Russian fighter jet intercepts 2 US bombers over Baltic Sea (PHOTOS)

[Piotr]

(...) But I understand there's a double standard going on (...)

Large part of US establishment thinks that USA is exceptional and indispensable. That’s where US double standards come from.

Crimea invited internation observers, they didn't deem it legal (...)

Mateusz Piskorski (politician and academic from Poland) was one of international observers monitoring the referendum in Crimea. After the referendum he said that the referendum was in line with international standards.

Bear in mind that not a single Russian soldier died during reunification of Crimea with Russia. Not a single Ukrainian solder died. Most of Ukrainian soldiers after reunification decided to join Russian army. This shows scale of support for Russia in Crimea. Russia did whatever possible to prevent spill of blood in Crimea. While USA wanted bloodshed in Crimea. USA wanted NATO unit in Crimea (in Feodosia) to kill civilians there. US Consulate General in Kiev encouraged the use of force against civilians in Crimea:
(with English subtitles)

USA (Victoria Nulland) spent 5 billion dollars to manufacture Nazi coup in Ukraine. US goal was to drive Russia away from Crimea. US doesn’t care about democracy and human rights. Power and money is all that matter for USA. For USA Ukraine is just a pawn to be used to against Russia. That’s exactly what Korwin-Mikke told two years ago:

USA modus operandi is divide and conquer. There is a great lecture by Dmitry Mikheyev who worked for “Voice of America” and the Jamestown Foundation about among others Anglo-Saxon strategy of divide and conquer (he has nothing to do with Norway):

I know, he's not a Nazi, I found that video hillarious, here is a video about him:

He is very controversial figure (I’m not his fan BTW), but one can’t deny that he is intelligent. He already in 1990s predicted that Crimea will eventually go back to Russia. And he was right.

IMO US shoot itself in the foot by manufacturing Nazi coup in Ukraine. It all backfired. Crimea in now in Russia, while sanctions are helping Russia reestablish its industries. While European countries suffer because of sanctions. China was right when it warned against pushing Russia with sanctions.

China warns of dangerous Russia sanctions 'spiral'
Thu Mar 13, 2014 | 6:35am EDT

China's top envoy to Germany has warned the West against punishing Russia with sanctions for its intervention in Ukraine, saying such measures could lead to a dangerous chain reaction that would be difficult to control.

In an interview with Reuters days before the European Union is threatening to impose its first sanctions on Russia since the Cold War, ambassador Shi Mingde issued the strongest warning against such measures by any top Chinese official to date.

"We don't see any point in sanctions," Shi said. "Sanctions could lead to retaliatory action, and that would trigger a spiral with unforeseeable consequences. We don't want this."
(...)
Source:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-china-idUSBREA2C0PB20140313

 

[Cell_DbZ]

Mateusz Piskorski (politician and academic from Poland) was one of international observers monitoring the referendum in Crimea. After the referendum he said that the referendum was in line with international standards.

That guy is a neo-Eurasian activist, his neutrality can be questioned here. My conclusion is that the referendum is not really legitimate (low turn-out, not many neutral observers), however I recognize that the majority of Crimeans are pro-Russian and want to belong with Russia. No matter how many sanctions there will be, Crimea won't return.

IMO US shoot itself in the foot by manufacturing Nazi coup in Ukraine. It all backfired. Crimea in now in Russia, while sanctions are helping Russia reestablish its industries. While European countries suffer because of sanctions.

I think it was an attempt to further encircle Russia via NATO, America kwen very well Russia would take action (Crimea), so maybe they wanted to create an enemy, to perhaps increase military spending? I don't know, I don't want to sound as a conspiracy theorist.
Europe is not happy about increased sanctions, they hurt Europe, not the Usa, I feel we are beign used here for their foreign policiy. They should keep it bilateral with Russia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-russia-sanctions-germany-idUSB4N1HY000?rpc=401&

 

[Oldman1]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international...est-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
At the very least it seems to me that the then secretary of state (James Baker) did promise not to.

With your source.

The various players involved have different versions of events. Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.


For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

I explained that Crimea is a lot more than just a naval base for Russia:
- Only warm water port
- Russians living there (pro-Russia)
- Danger of encirclement by NATO
- Poroshenko beign hostile toward Russia (could theoretically always block access of the Black Sea if he would feel like)
But you seem to fail to understand at least the reasoning of the Russians, it's always that evil Russia is going to invade the whole of Europe.


