US ambassador to Estonia resigns over frustration with Trump

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DavidB.]

Goodbye and good riddance!

Though Trump's comment is beyond stupid, since the U.S. has been one of the biggest benefactors and supporters of the creation of the terrible EU that we have.

[Indy Texas]

Goodbye and good riddance!

Though Trump's comment is beyond stupid, since the U.S. has been one of the biggest benefactors and supporters of the creation of the terrible EU that we have.

Yes we have, and we deserve to be. I don't think you're in any position to be suggesting we should have just let the Nazis bulldoze over you.

I don't know why you're so eager for Russia to reestablish Warsaw Pact-like influence in Eastern Europe via right-wing anti-EU governments like those in Poland and Hungary.

[SNJ1985]

the U.S. has been one of the biggest benefactors and supporters of the creation of the terrible EU that we have.[/b]

Yes we have, and we deserve to be.

The Soviet Union was the primary reason the Nazis were unable to successfully conquer Europe, but even if it had been us who played the biggest role, we still wouldn't ''deserve'' to have a political order in Europe that benefits us. The political order in Europe should benefit the people of Europe, first and foremost.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

[HillGoose]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

Russia illegally seized Crimea. We have every right to protect Democracy in Eastern Europe against the threat from the East.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

Russia illegally seized Crimea. We have every right to protect Democracy in Eastern Europe against the threat from the East.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

[DavidB.]

Goodbye and good riddance!

Though Trump's comment is beyond stupid, since the U.S. has been one of the biggest benefactors and supporters of the creation of the terrible EU that we have.

Yes we have, and we deserve to be. I don't think you're in any position to be suggesting we should have just let the Nazis bulldoze over you.

Whether the U.S. "deserve to be" or not is irrelevant (though I would beg to differ: the U.S. laudable contribution to the WW2 victory doesn't mean we are indebted forever; with that line of reasoning one could also argue we owe Russia quite a lot...). European nationalists lament the extent to which the U.S. has pushed for European states to transfer their sovereignty to Brussels. It is an extremely positive development that this U.S. administration has a rather different view on the EU. But Trump should not say that "the EU has been set up to take advantage of the U.S." The U.S. has had a big role in setting up the EU in order to benefit the U.S.

I don't know why you're so eager for Russia to reestablish Warsaw Pact-like influence in Eastern Europe via right-wing anti-EU governments like those in Poland and Hungary.

I am very pro-Western when it comes to Russian influence in countries like the Baltics. However, I am also a big supporter of countries maintaining their sovereignty. NATO and the EU aren't supposed to have "Warsaw Pact-like influence" in EU member states either.

[mvd10]

Goodbye and good riddance!

Though Trump's comment is beyond stupid, since the U.S. has been one of the biggest benefactors and supporters of the creation of the terrible EU that we have.

Yes we have, and we deserve to be. I don't think you're in any position to be suggesting we should have just let the Nazis bulldoze over you.

I don't know why you're so eager for Russia to reestablish Warsaw Pact-like influence in Eastern Europe via right-wing anti-EU governments like those in Poland and Hungary.

One of the few redeeming qualities of the current Polish government is that they're rather anti-Russia. Seriously, Kaczyński believes the Russian government murdered his brother. Russia has ravaged Poland countless times so even the hard-right Polish nationalists don't exactly love Russia.

[Helsinkian]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

[HillGoose]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

[GeorgiaModerate]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

The philosophy of the Russian government is that they're never to blame for anything; it's always the other guy's fault.  This is probably why Trump feels such a kinship with them.  He has the same attitude toward life.

[HillGoose]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

The philosophy of the Russian government is that they're never to blame for anything; it's always the other guy's fault.  This is probably why Trump feels such a kinship with them.  He has the same attitude toward life.

the philosophy of the weak and irresponsible in the world

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

There was no reason to expand NATO, it was an unprovoked aggression.

