[B0ycey]

What nonsense. There's a reason secret services are called secret. Most of what they do cannot be proven, at least not by our legal standards. Should diplomacy therefore be oblivious of their actions?

No, they shouldn't be oblivious of such actions. They should investigate such actions. We are one of the most CCTV nations on the planet. We have one of the best intelligent agencies on the planet. And we track Russian collusion suspects and have documentation of movement of people to and from Russia. If we cannot provide evidence, one of two things have happened. Our intelligence and investigation agencies are not as good as we think they are or the Kremlin wasn't involved. You cannot find evidence if the evidence never existed in the first place.

[B0ycey]

The referendum in Crimea didn't need rigging, but from what we know (polls) such referendums would not have succeeded in the rest of Eastern Ukraine. You're peddling simplistic nonsense.

And East and West Ukraine remains united under one banner. Only Crimea has been annexed. So what is your point? That Russia didn't win an election that never took place?

[Atlantis]

What nonsense. There's a reason secret services are called secret. Most of what they do cannot be proven, at least not by our legal standards. Should diplomacy therefore be oblivious of their actions?

One has to stop and think to get at how you try to pervert the facts. Intelligence services are to provide correct information to assist politics. They are not supposed to manipulate information to pervert the democratic process under the cloak of secrecy.

It is telling that those who pretend to Western democratic values should always defend the perversion of democracy as long as it serves their imperialist objectives.

[Atlantis]

What nonsense. There's a reason secret services are called secret. Most of what they do cannot be proven, at least not by our legal standards. Should diplomacy therefore be oblivious of their actions?

One has to stop and think to get at how you try to pervert the facts. Intelligence services are to provide correct information to assist politics. They are not supposed to manipulate information to pervert the democratic process under the cloak of secrecy.

It is telling that those who pretend to Western democratic values should always be the first to defend the perversion of democracy as long as it serves their imperialist objectives.

[Rugoz]

No, they shouldn't be oblivious of such actions. They should investigate such actions. We are one of the most CCTV nations on the planet. We have one of the best intelligent agencies on the planet. And we track Russian collusion suspects and have documentation of movement of people to and from Russia. If we cannot provide evidence, one of two things have happened. Our intelligence and investigation agencies are not as good as we think they are or the Kremlin wasn't involved. You cannot find evidence if the evidence never existed in the first place.

So what if "our intelligence and investigation agencies are not as good as we think" (hint: it's not difficult to poison somebody) and the culprit can only be guessed based on experience? Should diplomacy ignore it? That was my point.

And East and West Ukraine remains united under one banner. Only Crimea has been annexed. So what is your point? That Russia didn't win an election that never took place?

Russia de facto controls Donbass. There was never a referendum there, not even a rigged one. Needless to say invading your neighbors and holding annexation referendums is fucking illegal.

[Beren]

Crimea's referendum didn't need rigging.

The referendum in Crimea didn't need rigging

It didn't need rigging, but it was run by a script simply because that's how Putin's system works. Elections in Russia wouldn't need rigging as well, but they're still rigged anyway - they always go according to script. Can you imagine they just let the chips fall where they may in Crimea? No fucking way, the whole thing was orchestrated. It was part of a a military operation, planned and executed as such basically. 97.47% is just too good to be true anyway.

[B0ycey]

97.47% is just too good to be true anyway.

A high percentage was due to voters turning away in protest. But lets say it was rigged (which I doubt), how do you imagine Crimea was ever going to remove themselves from Russian influence? It was Ukrainian by territorial name only and Russian in practicality. It also was a naval stronghold and could never be accepted to be Western influenced by the Kremlin. Nonetheless there is a solution for Ukraine I'm sure. But any solution needs to involve Russia. Keeping them in the naughty corner and away from international forums expands Ukraine's problems, not resolves them.

[Beren]

A high percentage was due to voters turning away in protest. But lets say it was rigged (which I doubt), how do you imagine Crimea was ever going to remove themselves from Russian influence? It was Ukrainian by territorial name only and Russian in practicality. It also was a naval stronghold and could never be accepted to be Western influenced by the Kremlin. Nonetheless there is a solution for Ukraine I'm sure. But any solution needs to involve Russia. Keeping them in the naughty corner and away from international forums expands Ukraine's problems, not resolves them.

Russia annexed a mostly Russian territory with utmost strategic importance to them and that's it, not much can be done about it and they won't negotiate it, however, the referendum as a "democratic process" was a joke, even if this is blasphemy to Russians and Russophiles. It was part of a military operation as Crimea was annexed by military force, simple as that.

