Moscow rocks

 Seb
I am more worried about funerals in Moscow than rocking.    

Are you referring to the assassination of ex. dep. Prime minister Boris Nemtsov???

 Obviously - the question is - who had him murdered?  

Not Putin but Putin's enemies...he's far too smart for that...obviously the simple man in the street will think it's Putin...the situation is far more complex.

My wife is in Moscow right now...her mum is very ill...obviously we are very concerned and affected directly by what's happening in Russia and the Ukraine/Crimea issue.

I'll probably need to go there soon...it's very worrying.

Boris was a good man...a true Russian patriot...he was very well loved in Russia.

 Seb
Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law.  
I am also very worried about the Ukrainian issue - especially the long term effects.  My point of view about the Crimea has not changed.   Crimea historically has been part of Russia for centuries.  
Stalin - when he was demarcating the borders of the then Ukraine - included a large chunk of traditional Russian areas in Ukraine apparently to off-set the influence of the native Ukrainians in the set-up.  He never trusted the Ukrainians, but did he ever trust anybody?
I do not think that artificial borders, created by politicians for their own purposes - without regard to the inhabitants of areas - would ever be regarded as permanent solutions.   In past history it never worked out without numerous wars and civil wars - it still does not work anywhere in the World and Ukraine is no exception.  The solution should be to participate Ukraine into two states - depending on the areas where the Ukrainians and Russians respectively are in the majority - population-wise.            

Thank you Michael...yes it is not easy...life is very hard for the elderly there...she is a very sweet and kind old Russian babushka.

My wife's Grandpa was in the battle of Stalingrad...survived that and has only recently passed away...a really tough old fella.

You are right and spot on...Crimea was always Russian and was only LEASED to Ukraine because Nikita Kruschev's wife was Ukrainian and he did this as a special favour...it NEVER was Ukranian.

USA and the rest of the world must get their facts right...Crimea is Russian, period.

 Mike and Seb, I am no fundi of international politics,  but IHMO it looks like the USA is using the conflict as a diversion to have a go at Putin as they are worried about him. IMO, Obama is a weak statesman and this could have been handled way better. What's your opinions? 

I wonder if a lot of the tension couldn't have been avoided if the US was a bit more generous about the Winter Olympics last year. There were apparently a few glitches but it was a spectacular event on which the Western Press poured cold water.
Certainly there are hard issues involved with the Ukraine, but a little personal good will never goes amiss. There was  no senior US presence at the games, an opportunity missed.

Seb your wife's grandfather must have had some stories to tell. In the West we hopelessly underestimate the impact of the Russian front on WW2.
Incidentally I still have lunch occasionally with a navy pilot who swam off the Oklahoma when she sank in Pearl Harbour. 
What a life these men had, and how easily it could all have ended so early. 

Mike and Seb - are you saying that what Putin did in Crimea and is now doing in Ukraine is justified and OK?
If we're going to ignore the sovereignty of countries, disregard "artificial" borders and justify military action through historical claims then we're headed to a bad place. 

 oimatey
I never condone any war - but I also know politicians did things for their own benefit - not in the interest of people.   Crimea was never part of Ukraine ever - for centuries it was part of Russia.   Ukraine was also part of the Russian Empire, but there was never a link between Ukraine and the Crimea.   
80% of the population of Crimea are ethnically Russians - not Ukrainians.   Even though the Communists demarcated the border of Ukraine to incorporate areas which are virtually totally inhabited by Russians - one such area was Crimea and the others were substantial parts of present Eastern Ukraine - it was for ulterior political purposes, not in accordance with historical fact and definitely not in the interest of the local people.
Political skulduggery fifty years ago - still represents skulduggery at present.   I am definitely in favour of the independence of Ukraine - but there needs to be a solution through negotiation - not through war.    Putin as a Russian - obviously feel akin to the Russian residents of Eastern Ukraine and the vast majority of the residents of  Crimea - and he did cause problems as a result.   However, to blame Russia for problems created under the Communists and subsequently carried forward to today is also not realistic.
Ultimately there need to be negotiations leading up to either a federal state with a large degree of independence for the Russian residents of Eastern Ukraine or as an alternative the seeding to Russia of the areas of Ukraine with over-whelming Russian speaking people. Otherwise there never will be peace in that area.
In essence - artificial border demarcations without regard to the interest of local people are the cause of many civil wars all over the world ( not only in Ukraine) and ultimately the problem can only be solved by creating an appropriate environment where people can live in peace by re-looking at the artificial boundaries created by politicians with ulterior  motives.   Why should we not learn from the mistakes made - and never think about historical problems and learn from them.  After all - the proverb "history repeats itself"  has a very true ring to it.    
       

