It seems to me the Russian leadership were OK with a more or less independent, neutral Ukraine. Given the hostility already manifested by bringing NATO to the borders, supporting an adventure in Georgia, the installation of missiles, and so on, it is not surprising that they decided to make trouble about a coup apparently purposed towards bringing NATO into Ukraine, and, probably, doing something to the naval base in the Crimea. Putin’s values probably resemble those of a Mafia capo, strong on territory, prestige, and la famiglia, so some kind of hard-nosed response was guaranteed.
We do not appear to have much of an independent media or respect for the rule of law left in the US, either, but I don’t think that’s going to help our great leaders get along with theirs. Russia probably could have been sucked into the Great Western Thing, but it would have taken soft talk and a long rope, and the neo-cons (or whoever was ginning up all the excitement) blew it.
Forgive me if this is stupid, but I’ve seen this phrasing, “the Crimea”, a couple of times now. Googling is little help, even with double quotes. Is this a regional thing?
More diachronic. At one time, people (where I lived) said, ‘the Crimea, the Ukraine’, just as they now say ‘the Bronx’. Like many things, the usage does not make a lot of sense. In recent years, the the’s seem to have been dropped from the Slavic country names – why or why not, I don’t know. My usage seems to have popped up unbidden from my medieval youth. The the’s do not come from the inhabitants, who call these countries simply ‘Krym’ and ‘Ukraina’. Maybe we can blame the French.
Sometimes, the definitive article is used to refer to a region ripe for conquest, rather than an independent state. “The argentine.” “The Sudan”, “The Crimea”, " “The Ukraine”, and so continued use of the definite article carries a whiff of condescension.
??
How very PC of you, to avoid the staples of Fascist rhetoric. As for “rule of law”, that seems to have been abandoned some time ago. For example (one of many), having a President selected by the Supreme Court…
As for what “Russia doesn’t want”, I’m pretty sure that it does not want to be part of that “Western hegemon” any longer. It did for a while, but after a couple decades of looting and insults and confrontation, and now outright military provocation in the Ukraine, Russia doesnt’t want NATO right on its borders.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that your statement is 180° out of phase with “correct”. Russia does want an independent Ukraine, and not another hegemonic outpost.
We must expect, then, the Russians to say ‘na Krym’ (because Crimea is part of Russia), the Ukrainians to say ‘na Krym’ (because Crimea is part of Ukraine), and the non-Russian, non-Ukrainian Crimeans to say ‘v Krym’ or whatever the equivalent is in their language (Tatar, I suppose) because it’s clearly their country. As to qualifying as a country, I think Crimea may have been a state at times in the distant past – a khanate, perhaps. It has had quite a checkered career.
I don’t know about the condescension thing with regard to the definite article. Different languages with definite articles seem pretty arbitrary about applying them to geographical names, as for example German – die Schweiz, die Niederlande, die Ukraine, die Krim, but Frankreich, Polen, Russland, Tschechien, etc.
If you’re going to proofread every comment I make for niggling typographical errors, I will need to see a writer’s contract ASAP. Otherwise, you will have no claim on what I’ve written. If I choose to spend time proofreading and revising my comments for spelling, grammar, and style, that’s my choice, and not yours.
One might assume it from articles like this. It is from the Russian media, as you will have a hard time finding this information in the Washington Post or New York TImes.
Perhaps the Latvians should simply abandon Riga and open up a new capital in Strasbourg, so as not to offend the Russians with their pretensions to independence.
The topic of this article and your query … you asked, and my link provides.
Not only is it a NATO office, it is a NATO information (read: propaganda) office. This is the NATO troll army you were asking about. I can give you a link, but the understanding part is up to you.
As for the location, it is irrelevant. The internet, remember?
You needn’t fear. In a stunning upset, the Center for Strategic Communications defected from the iron grip of the imperialist Western Hegemon to embrace the traditional values of the new Russia.
