian narrative about Ukraine. Imperfect English. Jump from talking point to talking point without reason.
Fascinating.
Indeed. Maybe we should go build a strong pro-US contingent in Moscow, then annex it for the United States.
Ideally, we'd all **** off and let them determine it themselves. If things get bloody, we can consider nonfiscal intervention. (Likely sanctions)
Since it seems that everyone has resorted to bribery and meddling, I think that its the duty of the international community to restore neutrality, then **** off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
What if the pro-West Ukrainians prevented the pro-Russia Ukrainians from having their way "legally", and the pro-Russia Ukrainians really wanted their way?
What if they did? To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a referendum on the issue, or a petition of the government in Kiev and the international community for recognition. Every indication is that this is not a grassroots secession movement, like the Catalans and the Scots have. This is astroturf.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What if the pro-West Ukrainians prevented the pro-Russia Ukrainians from having their way "legally", and the pro-Russia Ukrainians really wanted their way?
What if they did? To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a referendum on the issue, or a petition of the government in Kiev and the international community for recognition. Every indication is that this is not a grassroots secession movement, like the Catalans and the Scots have. This is astroturf.
If Crimea had a grassroots uprising against Ukraine and demanded independence, it'd be an interesting case. They would have a strong case for it - they have only been a part of Ukraine since the 1950s and are culturally somewhat distinct from the rest of the country. It's somewhat similar to Scotland independence, Quebec independence, etc.
Okay, hypothetically, if the Crimeans wanted sovereignty, they should (1) collect facts to determine the exact nature of their grievances; (2) petition the Ukrainian government for redress; if that fails, (3) engage in nonviolent civil disobedience to undermine the government's authority and draw international attention to the injustice; possibly (4) invite U.N. peacekeepers in to oversee the transition fairly; and finally, if the government's response is heavy and violent suppression, (5) defend themselves through force of arms.
(5) is the trickiest step to determine whether it's appropriate. The determining variables are the level of violence and the level of information freedom. If faced with relatively low-grade police brutality, and if the cameras are rolling, the best option is to stay the nonviolent course and maintain the moral high ground. It works; ask Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But if the government is willing and able to simply torture and/or kill large numbers of people and sweep it under the rug, then tragically civil war is the only option. And it's tragic not just because of the escalation of the violence, but because it's far less likely to have a happy ending. In war, there is a lot of blood and no guarantees.
Because we have treaties with the sovereign state of Ukraine to honor.
Can you link this treaty you speak of? From what I understand the US responsibilities to Ukraine are ambigious, at best. Besides, we will not go to war with another nuclear nation over Crimea.
While I agree that we won't go to war with another nuclear power, we did sign a treaty with Ukraine that promised protection by the US in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes (though really, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. If it had, it wouldn't be having this problem right now).
I personally think that Crimea should be allowed to have its vote on staying part of Ukraine, becoming an independent country, or joining Russia on the 30th. Let the people do what they want to do.
Read the Wiki:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated as a political agreement. It refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."
It gives a smallish moral obligation to support Ukraine against aggressors. It doesn't require any kind of intervention and definitely doesn't require a military intervention.
I think that's an important point: I'm not (and Valanarch did not) advocating use of military force by the United States in Ukraine. I'm not in favor of a shooting war with Russia.
It gives a smallish moral obligation to support Ukraine against aggressors. It doesn't require any kind of intervention and definitely doesn't require a military intervention.
I think that's an important point: I'm not (and Valanarch did not) advocating use of military force by the United States in Ukraine. I'm not in favor of a shooting war with Russia.
And what I'm asking is....whats in it for the US other than some moral obligation? Is the US the worlds policeman or arent we? I just wish we'd make up our mind, one way or the other...
I understand those who say they do not want a military intervention. What I do not understand is how can you then say you want economic sanctions? Sanctions in lieu of military action is short sighted. If the sanctions and diplomcy do not work, what then? You've already ruled out the next step. Need a real threat of escalation.
For the record, I think this is really a non-issue. I think this is posturing and a solution will be reached with out any real dimplomatic trouble. I could be wrong though.
It gives a smallish moral obligation to support Ukraine against aggressors. It doesn't require any kind of intervention and definitely doesn't require a military intervention.
I think that's an important point: I'm not (and Valanarch did not) advocating use of military force by the United States in Ukraine. I'm not in favor of a shooting war with Russia.
And what I'm asking is....whats in it for the US other than some moral obligation? Is the US the worlds policeman or arent we? I just wish we'd make up our mind, one way or the other...
I understand those who say they do not want a military intervention. What I do not understand is how can you then say you want economic sanctions? Sanctions in lieu of military action is short sighted. If the sanctions and diplomcy do not work, what then? You've already ruled out the next step. Need a real threat of escalation.
