1-15-2016
A Student Peer Response:
APUS 2nd
Master’s Degree
Intelligence Officer In Training
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Cell: 1-352-872-4774
Email: mumbaibayo.cary@yandex.com
Re: Why did
Russia decide to annex the Crimea?
"What strategic advantage does the port of
Sevastopol provide Russia as part of the annexation of Crimea?" -Bryan Eck
I do
not support, the initiation, of a: WWIII, with Russia, or any other world
power. I am Asian, and I am a Buddhist. I support: “World Peace,” just like
former Nobel Peace Prize winners: Thich Nat Hahn, and, His Holiness The Dalai
Lama. As I understand it, the easiest way, to avoid international conflict, is through
negotiations, and Peace Accords-that hold water. On historical record, when
referencing WWII, it is legally stated, and on International record-that
America, is a country, that will support a move towards peace, over another
move towards: WWIII:
Events in Afghanistan,
Ukraine, and the western Pacific affect US vital
interests because, since World War II, the American people have been united in
support of the following propositions:
1) A repetition of general war among the great powers
is to be avoided;
2) The
United States and other great powers bear responsibility for preventing such a
conflict;
3) Rules
of minimum world order support the effort to prevent world war; and fourth,
isolationism and indifference to international crises are not appropriate means
for achieving the goal. (Rostow 2014, 41)
The Pentagon, in sending
US Military troops, to Poland, and in the middle of Winter, and thus
endangering our troops-to inappropriately confront President Putin, is not a
move by the US, away from WWIII, and towards: “World Peace.” President Putin,
as the autonomous world ruler and power of Russia, has a legal International prerogative,
to be seriously concerned, about what is transpiring, in his immediate back
yard-the Ukraine, and the Crimea.
The US, is building up our military, towards a
WWIII, based on the faulty International foreign policy and leadership, of: Mr.
Obama. There are, a number of reasons, and, they are historically based-why,
Russia had and still has the right, to deal directly, and aggressively, with
former USSR member countries, in the immediate vicinity. Russia has a long, and
well-established history, of: control, leadership, trade, military presence,
etc.-in the areas of both: The Ukraine and The Crimea.
I am an online “hacker.” I visit
countries, all over the world-through the Internet, Russia included. Although,
the US has been told for years, that there is now, a centralized Russia, and
then, the former: USSR-which are now autonomous states-this is not entirely
true. Online, it is clear-when you enter Russian websites, through a back door,
that, Russia, for all intentional purposes-is still, the: USSR:
1) Russia
decided to take control of the Crimea, because the Russian government, never-really
perceived Russia, as being entirely separate. Russia, still functions under the
direction of government-in many ways, as the: USSR. Russia, needed that it be
legally stated, that the fission, between Russia, and Crimea-no longer existed.
When I was a young child,
I used to play a world denomination game. The child’s world ruler game, explained
the benefits, of owning various countries. Russia, is both: freezing cold, and
land locked, as well as in need, of raw natural resources-for manufacturing.
2) Russia
decided, to annex the Crimea, because the Crimea offers a: “warm port,” and gas
and oil supplies, for trade and economic possibilities, to grow the Russian
economy.
It is difficult, for
small countries, to provide for all their economic, and security needs-on their
own. The smaller a country is-the fewer financial, and other resources, the
country tends to have access to. Small countries, are almost always vulnerable
to: military coups, terrorists, and other external threats.
3) Russia
annexed the Crimea-in favor Crimeans, who were former members of the: USSR, and
who, still considered themselves Russians. The Crimea required: Russian economic
support, and military protections, because of the terrorist hot-bed, that the
Ukraine-had become.
It has been commented-on,
a number of occasions, and in more than a few peer-reviewed journals-marvel,
over the new ways, in which, the Russian military, blended-military styles “hybrid”:
state workers, military, and intelligence-in order to achieve a smooth, and
safer transition, from: Crimea, back to-Russia again (Ven Bruusgaard 2014, 81):
. . .Russian
definitions of strategy,. . .“the highest level of military activity, that is,
the avoidance of war, the preparation of the armed forces and the country in
general for repelling aggression, and the planning and carrying out of
operations and war.” (Ven Bruusgaard 2014, 82)
Russia, as is apparent,
in their smooth transition in the Crimea, is working hard to, both: protect
humanity, and, accomplish the military ends that are required-while at the same
time, keeping an International promise, to remain focused on maintaining, a “World
Peace.”