Did they annex Georgia? Russians never really threatened to invade any of those countries. Why didn't they invade Poland, the Baltics, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Finland and Sweden?

You think the Russians learn from Hitler's mistake in invading every country at the same time?

You really seem to fail to see that Crimea is a lot more then just a naval base.


Other than beign a hawk, it means nothing, hawks were always a symbol. I've elaborated on that, but you're were not willing to reread this thread, so I will just quote myself.



Explained that to you already, but Ill do so again once.
Poroshenko made it very clear the Russians had to leave, Ukraine would never extend the contract, Poroshenko could even cancel the lease. Even if Poroshenko did not cancel the lease, what after 2042? Losing the Black Sea fleat wasn't the only reason of the annexation, I explained that.

Reminds me of Hitler invading Czechoslovakia at the time.

Actually, we just returned what Poland already had to give up after the illegal annexation. Line of Curzon - heard about it?
The Crimea is Russian land and populated by Russians. Comparison with the Philippines is absolutely inappropriate. You have to use your imagination if you want to understand.
Traitors have destroyed the United States (half of states become independent) and tens of millions of Americans are outside America.
California become independent in 1991. And in 2014 some Mexican Junta seized power in it (of course with the full support of the USSR, China, Eastern Germany and all progressive humanity). Mexicans enacts laws against the English language. People with torches and Nazi symbols walks on the streets of Californian cities and shout "Hang the Americans", "Death to the enemies", etc. And then, these Mexicans threaten to expell the American fleet from Naval Base San Diego. San Diego, you understand !? From American land populated by Americans who want to be part of the US, not Mexico !!!
I'm more than sure that it's difficult and very painful for you to imagine this. But this actually happened - not in the USA, but in the USSR.

So you plan to invade all the lands lost by Russia including the Stans?

The shortest distance from Iran to the US is 8630 km. What kind of missiles does Iran have with such a range? All the missiles that can be launched from Iran in the direction of the US, fly over Russia. Russia offered the US the creation of a joint anti-missile system for such a case, but you refused. In addition, to deploy interceptor missiles, you use universal launchers, which are also used for cruise missiles which may have nuclear heads. Thus, respect yourself, only a complete idiot can say that the entire system is not directed against Russia.
The fall of the USSR has economic and political reasons. These are a crisis in the economy and a crisis of power. There was neither crisis in economy nor crisis of power in Ukraine. You used the internal ethnic conflict existing there. Then the crisis of power was artificially created by the violence of pre-prepared insurgents and the shooting of crowds. And all this was supplemented by unprecedented political pressure from your side to legitimate Ukrainian power. Thus, respect yourself, do not say stupid things.

It's not for your country to talk about respect.

You can easily look at the silos to see if its interceptors or actually cruise missiles which be a violation. You are not thinking outside the box and just assumed otherwise.

And if Iran were firing ICBMs would Russia really care much since the target would be the U.S.? No. And considering if we want to protect the U.S. from Russian missiles we wouldn't place it in Poland or Italy or wherever in Europe. As you pointed out the close way to hit the U.S. was 8630km closest distance. What direction please? How you get that distance number?

Course the Russians think Iran would shoot across the ocean which would be further. So they make fun of that.

 

[vostok]

So you plan to invade all the lands lost by Russia including the Stans?

We are reviving a common economic space within the Eurasian Union. Most of the Stans are already members of the Eurasian Union.
There is a much more adequate example of the reunification of the Germans in the history of Germany - 1989 year. Voluntary reunification with almost 100% support of the local population. Just like in Crimea.
By the way - Commemorative Medal in honor of the Munich Pact of Hitler (Germany), Chamberlain (Great Britain), Mussolini (Italy) and Daladier (France) on the partition of Czechoslovakia.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

With your source.

The various players involved have different versions of events. Of course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.


For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment." Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

It is clear that a 'commitment' has been given, perhaps no true 'promise' has been given to not expand, but mister Gorbachev explained himself the 'spirit' assurances of NATO has been broken, I think it is safe to say the Russians have a basis for mistrust of NATO. Technically NATO didn't promise anything, but they implied that: ' Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.' and 'Baker’s statement was made in that context…' You can say that NATO did not fulfill this, it is easy to then say "we didn't promise anything", but if NATO is goin to act 'shady' like that, then the Russians can make a point here.