The Boston people, while ethnically Irish, do not wish to be part of Ireland. That is not the issue with Crimea, so it's an idiotic comparison. However, if in some alternate universe the vast majority of the state of MA wished to be annexed to Ireland, I believe they should be allowed to do so.

Why ethnic Russians are a majority now is completely irrelevant. Why should they have to pay for the crimes of Stalin?

I did not ignore Donbass, the hypocrite HillGoose was using the seizure of Crimea as an example of an "illegal" action, which I compared to his fetish for the bloody war in Iraq.

[Crumpets]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

There was no reason to expand NATO, it was an unprovoked aggression.

The Boston people, while ethnically Irish, do not wish to be part of Ireland. That is not the issue with Crimea, so it's an idiotic comparison. However, if in some alternate universe the vast majority of the state of MA wished to be annexed to Ireland, I believe they should be allowed to do so.

Why ethnic Russians are a majority now is completely irrelevant. Why should they have to pay for the crimes of Stalin?

I did not ignore Donbass, the hypocrite HillGoose was using the seizure of Crimea as an example of an "illegal" action, which I compared to his fetish for the bloody war in Iraq.

For the record, Russian annexation did not have clear support in Crimea until after Russia already occupied the peninsula*.  I don't doubt that a majority in Crimea support being a part of Russia, just that Russia had no evidence to base that fact on when they sent their little green men in.

* A poll from 2013 had 53% support for status quo and 23% support for annexation. A poll from 2008 had 54% at "Retain current status with expanded autonomy/rights" but 64% in favor of annexation if that autonomy is not granted.

[DavidB.]

There was no reason to expand NATO, it was an unprovoked aggression.

There was no "aggression", just independent, sovereign countries deciding to enter a military alliance that would keep them safe from such aggression from Russia. Helsinkian is absolutely right here.

There is a reason that all of Russia's neighbors enter NATO as soon as they can. It is not U.S. coercion, but rather the continuous threat Russia poses to all of their neighbors' sovereignty if they get the chance.

[TheSaint250]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assume Putin would never have become the imperialist tyrant he is today if NATO didn't expand, right?

The only thing that's stopping him from further expanding into the Baltic states to "save" Russians there, especially in the border region of Estonia, is NATO. Do you think he would've meddled in Ukraine and Georgia if they became part of NATO? To assume that Russia won't be a threat to European countries is ridiculous, and united fronts against the nation are necessary. We must always stand strongly in the face of Russian aggression wherever it comes. NATO keeps Putin and the Russian government at bay; it's what is standing in front of the nation attempting to spread its sphere of influence militarily.

[IceAgeComing]

For the record, Russian annexation did not have clear support in Crimea until after Russia already occupied the peninsula*.  I don't doubt that a majority in Crimea support being a part of Russia, just that Russia had no evidence to base that fact on when they sent their little green men in.

* A poll from 2013 had 53% support for status quo and 23% support for annexation. A poll from 2008 had 54% at "Retain current status with expanded autonomy/rights" but 64% in favor of annexation if that autonomy is not granted.

People tend to forget this: its not like there was mass support amongst the Russian population within Crimea for a union with Russia prior to the Russian invasion. 

Also the precedent that its perfectly OK for a country to invade a place to take territory just because the people there "want" to be a part of your country is one that I'm perfectly fine not normalising since it isn't a good one.

The same thing could apply to somewhere like Daugauvpils (54% Russian; Latvians less than 20% of the population and there are almost as many Poles living there as there are Latvians) or similar strongly Russian communities in Eastern Latvia.  That's also a population that historically has been more mistreated than those Russians in Crimea (they weren't automatically given Latvian citizenship unless they could prove that their descendants lived in Latvia before the Soviet invasion; and to get it they had to go through the naturalisation process which involved learning Latvian which wasn't taught at Russian language schools in Soviet times so a significant number still are stateless and don't have citizenship) and which has legitimate grievances - for example Russian having no legal status means that they can struggle to get government services.  However a majority of Latvian-Russians don't want to rejoin Russia and while they still hold the above grievances the advantages of living in Latvia (primarily EU membership and the advantages that brings to smaller, poorer nations; there's also the fact that the Latvian economy generally performs better than the Russian one) makes the status-quo much more desirable than becoming part of Russia - the belief being that if they wanted to become part of Russia then they'd have moved there.

