Steven Seagal defends Putinís invasion of Crimea


spaminator
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
Steven Seagal defends Putinís invasion of Crimea
WENN.COM (external - login to view)
First posted: Thursday, March 27, 2014 03:55 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, March 27, 2014 04:05 PM EDT
Movie tough guy Steven Seagal has spoken out to defend Russian President Vladimir Putinís invasion of Crimea, insisting the controversial leader's military actions were "very reasonable."
Tensions in the Eastern European region were heightened earlier this month when Putin sent soldiers into the Ukrainian territory following a period of civil unrest amid calls for political change.
Crimean residents recently went to the polls to decide upon their own future, with local officials declaring the majority of votes were in favour of breaking away from the Ukraine and annexing with Russia.
Putin subsequently approved the move to reclaim Crimea as Russian territory, but his efforts have been denounced by United Nations officials, and the leaders of member states adopted a resolution on Thursday declaring the referendum illegitimate and refusing to recognize the annexation.
However, Seagal, who has become an unlikely pal of the Russian leader, insists he has nothing but support for Putin.
In a new interview with state-run newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta, the action man praises his friend as "one of the greatest living world leaders" and claims he considers the politician "a brother".
He adds, "(Putin's) desire to protect the Russian-speaking people of Crimea, his assets, and the Russian Black Sea military base in Sevastopol... is very reasonable".
Seagal, who was born in Michigan, insists he is very patriotic, but cannot stand by U.S. President Barack Obama and his "idiotic" foreign policy towards the Ukraine and Russia, and he wants to see the two superpowers working towards the same goal.
He adds, "It's no secret that I have Republican views and policies of President Obama does not appeal to me (sic). In many ways it is not even his fault, but the people who are in his inner circle who have views on world politics are diametrically opposed to Russia.
"In my opinion, a situation where the U.S. and Russia are on opposite sides of the fence is abnormal. And I see my task is to do everything to facilitate the normalization of relations. All will benefit from this.Ē
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and American action movie actor Steven Seagal visit a newly-built sports complex of Sambo-70 prominent wrestling school in Moscow. (AFP PHOTO/ RIA-NOVOSTI/ POOL / ALEXEI NIKOLSKY)

Steven Seagal defends Putin’s invasion of Crimea | World | News | Toronto Sun (external - login to view)
 
Tecumsehsbones
#2
The Neil Young of the right wing.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#3
Seagal is right. Putin has every right to annex Crimea. I don't see the problem here.
 
Dixie Cup
Libertarian
#4
Sometimes, in the middle of the night, I wake up and when I can't get back to sleep I listen to the radio.


Early one morning, a week or so ago, I recall a discussion on this very thing and there was a guy who said that the US government has no clue as to what is actually going on and that Putin is a lot smarter and forward looking than Obama and his cronies can ever hope to be. His belief (if I recall correctly) was that the US and the rest of the world was off-base insofar as sanctions etc. were concerned.


Wished I could have stayed awake for the rest of the conversation as it was an interesting take on the situation that I hadn't heard before but fell back asleep. Darn!!
 
Blackleaf
+1
#5
Leave Ukraine to the Russians

We don't know what we're doing. So let's stop doing it

8 March 2014
Matthew Parris (external - login to view)
The Spectator



‘You can’t always get what you want,’ chorused Mick Jagger, ‘but if you try some time/You just might find/You get what you need.’ The danger with Ukraine is that the western powers will get what they want, not what we need.

I write this as one who has travelled in Ukraine, loved the country and seen that its people (though poor) are talented and energetic.

Any reference I make to basket cases refers to the Ukrainian state, not the country’s human resources. What we say we want is for Russia to withdraw from Crimea and turn away from the rest of the country too, which we hope to take under the West’s wing. There follow three good reasons why such an outcome, should we get it, might not be what we need.

First (as Sir Christopher Meyer argued in the Times this week), Russian sentiment over the Crimea runs deep: deeper than some idle pretext for a power grab, and rooted in the Russian imagination. As is often remarked, Russia’s loss of this territory happened as late as 1954 and at the time was neither intended nor interpreted as a ceding of sovereignty, because Ukraine was then so firmly under the Soviet heel as to be essentially a Russian possession. It was really only after the dissolution of the USSR, when Ukraine began to drift (marginally) away from Moscow’s control, that the full significance of the redrawing of boundaries (for essentially administrative reasons) was brought home to Russians within and outside Ukraine.

This year that drift looked like gathering pace. Last month on the streets of Kiev it brought open rupture. The fresh elections that had been agreed (with EU involvement) only hours before what was tantamount to a mob-instigated coup, would have brought time to negotiate the future status of the home port of Russia’s vital Black Sea fleet and the Russian-speaking people in Crimea. All at once, Moscow faced a fait accompli.

I submit that the Russian response — effectively to occupy the Crimea — has been proportionate and understandable. For external powers like America and the EU to try to thwart this and pressure Moscow into a retreat would look to me (were I Russian) like an intolerable interference. Anyway, it would fail. Unless Moscow ends up with effective control over Crimea, or at least rock-solid and reliable influence, we in the West will by our stance have engendered deep and lasting resentment in Moscow without any comparable gain for ourselves.

Secondly, I would go further than concede the Crimea to Moscow. I would also hesitate before giving any appearance of a readiness to take the rest of Ukraine under the wing of the West. Politically and economically the country is a basket case, and for Moscow an expensive one.