You think the Russians learn from Hitler's mistake in invading every country at the same time?

Perhaps you can ask the same thing to the Usa? (Iraq, Vietnam), I think it is unfair to compare Usa with the Nazi's, like it is unfair to compare the Russians with the Nazi's. I gave you my point of view, I hate to break it to you, but every country has it's own foreign intrests and in this regard, they are all the same like the Nazi's.
I compared the Isigna's of Ukraine and Nazi, I gave you a clear explanation why I thought the Ukraine insigna was nothing more but a cynical attempt to copy the Nazi's and solely to offend Russia, instead you deviated and started to take historical events.
I can point you a few from Usa and I can find parrallels with Hitler too, but then we could end having an endless discussion.
I tried to place myself into Russian shoes, I can keep repeating myself, as you don't seem to bother to read the whole tread.
My conclusion is that the Russians had fair reasoning in their annexation, If they really wanted to 'expand', they could have created a puppet regime in Georgia, but they didn't. Eastern Ukraine is a proxy war, not an invasion, if the Russians would have invaded and annexed, then you can compare Czechoslovakia (certainly if the Russians ended up installing a puppet regime in Ukraine). Don't forget, it are the Eastern Ukrainians picking up the weapons, Russia does support them in giving some of those weapons and even sending 'advisers', but Russia is not invading (I am not excusing the Russians here), Usa is supporting many proxy groups in Syria, are they invading? According to your logic, that would be yes then.

 

[vostok]

What the West will NEVER understand about Crimea

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

What the West will NEVER understand about Crimea

Everyone in the west understands that this is how Russians view the situation...
We do not have to agree.

 

[Sinnerman108]

History is very unfortunate, and shameful.

Russia / Soviet Union had ice to the north, the cold underdeveloped areas and pacific ocean to the east,
and much more industrially powerful europe to the west.

Thus NATO denied Russia / Soviet Union markets to expand into, as well a trade routes.

The lack of warm sea port and links to Middle East and Africa is what strangled Russia.

Not only did NATO managed to keep the Middle East on their side they also managed to use Middle East's
vast oil wealth for their industrial growth.

Even today, we are seeing the same game being played. Whereby NATO is trying to deny China & Russia access to warm waters. NATO is trying to preserve their markets.

Lets see how this game will play out.

We are reviving a common economic space within the Eurasian Union. Most of the Stans are already members of the Eurasian Union.
There is a much more adequate example of the reunification of the Germans in the history of Germany - 1989 year. Voluntary reunification with almost 100% support of the local population. Just like in Crimea.
By the way - Commemorative Medal in honor of the Munich Pact of Hitler (Germany), Chamberlain (Great Britain), Mussolini (Italy) and Daladier (France) on the partition of Czechoslovakia.
View attachment 405834

 

[vostok]

History is very unfortunate, and shameful.

Russia / Soviet Union had ice to the north, the cold underdeveloped areas and pacific ocean to the east,
and much more industrially powerful europe to the west.

Thus NATO denied Russia / Soviet Union markets to expand into, as well a trade routes.

The lack of warm sea port and links to Middle East and Africa is what strangled Russia.

Not only did NATO managed to keep the Middle East on their side they also managed to use Middle East's
vast oil wealth for their industrial growth.

Even today, we are seeing the same game being played. Whereby NATO is trying to deny China & Russia access to warm waters. NATO is trying to preserve their markets.

Lets see how this game will play out.

The game has changed a lot, since the time of the Cold War. Previously, the only obstacle in the way of the West to global hegemony was USSR only. But now there are many ambitious countries with their own ideas about the future of the world. Now the West needs to confront not only Russia but also China and India. I'm afraid that the West simply does not have enough strength - because the United States is already turning from a global creditor into a global debtor.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

But now there are many ambitious countries with their own ideas about the future of the world. Now the West needs to confront not only Russia but also China and India. I'm afraid that the West simply does not have enough strength

I don't understand. If the economies of those grow, wouldn't it be beneficial for Europe/west too?

 

[Sinnerman108]

The game has changed a lot, since the time of the Cold War. Previously, the only obstacle in the way of the West to global hegemony was USSR only. But now there are many ambitious countries with their own ideas about the future of the world. Now the West needs to confront not only Russia but also China and India. I'm afraid that the West simply does not have enough strength - because the United States is already turning from a global creditor into a global debtor.