However, an invasion; a token non-free and fair referendum (in Crimea the Ukrainian side was blocked from campaigning for a variety of reasons while the Russian side received significant government support, plus serious reports of irregularities which make the results incredibly suspicious indeed) and suddenly you have a legitimate reason for such an invasion?  Strikes me as being a bad precedent to set if you value peace which is why the international community needs to stay united against the land grab of Crimea, even though it increasingly seems rather silly to.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

This is such a steaming heap of bullsh#t.

[IceAgeComing]

So I'm not someone who's overly favourable towards US foreign policy (perfectly normal for a European socialist) and I have issues with the way that NATO sometimes operates.  However, I don't think that criticism of NATO expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is overly fair, really.  Those nations joined NATO primarily for two reasons: the first was a fear of a renewed Russian threat in the future (which in the case of the Baltic States is probably justified, especially in the cases of Estonia and Latvia which have large Russian populations) and the second was more symbolic: membership of NATO demonstrated to the world that they were clearly separate from Russia.  Saying that its America wanting to create "puppet states" or anything is ludicrous - unless anyone can provide evidence of America interfering in the Domestic Affairs of those new NATO members at least.  This is the reason why most of those states also joined the EU: it wasn't just to take advantage of the benefits of membership (free trade of goods and services plus Objective 2 funding supporting infrastructure developments in the region, etc) but also a symbolic statement about the place of those countries in the world.

Indeed I would argue that denying those nations NATO membership would likely put the world at more risk than allowing them to join.  Those nations were either already progressing towards EU membership in the case of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic or effectively joined the EU and NATO at the same time in the case of everyone else (other than Albania and Montenegro who are irrelevant to this discussion: the former left the Soviet sphere of influence with the Sino-Soviet split and the latter never were in it since Yugoslavia was the main non-aligned nation) and I would argue that it makes perfect sense for those nations to integrate their military within the primary European military alliance if they elect to integrate their economies into Europe's largest trading organisation.  Unless you also think that those nations should have been denied EU membership, which would have led to massive alienation after being excluded from the European club (which even symbolically would have been terrible) and would likely have led to tensions between those countries and the EU/NATO and potentially risk the development of democratic norms in those countries which even today aren't built on the firmest grounds.  Your perspective is a very Cold War one and the idea that Eastern Europe should be left to the Russians or whatever is incredibly outdated and the people who live in the region would heavily object with the idea that they ought to be excluded from NATO or other Western supranational organisations.

Ukraine is more contentious in terms of NATO membership however that's why the deal between NATO and Ukraine isn't that they become members in the future but its enhanced cooperation of some matters.  Ukraine's relationship with NATO is most similar to Serbia, the Caucasus nations, Moldova and Kazakhstan and is not designed to lead to full membership in the future, in the way that the relationship between Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO does.

If all of this makes me a neoliberal or neoconservative then, well, I need a good laugh today!

[Karpatsky]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

There was no reason to expand NATO, it was an unprovoked aggression.

The Boston people, while ethnically Irish, do not wish to be part of Ireland. That is not the issue with Crimea, so it's an idiotic comparison. However, if in some alternate universe the vast majority of the state of MA wished to be annexed to Ireland, I believe they should be allowed to do so.

Why ethnic Russians are a majority now is completely irrelevant. Why should they have to pay for the crimes of Stalin?

I did not ignore Donbass, the hypocrite HillGoose was using the seizure of Crimea as an example of an "illegal" action, which I compared to his fetish for the bloody war in Iraq.

Stop it with this nonsense propaganda. The annexation of Crimea was done at the barrel of a gun, and anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that a ''''''''''''referendum''''''''''''' with 90% turnout and 96% in favor of a major governmental change in a region not known for its democratic scrutiny in no way represents popular sovereignity.

