Skip to main content

View Diary: Crimea "Election" Rigged by Busloads of "Tourists;" Dianne Feinstein Looks the Other Way (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You should make the case why she (4+ / 0-)

    or anyone else in America should care. And if you can, what can she realistically do about. Weve enacted sanctions. She voted for them. Russia doesnt care.

    Seems to me shes got the right attitude. Russia annexes Crimea. US security unaffected.

    •  She can take whatever stance she wants. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denver11, Lawrence

      As long as she gets her facts straight. Which she hasn't. And it would affect our security if Russia were to decide that we would treat Estonia the same way. She's one of the people who is supposed to be protecting our country.

      "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

      by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:00:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Protecting our country from what? Russia? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins, FarEasterner

        "Fragmented and confused, we have no plan to combat any of this, but are looking to be saved by the very architects of our ruination."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:01:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

          If Russia attacks Estonia, we are obligated by treaty to come to their aid.

          "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

          by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:03:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is there any evidence Russia intends to annex (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FarEasterner

            Estonia? Any massive troop movements or statements from the Kremlin?

            I dont see how one thing leads to the other.

            •  No on troop movements. (0+ / 0-)

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:17:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lol...your own article refutes you. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FarEasterner

                Says ethnic Russians are just fine in Estonia and have no 'mother russia' wishes to separate and join Russia. Seems like not much of an argument for intervening in Crimea.

                •  You asked about statements from the Kremlin. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy

                  Here you go:

                  Estonia's Russian speakers tend to be poorer than their Estonian countrymen. Many do not speak Estonian, nor are they citizens of Estonia, making them "stateless." This threat of marginalization has fueled resentment among some Russian speakers – and spurred recent criticism from Russia.

                  Last month, a Russian diplomat raised the issue of how Estonia was treating its Russian-speaking population, just as it had with Ukraine before the recent invasion. “Language,” the diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, “should not be used to segregate and isolate groups,” going on to note that Russia was “concerned by steps taken in this regard in Estonia.”

                  "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

                  by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:24:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, wheres the harm there? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FarEasterner

                    Doesnt sound like a pretext for an invasion. Russia is concerned about the treatment of Russians. Sound like pretty normal diplomacy to me.

                  •  Quote: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FarEasterner
                    But many locals in Narva, the county's largest city, which sits astride the Estonian-Russian border, say that they do not need to be "rescued" by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. They say that their life in Estonia has been good and getting better, and they are happy in their country.

                    “Narva is not Simferopol,” Dusman says, comparing the city with the capital of Crimea. “And Estonia is not Ukraine.”

                    All one has to do is to take a stroll through Narva, Estonia's third largest city, down to the banks of its namesake river to see how easy it would be for Russia to seize the city if it wished. The gritty, five-hundred-year-old industrial city of 58,000 is just a brief trip over a short 400-meter bridge away from Russian territory. Indeed, most of the Narva’s Russian speakers – who comprise 97 percent of the population, roughly half of whom have taken Estonian citizenship – migrated to the city during the half century of Russian rule that ended in 1991 with the declaration of the second republic of Estonia.

            •  Direct attacks by Russia (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eternal Hope, KenBee

              Russia has been the source of virtually constant attempts to take down the Estonian infrastructure which is heavily dependent on the internet and e-commerce (so much is the country dependent on IT, it is sometimes nicknamed E-stonia)

              The ethnic Russians often refuse or are unable to learn Estonian which is a requirement of citizenship (others refuse to take out papers because they consider themselves still Soviet citizens). They are however able to use Russian because of the EU's policy on minority languages which gives them more rights than, say, Tartars or Ukrainian speakers in Russia.

              "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

              by Lib Dem FoP on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 09:48:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where did you learn (0+ / 0-)

                about EU policy on minority languages? as far as I know all European states suppressed minority languages be it Corsican in France, Slavic in Germany, Welsh, Scot etc etc.

                Disenfranchise Russians on linguistic ground is grave human rights abuse, which is so easily overlooked by West.

                As for Russian minorities they have much more rights and opportunities than in Europe let alone US indigenous minorities. Many small nations like Tatars have autonomy with elements of state, their languages declared official (even judicial process is conducted in their languages), minority ethnic schools (where education conducted in minority language) exist in Russia everywhere, not only in ethnic republics etc etc. They all get state funds, as well as state (federal and region) allot funds to literature, textbooks, theatre etc in minority languages.

          •  I'm not talking about NATO, I'm talking about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            unfangus

            our country.  And where is there any evidence that Russia intends to attack Estonia.  

            "Fragmented and confused, we have no plan to combat any of this, but are looking to be saved by the very architects of our ruination."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:13:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Estonia's foreign minister: Were good! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BigAlinWashSt
              “It is a very important difference, being a NATO member and not being a NATO member, he said. “NATO is built on the basis of collective defense and [that] is absolutely crucial.”

