Ask a Russian

[plarq]

Tell that to the Tatars.

They forfeited their rights to their homeland because they collaborated with the Nazi Germany in WWII.

 

[red_elk]

They forfeited their rights to their homeland

That depends, whether you consider Russia or Ukraine as their homeland.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They forfeited their rights to their homeland because they collaborated with the Nazi Germany in WWII.

In Soviet Russia, Pre-emptive purges are justified on the grounds of future rebellion to the pre-emptive purges.
Beside Crimea has always belonged to Russia

much of this is Soviet revisionism as the persecution of "suspect nations" and most of the genocide of the Crimean Tatars preceded the war, while statements justifying it appear after the war

He began to plan for the preventive elimination of such potential recruits for a mythical “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies.” (Hagenloh, 2000; Shearer, 2003).[8]. Tatar historian Alan Fisher has said that between 1917 and 1933, 150,000 Tatars—about 50% of the population at the time—either were killed or forced out of Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars

 

[civman110]

Tell that to the Tatars.

I know all about what the Soviet Union did to Ukraine and the Tatars. You're not telling me anything new.

What does that have to do with an objective fact about Crimea? Also Modern Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

Thing is, as it mentioned in the article, the US and other Western countries financial aid was also supporting such Neo-Nazi groups at least in 2015 and I'm not sure if this support is ceased now.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Takhisis]

It says that the model which allowed our economy to grow fast and nearly doubled our GDP in 2000s, is not effective anymore and can maintain only about 1-2% growth a year. We need reforms which would diversify and modernize economy, make management on different levels more effective. There are two development programs being prepared, one of them (which I personally have higher expectations for) is prepared by former finance minister, liberal economist L. Kudrin and his team. There are rumors that he may become a next prime minister, which in my opinion would be a good decision.

Why would he become a prime minister? Wouldn't a good economist be best as an economy minister?

A civil war, limited in scale so far. The specific event which triggered the conflict, was probably a Russian decision to take over Crimea - a separatist region, populated mostly by people with pro-Russian stance. It happened after the democratically elected Ukrainian president was forcefully deposed in violation of constitution and Ukraine entered a state of turmoil. The Crimea events inspired pro-Russian population of South-Eastern parts of Ukraine to take action, demanding the people who seized power in Kiev, federalization of the country and giving their region wider autonomy. The central government tried to use force to suppress uprising, which led to a military conflict with already thousands of victims.

The main underlying reason why it could happen, in my opinion, is a failure of Ukrainian government to properly integrate national minorities. Desire to build a nation state basing solely on Ukrainian culture and nationalism and failing to account for a multitude of ethnic and culture groups of Ukrainian citizens. Another reason is that Ukraine had become a battleground in geopolitical rivalry between great powers, where each one of them propped up different fractions and tried to bring them to power.

How much does the Russian press actually mention Russians outside Russia, e.g. in the Baltics or the former Soviet republics in Turkestan?

That depends, whether you consider Russia or Ukraine as their homeland.

Or Crimea.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I know all about what the Soviet Union did to Ukraine and the Tatars. You're not telling me anything new.

What does that have to do with an objective fact about Crimea?

...You do know that the Tatars have lived there since before Russia was a sovereign state..?

Also Modern Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

Great Russian chauvinism has never sweat the details.

 

[red_elk]

Thanks for the link.

Thank you too, for your questions.

...You do know that the Tatars have lived there since before Russia was a sovereign state..?

So did, for example, Greeks in Crimea, Native Americans in USA and Aboriginal Australians in Australia. What is your proposal, exactly?

 

[red_elk]

Why would he become a prime minister? Wouldn't a good economist be best as an economy minister?

His proposals also include reforms of state apparatus. But may be you are right, I cannot assess his expertise outside of economy field.

How much does the Russian press actually mention Russians outside Russia, e.g. in the Baltics or the former Soviet republics in Turkestan?

I don't watch TV, so can't say precisely. From what I can remember, it occasionally reports about scandalous cases, such as doctor refusing to treat Russian child because she cannot speak Latvian good enough:
https://www.rt.com/news/340184-latvia-doctor-russian-language/
Or attempts of Language policy center to sue Riga mayor for using Russian language in his facebook page.

But didn't see such reports from Central Asian republics.

Or Crimea.

What I'm talking about, is that people who talk about Crimean Tatar statehood tend to 'forget' that they didn't have it while they were part of Ukraine. Ukraine refused to grant even official status for their language in their home region. They got it only after Crimea became part of Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatar_language#Current_situation

 

[civman110]

...You do know that the Tatars have lived there since before Russia was a sovereign state..?

Obviously. So what?

We all get it there's Tatars that live in Russia. Do you have an actual point to make?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

So did, for example, Greeks in Crimea, Native Americans in USA and Aboriginal Australians in Australia. What is your proposal, exactly?

Obviously. So what?

What I'm saying is, civman's claim that Crimea has "always" been part of Russia is, objectively, false.