[One Degree]

Russia annexed a mostly Russian territory and that's it, not much can be done about it and they won't negotiate it, however, the referendum as a "democratic process" was a joke, even if this is blasphemy to Russians and Russophiles. It was part of a military operation as Crimea was annexed by military force, simple as that.

I see this as the real problem also. Military annexation is suppose to be a big ‘no no’ today. The US even avoids it, but the International community accepted it from Russia and now from China. You could even argue Crimea told China they could get by with it. It allowed a return to one of the few abominations we had managed to do away with.

[Ter]

I see this as the real problem also. Military annexation is suppose to be a big ‘no no’ today. The US even avoids it, but the International community accepted it from Russia and now from China. You could even argue Crimea told China they could get by with it. It allowed a return to one of the few abominations we had managed to do away with.

There are more than a few resemblances between The Crim and Kosovo.
Both were conquered with military force
Both had an ethnic composition different from the country to which they used to belong.
Both changed their status after a referendum.

Except of course that Kosovo was created by NATO and the US.
So there is nothing very special about The Crim now belonging to Russia.

The theatrical reaction of the US and the EU is ridiculous.
Especially since the takeover of The Crim occurred as a direct result of the US interfering in The Ukraine and organising a coup d'etat against the democratically elected President.

[One Degree]

There are more than a few resemblances between The Crim and Kosovo.
Both were conquered with military force
Both had an ethnic composition different from the country to which they used to belong.
Both changed their status after a referendum.

Except of course that Kosovo was created by NATO and the US.
So there is nothing very special about The Crim now belonging to Russia.

The theatrical reaction of the US and the EU is ridiculous.
Especially since the takeover of The Crim occurred as a direct result of the US interfering in The Ukraine and organising a coup d'etat against the democratically elected President.

I will admit there is some grey area between military backing of an independence movement and outright annexation by a larger country, but I believe the differences are still important. Russia’s pretense of supporting independence is much more transparent imo. Kosovo did not immediately ‘vote’ for annexation to a larger country.

[Beren]

I see this as the real problem also. Military annexation is suppose to be a big ‘no no’ today.

They didn't have a choice but acting firmly and swiftly because they couldn't risk NATO control over Crimea. They also had to show assertiveness.

[Atlantis]

It didn't need rigging, but it was run by a script simply because that's how Putin's system works.

Even if that script doesn't comply with your high moral standards, it is infinitely preferable over the Western-style regime change script with covered and false flag operations, deceit, bombings, civil war, terrorist proxies, sanctions, economic strangling, inciting ethnic and religious strive ...

We don't live in a perfect war, but some things are still preferable over others.

So what if "our intelligence and investigation agencies are not as good as we think" (hint: it's not difficult to poison somebody) and the culprit can only be guessed based on experience? Should diplomacy ignore it? That was my point.

Yeah, we know that your point is BS. We are not talking about imperfect intelligence, we are talking about spooks fabricating a narrative to give the politicians the means for their propaganda war.

Anybody with even half a brain can tell that the British narrative doesn't add up, not because of lacking information but because of apparent contradictions. But "from experience" we have a pretty good idea that MI6 is not above fabricating a false narrative.

[Beren]

Even if that script doesn't comply with your high moral standards

It just doesn't comply with basic democratic standards, like Putinism isn't democracy and they didn't mean to be democratic in Crimea at all.

We don't live in a perfect war, but some things are still preferable over others.

Do you mean some wars are still preferable over others? The annexation of Crimea was as perfect as it could be.

[Atlantis]

It just doesn't comply with basic democratic standards, like Putinism isn't democracy and they didn't mean to be democratic in Crimea at all.

It is a form of democracy that is adapted to Russia at this point in history. The kleptocracy of Yeltsin's day's suited the West perfectly because it allowed Western capitalists to rob the country. Putin put a stop to that. Whether or not Russia will evolve to a truly multi-party democracy depends not only on Putin but also on the West. As long as Russians feel under threat from Nato, they will undoubtedly favour Putin's type of autocratic democracy. Your Ms. Orban has no such excuse.

Anyways, regarding democracy, Western leaders are totally hypocritical. They keep on bashing Russia for not be perfect according to Western standards while sucking up to the dictators in Beijing and Riyadh. And I don't believe that the US plutocracy is so much superior to Putin's democracy.

Do you mean some wars are still preferable over others?

I didn't say that.

The annexation of Crimea was as perfect as it could be.

Absolutely! Without firing a single shot, and while at least formally staying within international law. Western imperialists don't even pretend to abide by international law. They just bomb whenever they feel like it.

[Beren]

It is a form of democracy that is adapted to Russia at this point in history.

It is a form of autocracy that is adapted to Russia at this point in history. They're just used to that and Putinism is still the best they've ever had so far indeed.