When I travelled about a decade ago in Ukraine I gained the impression of a big and weighty — not to say monumental — state superstructure resting upon the spindly props of an agricultural sector primitive to the point (in parts) of subsistence farming; and industry, mining and infrastructure composed of inefficient rust-belt mid-20th-century post-Soviet monoliths that any liberal free-market government would have to endure a couple of decades’ massive pain and protest to close down. Retail and commerce looked stuck way back in the last century. There was little sense of competitiveness. Millions would need to be sacked and huge disruption wreaked upon citizens’ lives before any kind of corner was turned. Consider what unexpected difficulty West Germany had in digesting East Germany — and remember that East Germany was one of the former Soviet Union’s most advanced economies; Ukraine was (and remains) one of its least. Britain’s brutal 1980s Thatcherite revolution would seem a tea-party by comparison.

Western commentary has spoken sunnily about the need to ‘secure’ the Ukrainian economy by means of loans — as if Western help were some kind of investment, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy a stake in a potential modern European country. But it would not be an investment; no loan, however large or on however generous terms, would fix the problem. Ukraine has come to rely on massive subsidy. Russia has historically provided this. Why should we be panting to take the burden upon our own shoulders?

The task may be onerous, the cost tremendous and the timescale long, but idealists and neoconservatives might still argue that if we could finally bring about the creation of a liberal, free-market democracy in one of the world’s biggest countries, then the challenge would be worth shouldering.

But I doubt — and this is my third argument — that transformed national cultures can be created by external subsidy, training or intervention. If this is really the Ukrainian spring, we should ask ourselves how the Arab spring, the Iraqi spring or the Syrian spring are working out. Experience is not encouraging.

I support — we all should — those forces in Ukraine who want to throw off autocracy and corruption and embrace modern democracy. But I don’t know — do you? — how strong or potentially united they are, what parts of the Ukrainian population they represent, or what calibre of leadership they can look to. I didn’t easily, when I visited, see it happening fast. If it can, if it does, I suspect this had better be home-grown, and fought for, rather than imported.

We do an idealistic, fragmented and perhaps immature movement for democratic values no good by adopting national postures that seem to offer the reformists material support as well as external cheerleading when the going gets tough. We made that mistake after the first Gulf war when many reformist Iraqis, encouraged to break cover, died as a consequence. The West should take care not to put its mouth where its money isn’t, as we once did in Hungary.

Do we understand what we’re doing here? You know the answer to that. I rest my case.

Leave Ukraine to the Russians ¬Ľ The Spectator (external - login to view)
 
B00Mer
Republican
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Seagal is right. Putin has every right to annex Crimea. I don't see the problem here.

That wasn't the tune you were singing a week ago..

The USA should elect Putin as President, couldn't do worse than Obama..

Putin sounds more American than Barack Obama when he talks about faith and morals...

news.yahoo.com/putin-russia-f...111417640.html (external - login to view)

Just think about this.. Obama is supporting a Ukraine regime worse than the Nazi regime..

 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#7
Wonder how happy everyone would be if Putin and friends took part of the Canadian North
would everyone be saying what a wonderful guy he is? People don't know what's going on.
What an excuse. Crimea is part of Ukraine, and the Russians didn't annex it they stole the
territory of another country. It would be like Quebec forcibly taking south eastern Saskatchewan
because there are French speaking towns in the region.
I fear this could be the beginning of unpleasant things. First Russia, now Korea is acting up,
who is next? At some point we have to understand free international trade is not going to solve
our problems. We have a whole host of potential enemies who don't like our lifestyle. They
chip away at the fabric of democracy until it has to be defended. We make the Russians a
member of the G eight, we hold the Olympics there and say oh they'll come around. Sure they
will.
We have in the meantime traded away our manufacturing capability and resource base to these
foreign entities who have no respect for our way of life. Watch out the Putin's of the world are
just getting started.
 
B00Mer
Republican
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Wonder how happy everyone would be if Putin and friends took part of the Canadian North
would everyone be saying what a wonderful guy he is? People don't know what's going on.
What an excuse. Crimea is part of Ukraine, and the Russians didn't annex it they stole the
territory of another country. It would be like Quebec forcibly taking south eastern Saskatchewan
because there are French speaking towns in the region.
I fear this could be the beginning of unpleasant things. First Russia, now Korea is acting up,
who is next? At some point we have to understand free international trade is not going to solve
our problems. We have a whole host of potential enemies who don't like our lifestyle. They
chip away at the fabric of democracy until it has to be defended. We make the Russians a
member of the G eight, we hold the Olympics there and say oh they'll come around. Sure they
will.
We have in the meantime traded away our manufacturing capability and resource base to these
foreign entities who have no respect for our way of life. Watch out the Putin's of the world are
just getting started.

You been asleep?? He's already laid claim to Canada's north..

Putin's Arctic invasion: Russia lays claim to the North Pole - and all its gas, oil, and diamonds | Mail Online

Is Vladimir Putin Coming for the North Pole Next? - NationalJournal.com (external - login to view)



But don't worry about it the USA and Obama will come to Canada's rescue..

 

Similar Threads

30
Crimea referendum on joining Russia
by Liberalman | Mar 15th, 2014
16
Steven Seagal considering governor run
by spaminator | Jan 10th, 2014
8
Putin defends missiles at parade
by Praxius | May 6th, 2008
no new posts