As far as NATO expansion goes, ignoring for a moment Russian support for Serbian genocide and continuing occupation of Transnistria and northern Georgia, NATO is not a collection of puppets as the Warsaw Pact was, and independent states have the right to decide their own foreign policy. You call the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe an 'unprovoked aggression', I ask why should the opinions of the Russian junta supercede the opinions of sovereign and democratic republics like Poland and the Baltic states in deciding how to ensure their own security? Do you really believe that Russia would have remained passive and friendly to these states if they had remained 'neutral'? It is much more likely that today they would either be in the position of Belarus, with a government functionally under control of Moscow, or of Georgia and Ukraine, at war to defend their borders and constantly destabilized from within.

You can be against the war in Iraq but there were legitimate reasons to go there beyond a cynical and aggressive land grab. Comparing it to Crimea is ridiculous, and your post is blatant and despicable Kremlin revisionism.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

America's foreign policy in the Baltic and the rest of Eastern Europe has always been to turn them into vassal states against Russia. Remember, Russia kept their word on pulling out, then NATO moved right in. Neolib/neocon revisionism changes nothing.

I assure you, having experienced Russian rule, the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania required no forcing in joining NATO. And, contrary to Russian propaganda, US never signed any agreement that stated that the Baltic nations would not join NATO.

Crimea is Russian, the Crimean people want to be with Russia. And it was seized peacefully, with no bloodshed. Unlike the Iraq war you support so much, where hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered with bombs (only after a million had died due to sanctions, no less!).

"Boston is Irish, the Bostonian people want to be with Ireland. Let Boston be annexed into Ireland."

The only reason that ethnic Russians are the majority in Crimea is because Stalin committed an ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

And of course you choose to ignore the Russian aggression in the Donbass, a conflict with the same origins as the Crimea crisis, which has led to the deaths of thousands.

There was no reason to expand NATO, it was an unprovoked aggression.

The Boston people, while ethnically Irish, do not wish to be part of Ireland. That is not the issue with Crimea, so it's an idiotic comparison. However, if in some alternate universe the vast majority of the state of MA wished to be annexed to Ireland, I believe they should be allowed to do so.

Why ethnic Russians are a majority now is completely irrelevant. Why should they have to pay for the crimes of Stalin?

I did not ignore Donbass, the hypocrite HillGoose was using the seizure of Crimea as an example of an "illegal" action, which I compared to his fetish for the bloody war in Iraq.

Stop it with this nonsense propaganda. The annexation of Crimea was done at the barrel of a gun, and anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that a ''''''''''''referendum''''''''''''' with 90% turnout and 96% in favor of a major governmental change in a region not known for its democratic scrutiny in no way represents popular sovereignity.

As far as NATO expansion goes, ignoring for a moment Russian support for Serbian genocide and continuing occupation of Transnistria and northern Georgia, NATO is not a collection of puppets as the Warsaw Pact was, and independent states have the right to decide their own foreign policy. You call the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe an 'unprovoked aggression', I ask why should the opinions of the Russian junta supercede the opinions of sovereign and democratic republics like Poland and the Baltic states in deciding how to ensure their own security? Do you really believe that Russia would have remained passive and friendly to these states if they had remained 'neutral'? It is much more likely that today they would either be in the position of Belarus, with a government functionally under control of Moscow, or of Georgia and Ukraine, at war to defend their borders and constantly destabilized from within.

You can be against the war in Iraq but there were legitimate reasons to go there beyond a cynical and aggressive land grab. Comparing it to Crimea is ridiculous, and your post is blatant and despicable Kremlin revisionism.

You're right, any comparison is ridiculous. The Crimean "land grab" was a bloodless annexation of an area which the vast majority of people there supported. The invasion of Iraq was a criminal action based on lies, in which the US/UK ect. attempted to force regime change on a people that did not want democracy, and murdered hundreds of thousands of their civilians in the process, after killing over a million children with criminal sanctions over a decade.

