^Good video.

Gnullberg - I'm trying very hard to imagine you explaining a typical Russian that his country should just do what Obama says because west is best! Your argument will certainly make a lasting impression.

Seriously though, you and your chancellor can "express your concern" to Putin as much as you want, but as long as she's not *doing* anything about it, nobody cares. If this is out-of-context USA bashing then reality dislikes the USA.

To answer your off-topic question: China, though currently having many problems, will certainly challenge the western lifestyle in future. A stable, quickly growing economy with little debt has lots of advantages to our western societies that struggle with record debt. China has many weaknesses compared to western democracies, but I prefer competition and freedom of choice to saying that the western lifestyle is perfect, doesn't need an update, and a single superpower should have cultural, political and economic hegemony over the whole world.

The time is very near where every sane person in the Western World...will look back at 'Pax Americana' with nostalgia.

Psssh, naw man. I caught Yellow Fever while I was back in Thailand and never really shook it. Doctor said the only cure is to move east, drink tea daily and become a trophy husband to an Asian girl.

Seeing as the next global financial center isn't gonna be New York City much longer and a lot of experts are pointing to Honk Kong or Singapore (some even say Beijing, yeah right :P) I might live somewhere around there, better job opportunities.

Gnullberg, you're right the world is shades of gray, but action is black and white. Whether anyone here agrees with me on Russia having a legitimate claim or not, Russia is there and unlikely to pull out.

Qi, you pretty much summed up the situation, but politics won't likely play out that way between the US and USSR. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis where Kennedy came back and claimed victory? Khrushchev had seen it as a mutual gain for both nations since the US agreed to take missiles out of Turkey, but because it was a "private agreement" and few knew about it at the time it looked like an American victory and the USSR was humiliated (not to mention the US didn't actually pull their missiles out). I'm sure Putin learned from this experience and Obama is trying to play the Kennedy role here (and losing badly).

General viewers - I never said it was right, though I do believe Russia has claims to the Crimea. I said it made sense and Russia is trying to secure its borders and expand its advantage. America has been rebuilding her empire and it's only natural that if Russia is to remain a world power they need to do the same. Hence the reason I called this a power play. Russia and US don't really care about what a handful of second rate European countries have to say in all this, though they want these second rate countries on their side because in the game of Super Powers, we're the pawns.

Come on guys, you really think anything in terms of power and politics has changed since the Cold War? I mean okay, a bit has, but the animosity towards each other and concern for national security, economic development and a strong military is still there. So what really changed?

What changed: Closer economic, political, and cultural ties as well as bigger, badder militaries and governments capable of totalitarian actions at the drop of a hat (PRISM, Patriot Act, Great Firewalls, etc.). Beauty and the Beast.

Extension to off-topic argument:

If Russia were a mere pawn on the world stage, what would have happened to Edward Snowden? He would face decades in some US prison, tortured, maybe even executed. Every single European "free democracy" turned his asylum application down, with excuses ranging from "no comment" to "applicant has to be on country's soil". Don't think the USA will do the right thing because they are good. They will only do it out of necessity.

Yeah, and Russia has not gained anything from Snowden. Russia acted solely on principle.

Nobody said Russia acted out of altruism. Russia acted out of self-interest, trying to make itself look good and the USA bad. The point is that Russia doesn't need to do what the USA says and that has good sides too.

I think Qi was implying they wanted the information Snowden has/had.

That's also a possible motivation. Snowden himself has said that he doesn't have the documents anymore. He gave them to several reporters and then deleted his own copies. If that really happened is up to speculation of course.

A somewhat similar situation to the crisis in the Crimea: America's annexation of Texas.

Mexico gained independence in 1821. Almost immediately, the Mexican government wanted settlers to deal with the Native Americans who vastly outnumbered the "Mexicans" in the north. So the Mexican government passed laws to encourage American immigrants to enter "Texas," own land, and follow Mexican law (eg, no slavery). By the mid 1830s the American population was about 40,000, the black slave population was about 5000, the Native American population was about 4000, and the "Mexican" population was about 4000. So the Mexican government changed its immigration laws, stopped trading as much with the US, and tried to crack down on Ameircans who didn't obey Mexican laws. The "Texans" declared independence with the short-lived Republic of Texas (1836-1846). Eventually, the US government (Congress and president) decided to annex Texas, as manifest destiny, nationalism, feelings of superiority (vis-a-vis Mexico and Mexicans),and jingoism ruled the day. The annexation of Texas led to the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), whereby American gobbled up half of Mexican territory.

Similarities with the Crimea:
(1) Long-term Causes of Conflict: manifest destiny, nationalism, jingoism, feelings of superiority (Russia vis-a-vis the Ukraine)
(2) Short-term Causes of Conflict: a surge in the population of the majority group followed by
the majority group ignoring or flaunting the laws of the sovereign country
(3) Result of Conflict: Republic of Texas is created, Mexican-American War unfolds vs the Russians just want immediate annexation (will there be war?)

Differences:
(1) Time Scale: Crimea's connection to Russia dates back to the 1700s! What happened in Texas occurred in about 15 years.
(2) Epochal Differences: In the 1800s, international law, diplomacy, the influences of media and world opinion, and international relations were much different. Then, it was acceptable to annex land from another sovereign state using questionable casus belli. Now, it is not (eg, War in Iraq: few would say this was a just war, and most outside of the US and the UK thought it was unjust when this war began).

Obviously, the annexation of Texas and Russia's attempts to annex Crimea are two unique events, with a whole host of differences. The above is simply a superficial delineation to illustrate that such actions are not new and maybe there are patterns (not necessarily to learn from from the perspective policy-making, but to better understand the dynamics taking place).

