Quote: (04-16-2014 03:28 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Yes that is what I am saying. I said national security trumps right or wrong. They needed Crimea for that. Donetsk and those other cities they don't. Nor do the people there, majority, want to be in Russia.
Should Manhattan island be given back to the Indians? There has to be a an extent as to how far one can go back.Putin wanting those areas just to destabilize Ukraine because he is "pissed" is not a good reason.They never even disputed those areas. Crimea was being disputed even when the 1994 agreement was made.
If Putin can't get guarantees that NATO won't put its troops into Ukraine - and it doesn't look like he will, he'll practically have no choice but maintain some sort of control in Ukraine and keep meddling and try to take those lands - NATO in Lugansk is a matter of national security to Russia, I'd say. No one has asked the population what they want yet, and opinions change quickly: 2-3 years of really shitty economy in Ukraine is pretty much guaranteed at this point, and if Russia is doing comparatively well, and the Crimea project is successful, people will want to jump the ship. Look at all those photos of protesters from the East Ukraine - half the crowd is Russian-speaking pensioners who don't care in which country to live, as long as they are not forced to learn Ukrainian and their pensions are higher (it's about a double in Russia now). They are ready to vote now.