That is one way of looking at it ( it is the same way Russian foreign ministry sees it ).

The way I look at it is a bit differently i.e NATO will protect it's markets. The focus and the thrust of their
strategy is to protect the market, and keep the competition out by means of geographic circling and political
destabilization.

India is not a player; India is a market itself. NATO will give them sole role and liberty to make some money for the time being;
in time they will ensure that india remains a market; India is and will remain political slave.

China and Russia are the only two real competitors who have ambitions that give NATO nightmares because
NATO cannot control the political system of these two countries.

I don't understand. If the economies of those grow, wouldn't it be beneficial for Europe/west too?

Eventually it is matter of who is the seller ?
Seller is the ruler.
If countries other than the established order start becoming producers ( be that of agriculture or industrial goods )
they will end up taking market share away from the big boys. (a.k.a NATO).

 

[Oldman1]

It is clear that a 'commitment' has been given, perhaps no true 'promise' has been given to not expand, but mister Gorbachev explained himself the 'spirit' assurances of NATO has been broken, I think it is safe to say the Russians have a basis for mistrust of NATO. Technically NATO didn't promise anything, but they implied that: ' Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.' and 'Baker’s statement was made in that context…' You can say that NATO did not fulfill this, it is easy to then say "we didn't promise anything", but if NATO is goin to act 'shady' like that, then the Russians can make a point here.

No, Gorbachev pointed out now WMDs in Germany or military structures in Germany which he says NATO complied based on treaty. But spirit assurances is nothing. Hence we signed these. You said they have mistrust of NATO but there were no American troops near Russian border in Eastern Europe until the reaction of invasion of Crimea and annexation.

Perhaps you can ask the same thing to the Usa? (Iraq, Vietnam), I think it is unfair to compare Usa with the Nazi's, like it is unfair to compare the Russians with the Nazi's. I gave you my point of view, I hate to break it to you, but every country has it's own foreign intrests and in this regard, they are all the same like the Nazi's.
I compared the Isigna's of Ukraine and Nazi, I gave you a clear explanation why I thought the Ukraine insigna was nothing more but a cynical attempt to copy the Nazi's and solely to offend Russia, instead you deviated and started to take historical events.
I can point you a few from Usa and I can find parrallels with Hitler too, but then we could end having an endless discussion.
I tried to place myself into Russian shoes, I can keep repeating myself, as you don't seem to bother to read the whole tread.
My conclusion is that the Russians had fair reasoning in their annexation, If they really wanted to 'expand', they could have created a puppet regime in Georgia, but they didn't. Eastern Ukraine is a proxy war, not an invasion, if the Russians would have invaded and annexed, then you can compare Czechoslovakia (certainly if the Russians ended up installing a puppet regime in Ukraine). Don't forget, it are the Eastern Ukrainians picking up the weapons, Russia does support them in giving some of those weapons and even sending 'advisers', but Russia is not invading (I am not excusing the Russians here), Usa is supporting many proxy groups in Syria, are they invading? According to your logic, that would be yes then.

You gave a clear explanation of so called NAZI insignia to Ukraine, but you pointed out that its new and giving a finger to Russia which took their territory. I don't have to deviate. You just ignore the contest why they made that insignia in the first place and hatred of Russia.

You tried to place yourself in Russian shoes but don't think of Ukraine's.

As I have pointed out, Russia could have just invaded and bring back the status quo by suppressing the coup. But instead they just decided to take over Crimea. Russia is pretty much using proxies now and bodies are coming back, to the point of suppressing the numbers or funerals. Well known fact. USA invading Syria but not taking territory. Perhaps Russia will want to annex parts of Syria if they lost, just for the naval base.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

No, Gorbachev pointed out now WMDs in Germany or military structures in Germany which he says NATO complied based on treaty. But spirit assurances is nothing. Hence we signed these. You said they have mistrust of NATO but there were no American troops near Russian border in Eastern Europe until the reaction of invasion of Crimea and annexation.

The Baltics joined NATO in 1997, hence why I said 'the good spirits' were broken (and Gorbachevseems to agree), Usa was planning to install missile shields under Bush, before Russia has been doing much. NATO has been creeping up to Russian border and you expect the Russians to just sit there like 'allright'?
I find it very hard to believe that Russia 'didn't have a reason for mistrust'.