Imo Texas is a good example to predict how the population itself in the contested area will act. On how other countries will act it is rather old.

I think the relevant aspects in Crimea are:

1) Russia wants more power, and so do the western countries. Both parties are interested in bringing as much of Ukraine as possible under their sphere of influence. Russia has currently more means to force its interests (its military).

Russia has more at stake than the west. They have economic interests (including the planned Eurasian Union) as well as the nationalistic mainstream that wants Russia to be active on the world stage. Doing anything else would be a disappointment to these people.

2) The population in western parts of Ukraine prefers ties to Europe to ties to Russia. The southern and eastern parts of Ukraine seem to be of mixed opinion.

The Crimean population consists by majority of Russian-speaking Russian nationals who seemingly don't trust the current government in Kiev. They have strong linguistic, cultural, and historical ties to Russia. They want either more autonomy, or an annexation by Russia.

If a referendum is being held in Crimea that clearly favors an annexation, the west will face great difficulties if trying to prevent it. Managing Crimea's population should not be difficult for Putin, as the majority of them is russophile.

If annexed, the Crimea will prove to be a bitter pill to swallow, and the source of Russia's accelerated demographic decline (based on current trends).

Russia's demographic situation is not good. In the coming decades its population is expected to decline by 20-40%, and the people serve the interests of the state (and mafia).

Annex the Crimea in a way that causes outrage in the West and Beijing (the CCP leadership and other countries with veritable empires do not want the precedent of an outside power forcing a separist movement in their autonomous regions) and there will be serious economic sanctions that postpone Russia's development even further.

A partial return to Soviet foreign policy practices would lead to a partial return to Soviet economic problems.

The West is essentially playing this end game. Is this what Putin wants? Or is he so intelligent that he thinks (a) Russia's energy resources (that benefit the oligarchs: see western Canada for how energy profits could be redistributed to provincial citizens) are enough to satisfy his constituents (the oligarchs) and (b) acting tough is enough to placate nationalist fervor (which his regime's media controls and education system encouraged in the first place: see China for how state propaganda uses nationalism to buttress state domestic and foreign policy) and thereby satisfy enough of the masses (a Marxist-Stalinist political vocabulary somehow still seems permissible in Russia if Putin reverts to hammer-and-sickle tactics) to keep up democratic pretenses preserved by secret police, paid thugs and protesters, manipulated elections, media control, and other strong-arm methods to keep the people's aspirations in check.

Also, a clear break with the Crimea could set in motion a more pronounced Westernization in what remains of the Ukraine, as it is freed from Russian influence and enters the embrace of the West. Does Russia want a partial return to the days of West and East Germany? In this case, the Russia populace would be juxtaposed with the Ukrainian: the one marching toward a Eurasian future based on Soviet-style statecraft and Saudi-style oligarchy, the other modernizing in step with EU development plans, advice, and aid.

The end game of that is another messy revolution, this time in Russia.

Edited 3/11/2014 01:13:37

1) Is there any evidence that economic turmoil would cause population decline is Russia? Soviet demographic statistics don't show historical correlation between the two.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Population_of_Russia.PNG

In fact, the two values might be inversely correlated.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1532/3023.full

2) Overall, the analysis seems sound. Now that China has taken a stance similar to the West, Russia is being threatened by economic ostracization to some degree. As large Russian enterprises have lost considerable stock value, Putin's constituent oligarchs might indeed expect a change of policy or start searching for a new president.

I thinck putin is great president
But is action might cause an other war in europe wich ant new look threw history
Wars in europe are more comin then you think but the diff is that now there arnt just european wars but
World wars and the weapons are 10x more powerful then a 100 years ago ( Ww1 1914) but we are a smarter generation witch means war ant a option for any one exsept north korea

So crimea well be part of russia
Russia will be the same
Usa want do anything because of its people distrusting there government
EU dont know for im american
China getting stronger
South america in a revolution
Africa still the same
Middle east ¿.....?

Edited 3/12/2014 14:46:36

^ This man is the worst representation of an American.

WARLORD, if you're going to comment please speak English. You are not texting your bitches at high school, speak like you have some stature and intelligence.

Its cool man i dont got time for your ass and blacklist me plz


Your the worst representation of an american your all ways talking bad about your own ppl instead of trying to help them, open their minds you put them down
You are just a little speck that thinks you better then everyone else
In reality me and you are in the same spot we need to be better then this

I dont know why you hate me so much

Edited 3/12/2014 23:43:06

Are you gonna blacklist all my accounts? No, I might keep one of them secret and just bug you like hell.

You hate every one that is diffrent you ant better then anyonne

You need to think diffrent and not put down your own country but help us become better as a country

Ill just black list every account you have

Oh my...you know, that really hurt my feelings XD

No, I've spoken to you before. You have this "Americas is better than everyone" pride, and I told you "you're wrong". America hasn't been a world leader since the cold war (correct me if I'm wrong, Qi). And I personally blame femenazis for ruining freedoms relating to speech. Just look at recent news! Now there's a campaign for banning the word "bossy". Its claimed to promote women and little girls into becoming rolemodels. But just look who's funding the campaign for feminists.....Condoleeza Rice, and Beyonce. Beyonce claims to support feminism, but simply look at her husband, Jay-z. Music referring to women as "Ho's and bitches". I'd say she should start her feminist campaign there instead. And Condoleeza rice, member of the Bush administration, which lead an bombing in Iraq which killed thousands of women. This is one step closer to running America into the ground.

So, no. I have little faith in the USA at the moment.