Report: Euphoria over ‘return’ of Crimea has passed among Russians

a reply to: Nikola014

If you seriously don't know why is Crimea so important to both sides, then I think you've got no right to expect anyone to believe in what you are saying, because it just shows a lack of understanding from your side.

Please pretend that I am as stupid as you think I am and explain to me why NATO needs Crimea when it already controls the Black Sea at the Bosporus?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Curious... it's absent on Levada's web site...

You have to know where to look:

www.levada.ru...

a reply to: DJW001

Unless I am reading incorrectly (a possibility), I see nothing even remotely reflective of an income/education split between respondents mentioned in that article.

Any link to justify that primary claim from your OP?

Oh, and it looks like the percentage of respondents who believe annexing the Ukraine was a serious mistake by Russia has remained unchanged since the 2014 poll at 6%. That's saying a lot, mainly that there's a slight erosion of support at the top of the poll, but that eroding support seems to fall into the "I'm not sure at the moment" category while there have not been any additions to the list of vehement objectors to the move.

Now that I've seen the actual report, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a criticism of Russia and Putin. All signs point towards a roaringly popular move by the man even a year after the success was initially claimed.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now that I've seen the actual report, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a criticism of Russia and Putin. All signs point towards a roaringly popular move by the man even a year after the success was initially claimed.

I did not post it as a criticism of Russia, thank you very much.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You need to find out how to search Levada.ru
it is all there
Negative expectations

Levada surveys
Link

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Out of 7 members positing in the thread, 2 have supported the OP theory (and that 2 includes yourself, OP) while 5 have questioned it... Are we trying to make our own reality again?

Yes you are. I count eight participants (including myself) three of whom appear to be supportive and five, including yourself, who are critical. I consistently receive one to three stars, whereas the most critical post has received nine. That means there are four extremely partisan members who have strong feelings on this subject who are not voicing their opinion.Why is that?

Also, there is one member who has attempted to derail the thread by bringing up NATO. NATO is not mentioned in the OP or the survey it quotes.Why would someone bring up NATO on a thread about Russian popular opinion, do you think? As a Moderator, you should be especially aware of gambits like that.

I believe the poll, but I find the poll's attempt at manufacturing conclusions to be... lacking. One could even call it propagandized, baseless horsecrap if one was so inclined.

Nevertheless, it is an actual poll and its results are as valid as any other. If you want to reject it, it is because it does not support your own personal bias.

There is a good article about Levada center in Moscow Times
Why Kremlin hates Levada Center

The fact that Levada is nongovermental polling and research organization ( read not in government control ) which shows neutrality in its polls that has been seen often, for example survey, which they made about last presidential elections in Russia showed Putin to win peoples votes. The problem with Kremlin is that they don´t want people to see thruths, all they want is people to obey and this makes Levada as a threat to Kremlin.

a reply to: dollukka

Exactly! And that is why certain pro-Putin members (T&C prevents me naming names, but we all know who they are) are not actively committing to this discussion. They do not want to bump this thread because they want to bury the fact that disapproval of Putin's Crimea policy has more than doubled over the past year. It is also significant that this dissatisfaction is most noticeable among the intelligentsia, who are more likely to be critical thinkers with access to non-state controlled media.

So none of you geopolitical experts can explain to me why NATO needs Crimea, even though Turkey can effectively exercise complete control over access to the Black Sea (or, more importantly, access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea)? After all, was that not the whole reason Turkey was include in NATO in the first place? And what about the other issues I raised? What good is Crimea without a land route? Russia has no choice but to annex "Novorossia" next... but that will cost the Russian people more blood and treasure. How do you think that will go over with the narodni?

originally posted by: DJW001
So none of you geopolitical experts can explain to me why NATO needs Crimea, even though Turkey can effectively exercise complete control over access to the Black Sea (or, more importantly, access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea)? After all, was that not the whole reason Turkey was include in NATO in the first place? And what about the other issues I raised? What good is Crimea without a land route? Russia has no choice but to annex "Novorossia" next... but that will cost the Russian people more blood and treasure. How do you think that will go over with the narodni?