I don't think that's true. I mean, if Putin was the next Castro or Saddam Hussein, yes, it's true, but Russia isn't an insular dictatorship. Russia is still a democracy where public opinion matters (not, like, the most free and open democracy in the world, but not a one party "democracy", either), and economic pressure on the Russian people has enough influence to force Putin to think twice.
Put it this way: I agree that a diplomatic solution is likely to be reached, but I think that's only possible because of the pressure the rest of the world is bringing to bear. If the US and EU had done and said nothing, Putin would likely have kept going.
...Russia isn't an insular dictatorship. Russia is still a democracy where public opinion matters (not, like, the most free and open democracy in the world, but not a one party "democracy", either), and economic pressure on the Russian people has enough influence to force Putin to think twice.
I don't think you know much about Russian "democracy" then.
Sure, economics and public opinion have an influence on Putin; they had an influence on Hussein and Pol Pot too. That doesn't make the country a democracy; Putin and his party have been very assiduous in undermining and delegitimizing the public and private institutions which are essential for a democracy to operate. Putin can claim the veneer of popular support, but regardless of how much support he actually enjoys, the structure of the country and the security forces is sufficient to allow him (or his ideological successor) to remain in power essentially indefinitely.
You know why the Euromaidan could never happen in Moscow? Because Putin's police would break up those protests before they got a foothold in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
If Crimea joins Russia under the current circumstances, I cannot accept the legitimacy of it, with armed soldiers - who totally aren't from Russia, guys - everywhere and the question of whether there was Quorum is unclear. Also that 60% Russian population statistic is based on the 2001 Census: The numbers are bound to have shifted in 13 years, and I'd be curious to see what the real makeup is. I'm not saying it is now miraculously 80% Ukrainian, but we'd want a more accurate picture. I can recognise that it's the de facto situation, but it won't be de jure in my eyes.
From wiki-
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.[27][28] The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture," marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire.[29][30] The General Secretary of the Communist Party in Soviet Union was at the time the Ukranian Nikita Khrushchev.
Besides that, Crimea had been de facto Russian territory since the late 18th century, and part of the Kievan Rus, which both Ukraine and Russia consider as its cultural and historical ancestor.
Heck, one can even argue that Ukraine was considered a part of Russia for much of history as well. The very existence of Ukraine is very new, after all.
...Russia isn't an insular dictatorship. Russia is still a democracy where public opinion matters (not, like, the most free and open democracy in the world, but not a one party "democracy", either), and economic pressure on the Russian people has enough influence to force Putin to think twice.
I don't think you know much about Russian "democracy" then.
Sure, economics and public opinion have an influence on Putin; they had an influence on Hussein and Pol Pot too. That doesn't make the country a democracy; Putin and his party have been very assiduous in undermining and delegitimizing the public and private institutions which are essential for a democracy to operate. Putin can claim the veneer of popular support, but regardless of how much support he actually enjoys, the structure of the country and the security forces is sufficient to allow him (or his ideological successor) to remain in power essentially indefinitely.
You know why the Euromaidan could never happen in Moscow? Because Putin's police would break up those protests before they got a foothold in the first place.
There's a large gap between "Putin can't be forced from power" and "Putin can do whatever he wants without regard to how his people perceive it." Russia's democracy is a sham, but still sufficient to allow pressure to be brought to bear on Putin through international pressure on his people in a way that is literally not possible in dealing with the Saddams and Castros of the world.
We won't be able to force him to back down on Crimea, but we might be able to make him think twice about going after, say, Odessa.
I know the Crimea was considered part of Russia Proper for a long time. I just consider that the present circumstances of its repatriation to be illegal. Gibraltar was considered part of Spain Proper for a long time, and if they marched in and occupied it today I would object.
Is there any laws in place that states that cannot reclaim territory at will?
Should Crimea have the right to either declare its independence or join the Russian Federation?
I think Crimea does have the right to declare independence; however, the problem is that the circumstances under which the referendum arose has very low probability of any legitimacy. This is clearly posturing from the Russian government.
If Crimea had wanted to secede before armed gunmen held public buildings hostage, installed a new government, and then announced a referendum to secede literally a week or two after, I would be completely indifferent toward Crimean secession.
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.
Blinking Spirit has the right idea. Even if Crimea had wanted to secede, having a foreign entity seize control of the region militarily is a dangerous precedent to set and I think something that most of the world will be wary to accept.
If Russia gets Crimea, it will open up a whole can of worms. China will certainly be overjoyed and nervous all at the same time. We need Obama out of the president's seat fast. He is not a competent president. This type of shenanigans would never have happened under Bush or any recent president.
Should Crimea have the right to either declare its independence or join the Russian Federation?
I think Crimea does have the right to declare independence; however, the problem is that the circumstances under which the referendum arose has very low probability of any legitimacy. This is clearly posturing from the Russian government.