 

[red_elk]

What I'm saying is, civman's claim that Crimea has "always" been part of Russia is, objectively, false.

Only if you want to nitpick. It's clear from the context that he doesn't mean medieval or ancient history. Crimea has been part of Russia since 18-th century and only became part of Ukraine when it was assigned to Ukrainian SSR by Soviet government. For purely administrative purposes.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

And at the end of the day, isn't all ethno-nationalist rhetoric nitpicking and excuse-making? The tragedy of the Crimea crisis is that lost in the Russo-Ukrainian tug-of-war is a third group being squeezed on both sides. Who's looking out for them?

 

[red_elk]

And at the end of the day, isn't all ethno-nationalist rhetoric nitpicking and excuse-making?

Strange reply.
What you mean? I said that you took civman's message out of context and didn't understand it.
You are saying that your message was ethno-nationalist rhetoric?

The tragedy of the Crimea crisis is that lost in the Russo-Ukrainian tug-of-war is a third group being squeezed on both sides. Who's looking out for them?

In last decade Crimean Tatars weren't much squeezed neither in Ukraine nor in Russia. If you are so concerned about the situation with human rights, you should probably pay more attention to Donbass, where people often have to hide from artillery fire in their basements.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Crimean Tatars are alright. Russian Federation is muuuch more suitable for ethnic minorities. And they are now closer to other Tatars/Muslim population. Don't be misguided by the few troublemakers.

 

[Takhisis]

His proposals also include reforms of state apparatus. But may be you are right, I cannot assess his expertise outside of economy field.

Better not apply the [wiki]Peter principle[/wiki]:
the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role.
It's a mistake politicians often make.

I know that Vladimir Putin would retain most power as president anyway, but it still wouldn't be that good, I think, unless Kudrin somehow shows new talents.

Is Medvedev's time over then?

I don't watch TV, so can't say precisely. From what I can remember, it occasionally reports about scandalous cases, such as doctor refusing to treat Russian child because she cannot speak Latvian good enough:
https://www.rt.com/news/340184-latvia-doctor-russian-language/
Or attempts of Language policy center to sue Riga mayor for using Russian language in his facebook page.

But didn't see such reports from Central Asian republics.

Well, that doctor is an idiot.

Since we're at it, how many Russians are there really in Kazakhstan?

 

[red_elk]

I know that Vladimir Putin would retain most power as president anyway, but it still wouldn't be that good, I think, unless Kudrin somehow shows new talents.

Next Putin's elections will be in 2018 and there is quite a big probability 2018-2024 will be his last term.
We will need a good power transfer mechanism, like USA or China have (not a bad one, like in Ukraine)

Is Medvedev's time over then?

It's just rumors. But I think it would be nice if he is replaced with a good professional.

Since we're at it, how many Russians are there really in Kazakhstan?

You can google it, 3.6 millions. Why does it matter?

 

[Agent327]

Next Putin's elections will be in 2018 and there is quite a big probability 2018-2024 will be his last term.
We will need a good power transfer mechanism, like USA or China have (not a bad one, like in Ukraine)

I'm not sure how the 'power transfer mechanism' in the US is similar to the one in China. Or how the one in the US is different from the one in Ukraine, which is bad.

Anywho, according to Putin himself we 'will not see the day' that he is no longer in power. (To be frank, he got a bit upset from a viewer question, but still...)

You mentioned earlier, that there is a 'Western narrative' that Russia is a mob state. Now I've never come across this 'narrative' in any Western medium - I did hear it suggest by a Russian though. So I'm just wondering what Western medium you learned this from?

Crimean Tatars are alright. Russian Federation is muuuch more suitable for ethnic minorities. And they are now closer to other Tatars/Muslim population.

Why? Have they all suddenly moved?

 

[Yeekim]

Well, that doctor is an idiot

Is he? Note that nowhere in the story does it say he refused her treatment. Better synopsis would be "Russian patient gets upset doctor does not speak Russian to her."

 

[red_elk]

Is he? Note that nowhere in the story does it say he refused her treatment. Better synopsis would be "Russian patient gets upset doctor does not speak Russian to her."

You seriously think lecturing patients about his language skills is a proper way for a doctor to operate?

The similar story was in Estonia a while ago - a doctor threw teenager's passport in thrash bin, after he started explaining what happened to him in Russian.
http://rus.delfi.ee/daily/estonia/vrach-travmopunkta-vybrosil-pasport-podrostka-v-urnu?id=25397947

I really doubt those kids confronted doctors over language issues. They came to get treatment.

 

[civman110]

What I'm saying is, civman's claim that Crimea has "always" been part of Russia is, objectively, false.

Then if that's the standard southern England doesn't belong to the UK, it belongs to Italians along with most of Europe, or does it belong to the Celts? Or what about the Holy Roman Empire? Poland? Hungary? Does all of Eastern Europe belong to Russia? What time period do you want to arbitrarily choose today?

But, lets assume what you're saying is logical and in context. Do you have an actual point, or are you just hen pecking?