The Montreux Convention would disagree with your assessment here. Turkey has historically placed the Convention above any alliance with NATO and the Convention essentially forbids non-Black Sea State flagged warships from passing through the Bosporus during times of conflict. During the Russia-Georgia conflict, it was like finding hen's teeth for NATO to gain Turkish approval to bring foreign naval vessels through the straits. That was during a time when Turkey's relations with Moscow were tenuous... that's no longer the case. The two countries have been very tight trading partners of late and Turkey is one of the lone EU friendly/NATO countries to refuse to cooperate with the Russian sanctions.

As for land access to Crimea, there's been talk of a bridge.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The Montreux Convention would disagree with your assessment here.

Ah, yes. NATO has subverted the Ukrainian government at the cost of billions of dollars so that it can seize Crimea because Turkey has been honoring an agreement made before the Second World War. Good thing international treaties, like the Budapest Memorandum, never, ever get broken.

ETA: Oh, and traffic can travel over a bridge, but not over talk of a bridge. Russia has no choice but to seize Novorossiya and appoint a Russian governor. The brigands in charge of the "People's Republics" can never be trusted; they have proven themselves to be lawless opportunists.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Meduzi

What's your point again?

Dissatisfaction with the acquisition of Crimea by order of Putin (it was not put to a vote in Russia) is trending upwards. If Svoboda getting 5% of the vote means the government is Kyiv is Nazi, what does it mean when 14% of Russians disapprove of Putin's policies? Revolution?

I've not stated that the Ukrainian government is "Nazi", but I have previously pointed out the neo-Nazi element has power within the government. And even more now it seems. But what you've compared, is a small, yet influential fascist minority - in power, with a large majority of the Russian public having a belief of its governments' position. In contrast, according to a report published in the Guardian, David Cameron has an approval rating of only 41%, yet they appear very pleased with that.

Over time, "euphoria" generally diminishes, but at still such a high rating, the question really should be "What is the required percentage threshold to be considered 'euphoric'?".

a reply to: Meduzi

I've not stated that the Ukrainian government is "Nazi", but I have previously pointed out the neo-Nazi element has power within the government. And even more now it seems.

Wrong: the far right ministers resigned after their parties did not get enough votes to win seats in the national Rada. Consequently, they have become more vocal. That loud noise is sour grapes, not growing influence.

Meanwhile, the Russian government has moved steadily to the right, now fitting the classic definition of Fascism, as is being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

That is SO true. I wish after the USSR fell that we would have just became one nation, or a new interconnected union between countries.

Can you imagine if the US and Russia along with its satellites would have have formed a new force of development and progress?

We would be in the next era of human progress now. Freaking Titans.

That was a spot on post.

a reply to: tadaman

According to Leo Wanta THAT was Reagan's plan but Bush Sr wanted the cash for the CABAL 's coffers and stole it.
restoring Russia WOULD have been the honorable thing and OF COURSE Reagan WAS Cav.

a reply to: DJW001

Not wrong at all. If the various groups had decided to coalesce, rather than fight amongst themselves, they most likely would have had enough votes. And that's the tragedy of the divisive nature of these people - they hate, more than most, to cooperate with anyone not members of their own clan. But if you think these people, and let us not ignore Azov Battalion, are doing this for love of the country, with nothing in return, then, well, you're welcome to that opinion.

I will agree with you, and note that, as a matter of fact, that much of Europe, including even the UK, has moved steadily towards the far-Right. Ignoring the reality of the growing influence of this ideology, is what got Europe into WWWII, in the first place.

a reply to: Meduzi

If the various groups had decided to coalesce, rather than fight amongst themselves, they most likely would have had enough votes. And that's the tragedy of the divisive nature of these people

You think it's a tragedy the far right groups cannot co-operate more so that they can gain power? Thank you for your honesty.

《FACEPALM》

a reply to: Meduzi

Did you bother to read the thread I linked to? Putin's Russia is supporting European Fascist groups which support, in turn, Putin's imperialist policies. Are you a Putin supporter, too?

a reply to: DJW001

Did you bother to try to understand my post?