If Crimea had wanted to secede before armed gunmen held public buildings hostage, installed a new government, and then announced a referendum to secede literally a week or two after, I would be completely indifferent toward Crimean secession.
The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population, consider themselves Russian and gladly agreed to receive Russian citizenship. But there are some factors that hinder conditionally.
Blinking Spirit has the right idea. Even if Crimea had wanted to secede, having a foreign entity seize control of the region militarily is a dangerous precedent to set and I think something that most of the world will be wary to accept.
If Russia gets Crimea, it will open up a whole can of worms. China will certainly be overjoyed and nervous all at the same time. We need Obama out of the president's seat fast. He is not a competent president. This type of shenanigans would never have happened under Bush or any recent president.
And Russia invading Georgia in 2008 was what again?
From wiki-
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.[27][28] The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture," marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire.[29][30] The General Secretary of the Communist Party in Soviet Union was at the time the Ukranian Nikita Khrushchev.
Besides that, Crimea had been de facto Russian territory since the late 18th century, and part of the Kievan Rus, which both Ukraine and Russia consider as its cultural and historical ancestor.
Heck, one can even argue that Ukraine was considered a part of Russia for much of history as well. The very existence of Ukraine is very new, after all.
Crimea wasn't transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR as a symbolic gesture; it was transferred because Crimea depends on the mainland for essentially all of its water, food, and electricity. Crimea as part of Russia was a historical accident, a product of the organization of the Empire during the Crimean War; it has no real bearing here.
Is there any laws in place that states that cannot reclaim territory at will?
You'd have an argument here only 1) if Crimea had not been legally transferred between the two (at the time) subnational entities, of which the two modern states are the successors; and 2) if Russia had not agreed publicly that Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine, and could not be separated without its consent.
Your analogy is like saying that Austria has every right to conquer the Czech Republic and Hungary, because they used to be part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
There's a large gap between "Putin can't be forced from power" and "Putin can do whatever he wants without regard to how his people perceive it." Russia's democracy is a sham, but still sufficient to allow pressure to be brought to bear on Putin through international pressure on his people in a way that is literally not possible in dealing with the Saddams and Castros of the world.
We won't be able to force him to back down on Crimea, but we might be able to make him think twice about going after, say, Odessa.
Sorry, what do you think forces Putin to do something if it isn't the threat of being removed from power? If Putin's power is absolutely secure, why does he need to worry at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
And Russia invading Georgia in 2008 was what again?
That was a response to Georgian troops opening fire on Russian troops stationed as peacekeepers.
Obama isn't doing much of anything because the US and the rest of the West has nothing to gain from imposing sanctions on Russia. It'd be a stupid idea not because Russia is some unstoppable juggernaut but because the sanctions would hurt the West just as much.
My point is that Russia did invade and occupy portions of another country under Bush. Him saying that this wouldn't have happened under Bush is simply false.
The numbers are in, and 95.5% of Crimeans apparently voted to join Russia. That sounds like an absolutely trustworthy and legitimate result.
I'd love to meet that 4.5%.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The numbers are in, and 95.5% of Crimeans apparently voted to join Russia. That sounds like an absolutely trustworthy and legitimate result.
Ukraine economically sucks, this is what I expected all along that this would occur. Russia will pay a price, though, in the effect that it has already made Baltic states with ethnic Russians on guard against them.
Quote from Senori[/quote »
I'd love to meet that 4.5%.
They're fleeing to Ukraine proper now. Others will just assimilate into Crimean Russia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What if the pro-West Ukrainians prevented the pro-Russia Ukrainians from having their way "legally", and the pro-Russia Ukrainians really wanted their way?
What can they do?
Three posts ever all of which support the Russian narrative about Ukraine. Imperfect English. Jump from talking point to talking point without reason.
Fascinating.
Indeed. Maybe we should go build a strong pro-US contingent in Moscow, then annex it for the United States.
Since it seems that everyone has resorted to bribery and meddling, I think that its the duty of the international community to restore neutrality, then **** off.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
What if they did? To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a referendum on the issue, or a petition of the government in Kiev and the international community for recognition. Every indication is that this is not a grassroots secession movement, like the Catalans and the Scots have. This is astroturf.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Meant to be a hypothetical.
(5) is the trickiest step to determine whether it's appropriate. The determining variables are the level of violence and the level of information freedom. If faced with relatively low-grade police brutality, and if the cameras are rolling, the best option is to stay the nonviolent course and maintain the moral high ground. It works; ask Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But if the government is willing and able to simply torture and/or kill large numbers of people and sweep it under the rug, then tragically civil war is the only option. And it's tragic not just because of the escalation of the violence, but because it's far less likely to have a happy ending. In war, there is a lot of blood and no guarantees.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Read the Wiki:
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It gives a smallish moral obligation to support Ukraine against aggressors. It doesn't require any kind of intervention and definitely doesn't require a military intervention.