[Helsinkian]

The Crimean "land grab" was a bloodless annexation of an area which the vast majority of people there supported.

The Russian occupation is not bloodless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/europe/crimea-tatar-vedzhie-kashka.html

And even if it were bloodless, that does not give Russia the right to do it. If Mexico were to occupy El Paso, Texas with soldiers bearing no insignia and then held a referendum which showed that the people of El Paso wished to be annexed into Mexico, would you be fine with it as long as there is no violence?

[IceAgeComing]

You're right, any comparison is ridiculous. The Crimean "land grab" was a bloodless annexation of an area which the vast majority of people there supported.

Again this isn't true but sure; go on repeating it if you want.  What polling before the Russian occupation found was that polling was relatively close between joining Russia and remaining part of Ukraine but with additional autonomy.  Additionally it was a military invasion of a place justified after the fact with a rigged referendum which isn't how these things are supposed to work.  I entirely support Crimea's right to self-determination (I voted for Scottish Independence and I'm not a hypocrite) however a fundamental part of that is that any referenda on independence or self-determination should be free from external pressure and entirely democratic.  The one in Crimea clearly wasn't and therefore you can't use it as a firm expression of the views of the people of Crimea.  I wouldn't doubt that if it was free and fair you might have had Russia win out but it certainly wouldn't have been 97% or whatever ridiculous number it was and the actual reported results are highly fishy - when organisations in Crimea are reporting turnout figures of 30-40% the idea of an 85-90% turnout is frankly ridiculous.  That's why we object to the Russian invasion of Crimea - not because Crimea should always have remained a part of Ukraine but because the precedent of countries invading other nations and then legitimising those invasions with fixed referenda is something that should be strenuously objected to.

You've also ignored the other criticisms of your arguments in this thread: the fact that you seem willing to override the views of people in Central and Eastern Europe and exclude them from major institutions or that their views are somehow less important than the views of the Russian government.  Or indeed the concerns of minority groups in Crimea which are also incredibly important to consider when talking about the issue - arguably more so.  Since 2014 many Crimean Tartars have been evicted from their homes (which were theirs prior to their forced expulsion from Crimea in 1944, had sat unoccupied until they returned and which successive Ukrainian governments had totally failed to guarantee them legal ownership of) and the primary group representing the interests of Crimean Tartars was banned by the Russian government in 2016 for using "propaganda of aggression and hatred towards Russia, inciting ethnic nationalism and extremism in society" and many prominent figures in the Crimean Tartar community have had to leave Crimea or face significant legal problems.  I think that dismissing them in the way that you have demonstrates that you don't really care about self determination at all because a key component of the right to self determination is that the minority that does not support a change in the status of their area also needs to have their views and interests protected in the long term as well with legal protections if required - and that clearly has not happened in this case which is a significant problem.

[Karpatsky]

You're right, any comparison is ridiculous. The Crimean "land grab" was a bloodless annexation of an area which the vast majority of people there supported. The invasion of Iraq was a criminal action based on lies, in which the US/UK ect. attempted to force regime change on a people that did not want democracy, and murdered hundreds of thousands of their civilians in the process, after killing over a million children with criminal sanctions over a decade.

I see you've managed to miss all my other points, so I'd appreciate if you went back and responded to them as well. The reason Crimea was relatively bloodless is because the Ukrainians were unprepared to fight. The ability of an enemy to resist does not positively affect the moral character of a war; indeed, one might consider it less honorable to attack a nation which has no ability to defend itself.

Regardless, your attempt to portray Russian aggression as victimless would probably be less well received by the 15,000 Ukrainians killed in Donbass, the further 25,000 injured, and the 2,000,000 refugees forced from their homes, both by warfare in the East and the insidious ethnic and political cleansing taking place in Crimea of the Tatars and any other dissidents - not to mention the countless activists and journalists assassinated and disappeared across the world at the hands of the thugs you are using as a bludgeon in your argument against Iraq, which is a totally unrelated issue.