The question, then, still
remains-not, if Russia could peacefully take the Crimea. Why, and not just according
to: popular common knowledge-did Russia decide, to regain control, over the
Crimea? How did President Putin justify, taking Russian troops, into the
Crimea? Why did Putin think, that there was an immediate need, for Russia to be
returned to the control of Russia? What did Russia gain, from the annexation,
of the Crimea? The following statements, in regards to the reasoning behind the
annexation, of the Crimea, by Russia-follow, a strategic, and military planning
response-as opposed to the explanations, that I initially offered-which, are
popular commonplace knowledge, and yet-the responses-are almost identical:
1)
"Putin as defender ": The Crimean
operation was a response to threat-NATO’s further expansion along Russia's
western border. (By this logic, Putin seized the peninsula to prevent two
dangerous possibilities: first, that Ukraine's new government might join NATO,
and second, that Kiev might evict Russia's Black Sea Fleet from its longstanding
base in Sevastopol (My knowledge, of the well-known Russian need, for a “warm
port theory.”);
2)
"Putin as imperialist": The annexation of
Crimea, as part of a Russian project to gradually recapture the former
territories of the Soviet Union (My knowledge-through online hacking, that
Russia, has not let go, of the former: USSR.). Putin never accepted the loss of
Russian prestige that followed the end of the Cold War, this argument suggests,
and he is determined to restore it, in part by expanding Russia's borders;
3)
“Putin as improviser”: This theory presents
the annexation of the Crimea, as a hastily conceived response, to the
unforeseen fall of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (My general knowledge,
of the sincere concern, that Russia has for citizens, of the former USSR, and,
their over-all well-being.) (Treisman 2016, “Foreign Affairs”)
There is no reason, that I can ascertain,
as to why the US, would perceive, the need of Russia, to:
1)
Protect
their own military and security issues;
2)
To
maintain control of a region close to Russia, that still requires support, from
the larger country of Russia;
3)
Or,
the sincere concern, that Russia openly expresses, for former: USSR, to-any in
way, conflict, with American interests.
Russia, is miles away
from continental America. In 2015, a Cyber Security Adobe conference, that I
attended online-through The US Pentagon, and The US Department of Defense-it
was shared, by the US Marines, that, Mr. Obama, was aware of the terrorist activities,
that were occurring, in the Ukraine, and the nearby Crimea. As a “webmaster”,
cyber-security expert, and “freelance reporter,” in attendance, I did take the
liberty, to ask several questions, regarding the Obama Administration, and, the
ways in which, Mr. Obama, had chosen to respond to: “International terrorism.”
When I was in Martinique, FR-only a
few months earlier, a man introduced himself to me, and he told me, that he was
an assassin, sent by the Obama Administration, to kill me. As an applicant for
political asylum, to Europe, and traveling through the French Caribbean-I felt
confused, and asked natives there, why Mr. Obama, would feel soo negatively,
towards me.
I am an American, and, I am a
conservative Republican. Natives, to the island of French province Martinique,
FR, told me-that, Mr. Obama, and his Administration, support International
Terrorism. Therefore, when I was in attendance, at the D.o.D., online conference,
the questions I asked the US Marines Officer-were point, and pertained directly
to-whether-or-not, Mr. Obama, supports “International Terrorism?”
The US Marine, presenting at the
Cyber Security Adobe, online conference-for experts only, very clearly stated,
that the problem is, that, there is terrorism in the Ukraine-and it negatively
affects Russia-so Russia must deal pro-actively with the situation. While, at
the very same time, Mr. Obama, opposed President Putin’s annex, of the Crimea,
because-in doing soo, President Putin, was able to keep his country: Russia-much
safer.
The fact that Mr. Obama, throughout his time as
US President, supported “International terrorism,” was damaging-to too many
people worldwide. Mr. Obama, supported military tactics, and maneuvers, that,
only benefited him, and his crony’s, and, which were detrimental, to the
remainder of the world-this, is not an ethos of: “World Peace.” War is an
unnecessary, and unforgiving-means, and an aggressive way, to relating to other
countries, and, to human begins-in general.
As the Cold War
evolved and knowledge and understanding of crisis management in a nuclear age
matured, American administrations and Americans more generally thought of
nuclear weapons only as a weapon of last resort in the most extreme
circumstances of national defense, if usable even then. (Rostow 2014, 42)
In the very short period,
of a brief 7 years, in which, I have been, both: homeless, and unemployed (the
entire Obama Administration), the US policy, against International engagement,
of nuclear war, has gone from-unimaginable, to-a clear possibility. I find it
hard to conceive, why, an illustrious committee, such as: The Nobel Peace Prize
Institute, thought it would be appropriate, to award-an agitator, like: Mr.
Obama, with the: Nobel Peace Prize?
While Thomas Jefferson touted an
International foreign policy, of non-intervention, Mr. Obama, has flown US
diplomats-of State, and otherwise, who are unwilling to negotiate-all over the
entire Globe. When other countries,
think about the US, and the Obama Administration, America is viewed, as: an out
of control octopus, that is trying to dip its quill, into, everyone’s ink well.
As an American, and a Republican-I am embarrassed.
References
Rostow, Nicholas.
2014. “CONSEQUENCES.”
Naval War College Review, vol. 67, 4.: 40-63. Accessed
January 15, 2017. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1559528172?accountid=8289
Treisman, Daniel.
2016. “Why Putin Took Crimea:
The Gambler in the Kremlin.” Foreign Affairs, May/June, vol. 95,3.:47-54.
Accessed January 15, 2017. file:///C:/Users/Mumbai%20Eliza/Documents/APUS%20Week%202%20Peer%20Response%203%20Why%20Putin%20Took%20Crimea.pdf
Ven Bruusgaard,
Kristin. 2014. “Crimea and Russia's strategic overhaul.”
Parameters, vol. 44, 3.: 81-90. Accessed
January 15, 2017. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/1628380476?accountid=8289
No comments:
Post a Comment