              “I’m sure that Russia and the Russian leadership know this very well, and all our allies in NATO and the European Union know this very well. So, I don’t think that we have to be more concerned in Estonia at the moment than in any other European country.”

              He seems like hes not concerned about a Russian military operation.
            •  But by treaty: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              Under NATO, an attack against Estonia is an attack against the US.

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:18:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which is why (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                unfangus, Eternal Hope, FarEasterner

                it was a big mistake to put these former Soviet republics into NATO. I also wish NATO would STFU right now. They are doing what any military organization would be doing. Drumming up crap so they can be relevant and get more money. The only thing they've said correctly is Russia could take Ukraine in 3-5 days and there's nothing they can currently do about it. These tiny former Soviet republics are asking for the US to shoulder a huge security burden while they contribute nothing but a few small countries closer to Russia's borders. They cost more than they are worth. I wish they would STFU too.

                Obviously, trying to piss off Russia was a naive losing strategy.  Time to change tactics and come to the table.

                BTW, bringing NASA into this was a dumb ass decision. That person should be fired as well as Nuland. NASA could come up with 1000 reasons why they should be better funded than pissing into the wind of a mini cold war.

      •  Estonia is a member of NATO. (0+ / 0-)

        Crimea is not.

        •  True. (0+ / 0-)

          But if we had followed a more proactive policy, then maybe there might have been a different outcome.

          "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

          by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:05:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Proactive how? (3+ / 0-)

            Russia has a large military and naval presence there, which they are apparently willing to use no matter what the United States does. Short of military intervention, I dont see how we could have ever stopped them. Especially since we arent legally obligated to do so.

            What would have stopped them?

            •  By diplomacy. (0+ / 0-)

              We should have made it clear that it was not a good idea to overthrow Yanukovich; there was an election coming up and that might trigger Russian intervention. And we should have warned Russia that if they take any action whatsoever to destabilize Ukraine and violate the 1994 agreement that we would hit them with hard sanctions and that it would affect our relations with them. The threat is stronger than the execution. And there was always the possibility of getting information out to friendly members of the media about Russia's activities.

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um, call me crazy, (0+ / 0-)

                but I think when youve got guns on the ground youve got a bit more leverage than some threats of sanctions from someone who does not. But more to the point, we have enacted sanctions and nobody cares. Even Ukraine itself hasnt banned Russian gas, which would be about as tough as one could get. Nobody is in favor of that. Nobody.

                So, im just not seeing a good case that the United States has any leverage here. If anybody does, its Europe and they arent down with anything other than light, meaningless sanctions. Probably because, like everyone else, they dont really give a shit about Crimea.

                •  Ukraine doesn't have a choice. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  brooklynbadboy, kdnla

                  On gas. They're scrambling for alternatives, but it will barely scratch the surface. The fact that we don't have any military leverage with regards to Ukraine means that we shouldn't have encouraged them to overthrow Yanukovich and certain politicians like John McCain had no business going there cheering them on. We should have told them that they're free to overthrow him if they want, but that we're not responsible for what happens to your country.

                  And the reason that we don't have a lot of diplomatic leverage is that we are not credible anymore when it comes to human rights. We fought two "humanitarian" wars that totally destroyed our credibility in that regard. Our first priority has to be to regain our credibility when it comes to human rights.

                  It's one thing to decide that there is nothing we can do on Ukraine. I get that argument. But the least that DiFi could do is get basic facts straight and do her job as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

                  "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

                  by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 08:43:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Talk about getting your facts right, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kdnla, FarEasterner

                Victoria Nuland,Angela Merkel,and the USAID,were the ones responsible for ejecting Yanukovich.The Russians just stepped into the void,as they should,considering their proximity and the very real security issues surrounding their naval bases.You've characterized this as Russia 'annexing' Crimea on several occasions,that too is inaccurate.Russia annexed Crimea in 1783.Khrushchev,a Ukrainian,made it part of the Ukraine in 1956.Russia repo'd it in2014.

                'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A.Einstein

                •  I appreciate your trying to shed light (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Emmy

                  on a complex issue far from home,but the information you share both on Ukraine and Venezuela seems to be coming from sources that are parroting deep state propaganda,and has a tendency to mislead folks into making inaccurate conclusions.I apologize for not being able to embed links,but you might want to read:
                  'The Danger of False Narratives' 3/27 Robert Parry,at both Consortium News.com and Common Dreams;'The real Face of Ukraines Maidan "Democrats"3/28 Ulrich Rippert ,World Socialist Web Site wsws.com;and 'Ukraine,a Fascist Coup'4/4 Andre Vilchek, CounterPunch.com.
                  These sources are probably unfamiliar to you and you may not trust their narrative,but to swallow the message whole that the neoliberal neocon MSM media machine is regurgitating is severely limiting the scope of understanding these struggles in a meaningful way.

                  'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A.Einstein

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site