The facts:

1.Crimea was always part of Russia...since Catherine the Great.
2.The USSR was an illegal govt.
3.Krushchev had no right to interfere with Crimea status...partly out of sentiment, his wife was Ukrainian and he was half Ukranian himself.
4.Russia has only 2 naval ports that are operational during winter, Vladivostok in the East and Sevastopol in the Black Sea. Severomorsk (Murmansk area)...Baltic Fleet frozen over.
5.For their own security reasons they need the port at Sevastopol for Black Sea Fleet.
6.USA and the West want to weaken Russia's naval strength.
7.They want to do that because: a) They fear them and b) They don't trust them...ironically the Russians don't trust the West and who can blame them .
8.You do not have to be an academic, a psychology professional and historian to read USA's double standards.
9.The same applies to Britain...Maggie Thatchers defending of Falkland Is. Royal Navy also needs strategic base for the same reasons as Russia. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, thats fair and obvious...double standards are not acceptable.
10.Russia is strong, proud and independent...does not want to join the "club" of united Europe and never will...Ukraine does.
11.USA and the rest of the world must piss off and leave Russian dignity alone...respect begets respect. Contrary to western paranoia Russians NEVER wanted to steal or take anything that wasn't theirs...their country is big enough.
12.The other satelite states of the old Soviet Union have been given their independence.

 No, the Falkland Islands is British Territory and is populated largely by British ex-pats, Scots in the main. They are Falklanders first and foremost, British second. But the Islands are British Soverign Territory and have been for many years, nothing to do with purely being used as somewhere to park a fleet of ships !! 
As for the Soviet situation, it is vastly more complex than all of the angles described here, I think ! 

 Seb
I respect your comments on Russia and the interests of Russia.  The one comment was the issue of the illegality of the Communist regime in Russia - something which has bothered me for a long time.   The First World War was not caused by Russia, The Tzar tried desperately not to get involved in a War with Germany and Austria-Hungary, but was virtually forced into it by the alliance between Russia, France and England.
It is an historic fact that their allies did everything in their power to undermine the Russian Government of their time and the Communist's major funders were from the US and England.   Germany also did their part - but the US and England financially supported rise of the Communist regime.  England certainly had a major part in refusing the Tzar and his family asylum and their deaths At Ekaterinburg was a direct result of this refusal.
There reasoning was to stop Russia from getting stronger economically - and to ensure that the Russians would never have a decent Government supported by the Russians themselves - a dictatorship would be just fine and in their own interests economically.
After World War 2 they did not support the people of Russia - they prefer to hand him control of Eastern Europe and kept up their financial support of the Communist Regime.   It was in their interest to keep the Cold War bogeyman going - a massive benefit to keep their arms production going.  What did they do since 1945 iro of Eastern Europe?   What did they do when the people of East Germany rose  up against the East German regime in 1953, in Poland in 1956, in Hungary in 1956, in Prague in 1968?   Nothing - because it was in their interests to do nothing.   
It was only when Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl was in power at the same time - that the flow of money from the West to prop up the Communist regime stopped and the Communist system collapsed.   Gorbachev new exactly what was coming and tried to survive politically - but that was just not possible for an illegal regime to survive without financial help from the West.
There is no way that Russian people can trust the West - and I do not blame them for distrusting them.   The West has used Russia since the time of the Napoleon and even before to help them with manpower in wars - but they never ever repaid it in kind and they did everything possible to undermine the Russian Government during that whole period - the Crimean War was a typical example of that - so as to keep Russia economically weak and the people oppressed.  
                     

Other facts:

1.The Bolshevik revolution was a totally evil movement...murder of innocent people including the Tsar,Tsarina,their beautiful children,
Dr Bodkin and others not to mention their little pet spaniel at Ipatiev (now given it's original name back Ekaterinburg) Today it still haunts the Russian people...it is more than an embarrassment...it hurts the very soul of mother Russia...Boris Yeltsin did the correct thing in destroying "the house of special purpose" and reburying the remains of the royal family.
2.Nothing of this nature should never have been accepted internationally...let alone swept under the carpet...both Nicholas and George were close cousins... just shows how evil and dastardly international politics is...nothing changes, in fact it just gets worse.
3.Ukraine is a separate state...Russians and Ukrainians traditionally get on...Elena my wife has Ukrainian friends...even several in SA.
4.There are majority Russians in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine as a matter of interest but this is not really the point (neither is it in the Falkland Is).
5.We all know that it has to do with MILITARY POWER which the West wants to control.
Red herrings galore...a little knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than no knowledge at all...the same applies to half truths.
6.To understand the real problem, you must get into the real heart of Russia and it's people...the West has very little clue...during a rugby match between Ireland and Georgia in 2007 in France...some Saffers were refering to Georgians as Russians...we were very embarrassed by the ignorance of my countrymen...however the Yanks are worse...most of them know sweet  fanny adams outside their states let alone USA..Mozart will confirm this