You gave a clear explanation of so called NAZI insignia to Ukraine, but you pointed out that its new and giving a finger to Russia which took their territory. I don't have to deviate. You just ignore the contest why they made that insignia in the first place and hatred of Russia.

Having a reaction against Russia is one thing, but to accept an insigna that is similar to the Nazi insigna is a whole other. Western Ukrainians and Baltics helped the Nazi's persecute many Russians in ww2, in total almost 14 million Russians died (4 million by direct persecution from mainly the Nazi's and another 7 millions soldiers who died in the war itself, the remainder died because of famine and disease). I don't think Putin has been attacked here, but the Russian and other ex-Soviet states' people have been attacked.
Very, very hard to defend Poroshenko here. I think there are other ways 'to give a finger'.

You tried to place yourself in Russian shoes but don't think of Ukraine's.

I definitely recognize the wishes of western Ukrainians, but so did the whole west, they have had 20 years to do something, but they never really did. A democratically elected presedent has been ousted by a popular western Ukrainian uprise, the coup was supported and recognized by the west without much problems.
Then the very same thing happened in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and that somehow is not ok for the west, a very clear double standard to me.
Poroshenko has been recieving billions from Europa and Usa and he hasn't changed Ukraine for the better, in fact Ukraine is doing as bad as ever.

As I have pointed out, Russia could have just invaded and bring back the status quo by suppressing the coup.

So you would have been ok with that then? Russia could have easily disposed the Georgian government, but they never did, it is not Russia's goal to create a 'neo-Soviet union' believe it or not.

But instead they just decided to take over Crimea.

-Russian people living there supported it, certainly when they knew Poroshenko was not willing to repect the wishes established in 1991-1992 (Poroshenko at one point said that Russian would not be recognized as a language in Ukraine, trust me, this is painfull, I come from a country where the same thing happened)
-Poroshenko said Russia must leave Crimea (losing one of the few warm-water port and the whole Black Sea (fleet) in the process)
Russian (and pro-Russian) people + very important location + coup in Ukraine (by a hostile Poroshenko)= recipe for disaster
Perhaps you should try to place yourself in Russian shoes, but you don't seem to be bothered by that.

Russia is pretty much using proxies now

If proxies you mean the eastern Ukrainian rebels doing it out of will and Russian volunteers, then sure.

and bodies are coming back, to the point of suppressing the numbers or funerals. Well known fact.

USA invading Syria but not taking territory.

Usa isn't invading, they are also using proxies, for their own gain. As long there's no territory (but oil) taken, it is ok to invade, I guess? Syria (and the middle-east in larger extend) are not comparable to Crimea, yet you don't seem to be able to see that difference.

Perhaps Russia will want to annex parts of Syria if they lost, just for the naval base.

Russia up to this point has never annexed any territory that didn't support it.

 

[vostok]

Interesting. What would the Iraqis choose if they had choice - that their country would become the 51st US state with all the rights of US citizens and the US standard of living and US wages - or they choose the US simply bombed their country into dust, killed a million people and then gone, as if nothing had happened?

 

[Piotr]

What the West will NEVER understand about Crimea

The "West" is not a monolith. Many people in the "West" support/accept Crimea's reunification with Russia:

Putin, Berlusconi hold informal meeting in Crimea
Published time: 11 Sep, 2015 14:26
The Russian president has met with his ally and personal friend, former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, in Crimea near the monument erected in memory of Sardinian soldiers who died in the Crimean War in the 19th century.
(...)
Source: https://www.rt.com/politics/315063-putin-berluskoni-hold-informal-meeting/

French Delegation 2nd Crimea Visit Stresses Need to Lift Anti-Russia Sanctions
13:15 29.07.2016
French lawmaker from The Republicans center-right party Jacques Myard stated that it is necessary to emphasize, to stress the importance of lifting European sanctions against Russia.
(...)
Source: https://sputniknews.com/europe/201607291043746441-france-crimea-sanctions/

German Delegation Meets With Crimean Parliamentarians in Simferopol
13:32 29.03.2017
The German delegation of lawmakers and businessmen on Wednesday held a meeting with the leadership of the Crimean parliament, the State Council, including with speaker Vladimir Konstantinov, in the peninsula's largest city of Simferopol.
(...)
source: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201703291052074445-crimea-germany-delegation-simferopol/

Not to mention that the "West" is only a small fraction of the World.