-Russian people living there supported it, certainly when they knew Poroshenko was not willing to repect the wishes established in 1991-1992 (Poroshenko at one point said that Russian would not be recognized as a language in Ukraine, trust me, this is painfull, I come from a country where the same thing happened)
-Poroshenko said Russia must leave Crimea (losing one of the few warm-water port and the whole Black Sea (fleet) in the process)
Russian (and pro-Russian) people + very important location + coup in Ukraine (by a hostile Poroshenko)= recipe for disaster
Perhaps you should try to place yourself in Russian shoes, but you don't seem to be bothered by that.
If proxies you mean the eastern Ukrainian rebels doing it out of will and Russian volunteers, then sure.
Usa isn't invading, they are also using proxies, for their own gain. As long there's no territory (but oil) taken, it is ok to invade, I guess? Syria (and the middle-east in larger extend) are not comparable to Crimea, yet you don't seem to be able to see that difference.
Russia up to this point has never annexed any territory that didn't support it.
Aren't 'good spirits' the basis of building good relations in the first place? Russia probably was hoping for good relations with NATO, NATO busted their bubble by expanding and now you're solely blaming the Russians for the bad relations? I think NATO is more responsible for starting the long conflict here.
Invading who? Georgian war was started by the Georgians, Ukraine is not an invasion it is a proxy war (not really okay with this, however, not really defending Russia here) this leaves Crimea, I wouldn't call it an invasion (at least not an unwilled one), remember, not one person died during the annexation, this says something.
Sorry, but as I said before, the USA insigna is not NAZI, the Ukrainians tried to at the very least remind the Russians of the NAZI's and I see the similarities.
That beign said, I never meant to say the hawk always is a Nazi sign (or the owl). It depends in what context you use either (or any) sign.
Even though an owl is used, I think this is an obvious and cynical attemp to really anger the Russians, first of the birds have a similair position (the bird standing above the sword/swastika). You honestly don't see the similarities? Second the Ukrainian insignia has a sword aimed at Russia. How is this not hostile?
Thus Russia should have invaded? At least Russia is not going to force the western Ukrainians against their wishes. I have explained many times why Crimea was annexed, there's a key here: most Crimeans supported the annexation, Crimea has a long history with Russia and all the gibberish of Crimea beign a very important location for defence and access to warm water port.
Never was it their intention to dispose the Georgians, they only kicked their butt, remember, the Georgians were the aggressors here.
At least I recognize their wishes, Ukraine wants to turn to the west? Let them, they have had the chance before.
Your point? If it is true what Russia is saying, then it still makes them volunteers, Belgians have left the army to fight alongside the Kurds (there was even a case of a soldier joining ISIS this way), is Belgium invading Syria now?
Don't come those treaties after stating you 'good spirits', I don't agree with the fact that there is no 'good spirits needed.
Or perhaps a number of those Russian soldiers were already there, considering Russia has a massive naval base there?
I said annexation, but hey, doesn't matter, does it?
Only after 2014. Is that only Russia's fault? I really ment to say this as 'you are immeditalely assumong Russia is invading' You asked me to show 'respect' to the Ukrainian side and I recognized the wishes of the western Ukrainians, I even admitted my bias against Poroshenko. You asked me to show 'respect', am I now able to ask you the same thing for the Russians/Crimeans?
Yes, Russia send 'advisers'(and I am not defending that), but the main fighting force are still the eastern Ukrainians, not your 'Russian soldiers', yes some Russian soldeirs have been captured/killed, but that number is way too small to be considered an 'invasion'. You seem to take everything you read as fact, without questioning.
I clearly said 'if the Russians are telling the truth', if this is the case, it is the same. If not, guilty as charged, I guess? I am just not immeditalely assuming claims from Ukraine (which are adapted by the USA) as fact.
All I was saying that 'good spirits' are the start of 'good relations', not saying that Obama had the power and I think this goes way further than Obama alone, the issue goes back right after the fall of the Soviet Union.
If Crimea wasn't that welcoming, then why hasn't there been 1 shot fired in all those years? why hasn't there been noteworthy protests? I think it is quite well known that Crimeans largely supported the annexation, but if you still think otherwise, then it is up to you.
War by proxy, the worst I have seen is 'hybrid war'. What do you call American 'advisers' in Syria? Also invasion?
No one is denying they are involved. I think you are overestimating Russian involvement quite a lot though.
Perhaps it was to confuse the west and Ukraine? Wouldn't it be a far more reasonable assessment?
You need weapons to resist? Did the Syrians have weapons in the beginning of the civil war?
I am underestimating nothing, of course Russian deaths are inevitable, I know that Russians are sending weapons and 'advisiers', but they are not flat out invading, it are the seperatists who are the main fighting force. The worst thing I have seen comes from the Ukrainians, they say 500 Russians died fighting (out of 4000-6000 deaths on seperatist side), they could however not back it up and they were estimating, and you can be sure of the Ukrainians beign very biased.
I've done a quick search and the only thing of 'bodies' from Russia I found comes from Poroshenko Euromaiden press, if you thought Sputnik was unreliable..., of course some western sources are quick to jump the bandwagon.