 Seb
As far as I know, Tsar Nicholas II has been declared a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church and the house in which the Tsar, his family and others were murdered has been demolished and a new Cathedral has been built on the site where the house used to be.
The English should be ashamed of what they did with regard to the Tsar and his family. The Russians initially asked whether they would receive the Tsar and his family as refugees and the English refused the request.  I have a book in which there are extremely interesting comments.   Nicholas and Alexandra used to write letters to each other virtually on a daily basis - the letters were written in English - since Alexandra as a granddaughter of Queen Victoria in her childhood years stayed for extended periods in England with her grandmother - even on the female side she was a cousin of King George V.   Queen Alexandra of England - mother of George V - was a sister of the Empress Maria (Minnie) - mother of Nicholas II.  So the family ties of King George V and the Russian Royal family were close indeed.
The story was that Queen Mary (May) of England used her influence to keep the Russian Royal family out of England after Nicholas' abdication.   She was a very hard women - with a detrimental effect even on her own children.            

You both show an amazing lack of understanding of Political History and the usual bias towards England, but the latter is to be expected.
The Romanovs had learned nothing from the French. Autocratic rulers were falling by the wayside when most of their subjects were in penury and starving. What happened to that family is Russias disgrace and theirs alone. The country never learns from its past...look it at still. The poverty vs the appalling excesses is profane. 
England had only Constitutional Monarchy, as we still do today. They are figureheads.Our country was suffering, as all Europe was. Poverty and unrest was rife.It became about self-preservation, rightly or wrongly.Yes, they were first cousins and yes, they got along well enough, but the masses distrustred Alexandra. They felt she was too close to the German side of things and would not have tolerated her being here. They also felt she was mad for following dear old Gregori, and, let's face it, he was most likely the final nail in the coffin for her family as far as the Russians were concerned. So, to save his own skin, and that of his own family, our Monarch made that decision. Because, otherwise, he may too have lost his Throne. Debateable whether he would have lost his life, we have only done that once and it didn't work out too well so we gave up on that idea pretty damn sharpish, but it was not a chance he wished to take.And he had to live with that decision for the rest of his life. 
It's very easy to judge others. But look at all the facts.The Tsar made it easy for his enemies to depose him and his family.And the only guilty parties are those who made the decision to take them to the woods and murder them. And those people were all Russians.So stop trying to lay the blame on other peoples doorsteps.

Becs with respect I'm fully aware of what you're written and it is basically sound...I'm aware of the terrible conditions that prevailed not only in Imperial Russia and the terrible and shocking aftermath after WW1, Nicholas erred and was weak...nevertheless the sad thing is that Russia would have been different with a constitution monarch and like Britain today I surmise it would have worked...moderate constitutional change was needed not a government run by thugs and drift wood and the lowest form of life.

It is an education itself to discuss these matters with intelligent and mature Russian scholars.

It is the biggest disgrace in history that animals like the Bolsheviks even managed to oust a majority that merely wanted reform. It's just a pity that the White Russian forces couldn't have overthrown the Bolsheviks (Red Army).

Russia would have been a very different country today...what a waste of a great nation.

Becs with respect I'm fully aware of what you're written and it is basically sound...I'm aware of the terrible conditions that prevailed not only in Imperial Russia and the terrible and shocking aftermath after WW1, Nicholas erred and was weak...nevertheless the sad thing is that Russia would have been different with a constitution monarch and like Britain today I surmise it would have worked...moderate constitutional change was needed not a government run by thugs and drift wood and the lowest form of life.

It is an education itself to discuss these matters with intelligent and mature Russian scholars.

It is the biggest disgrace in history that animals like the Bolsheviks even managed to oust a majority that merely wanted reform. It's just a pity that the White Russian forces couldn't have overthrown the Bolsheviks (Red Army).

Russia would have been a very different country today...what a waste of a great nation.