I think that's an important point: I'm not (and Valanarch did not) advocating use of military force by the United States in Ukraine. I'm not in favor of a shooting war with Russia.
And what I'm asking is....whats in it for the US other than some moral obligation? Is the US the worlds policeman or arent we? I just wish we'd make up our mind, one way or the other...
I understand those who say they do not want a military intervention. What I do not understand is how can you then say you want economic sanctions? Sanctions in lieu of military action is short sighted. If the sanctions and diplomcy do not work, what then? You've already ruled out the next step. Need a real threat of escalation.
For the record, I think this is really a non-issue. I think this is posturing and a solution will be reached with out any real dimplomatic trouble. I could be wrong though.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Seriously though, the US probably won't gain anything from escalating this, so expect diplomacy and supplies rather than dronestrikes or whatever.
Art is life itself.
I don't think that's true. I mean, if Putin was the next Castro or Saddam Hussein, yes, it's true, but Russia isn't an insular dictatorship. Russia is still a democracy where public opinion matters (not, like, the most free and open democracy in the world, but not a one party "democracy", either), and economic pressure on the Russian people has enough influence to force Putin to think twice.
Put it this way: I agree that a diplomatic solution is likely to be reached, but I think that's only possible because of the pressure the rest of the world is bringing to bear. If the US and EU had done and said nothing, Putin would likely have kept going.
60% is overwhelming?
I don't think you know much about Russian "democracy" then.
Sure, economics and public opinion have an influence on Putin; they had an influence on Hussein and Pol Pot too. That doesn't make the country a democracy; Putin and his party have been very assiduous in undermining and delegitimizing the public and private institutions which are essential for a democracy to operate. Putin can claim the veneer of popular support, but regardless of how much support he actually enjoys, the structure of the country and the security forces is sufficient to allow him (or his ideological successor) to remain in power essentially indefinitely.
You know why the Euromaidan could never happen in Moscow? Because Putin's police would break up those protests before they got a foothold in the first place.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
From wiki-
On 19 February 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.[27][28] The transfer of the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine has been described as a "symbolic gesture," marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of the Russian Empire.[29][30] The General Secretary of the Communist Party in Soviet Union was at the time the Ukranian Nikita Khrushchev.
Besides that, Crimea had been de facto Russian territory since the late 18th century, and part of the Kievan Rus, which both Ukraine and Russia consider as its cultural and historical ancestor.
Heck, one can even argue that Ukraine was considered a part of Russia for much of history as well. The very existence of Ukraine is very new, after all.
There's a large gap between "Putin can't be forced from power" and "Putin can do whatever he wants without regard to how his people perceive it." Russia's democracy is a sham, but still sufficient to allow pressure to be brought to bear on Putin through international pressure on his people in a way that is literally not possible in dealing with the Saddams and Castros of the world.
We won't be able to force him to back down on Crimea, but we might be able to make him think twice about going after, say, Odessa.
Is there any laws in place that states that cannot reclaim territory at will?
If Crimea had wanted to secede before armed gunmen held public buildings hostage, installed a new government, and then announced a referendum to secede literally a week or two after, I would be completely indifferent toward Crimean secession.
Blinking Spirit has the right idea. Even if Crimea had wanted to secede, having a foreign entity seize control of the region militarily is a dangerous precedent to set and I think something that most of the world will be wary to accept.
If Russia gets Crimea, it will open up a whole can of worms. China will certainly be overjoyed and nervous all at the same time. We need Obama out of the president's seat fast. He is not a competent president. This type of shenanigans would never have happened under Bush or any recent president.
And Russia invading Georgia in 2008 was what again?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Crimea wasn't transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR as a symbolic gesture; it was transferred because Crimea depends on the mainland for essentially all of its water, food, and electricity. Crimea as part of Russia was a historical accident, a product of the organization of the Empire during the Crimean War; it has no real bearing here.
You'd have an argument here only 1) if Crimea had not been legally transferred between the two (at the time) subnational entities, of which the two modern states are the successors; and 2) if Russia had not agreed publicly that Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine, and could not be separated without its consent.
Your analogy is like saying that Austria has every right to conquer the Czech Republic and Hungary, because they used to be part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Sorry, what do you think forces Putin to do something if it isn't the threat of being removed from power? If Putin's power is absolutely secure, why does he need to worry at all?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
My point is that Russia did invade and occupy portions of another country under Bush. Him saying that this wouldn't have happened under Bush is simply false.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd love to meet that 4.5%.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Ukraine economically sucks, this is what I expected all along that this would occur. Russia will pay a price, though, in the effect that it has already made Baltic states with ethnic Russians on guard against them.
They're fleeing to Ukraine proper now. Others will just assimilate into Crimean Russia.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.