Russian's invasion

     The political crisis erupted in Ukraine in November, 2013 when the Cabinet announced the suspension of the country's integration with the European Union.  In January, mass protests called "Euromaidan" were held throughout Ukraine and resulted as public street fights and armed clashes. Ukrainian parliament voted to impeach the president, Victor Yanukovych, on February 22, 2014. At the same time, there was a violent seizure of power made by an opposition party. In the environment of the political crisis, Crimean referendum passed a vote with 96 % of the population agreeing to join Russia. At that same time, Russian parliament authorized a law on accession Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
     I disagree with Russian methods to take over in Ukraine. First, Crimea’s referendum took place on the territory that had been already occupied by Russian troops and military. According to Putin’s words, the armed forces involvement was introduced as protection of life, liberty, and the health of citizens of Ukraine. He pretended that as a response at the request of the deposed President of Ukraine, Yanukovych. On the day of the referendum Russian flags could be seen waiving on many administrative buildings. Certainly, it set some sort of pressure to people’s choice of the referendum.  Also, the high percentage (96.7 %) of votes for joining Crimea to Russia makes me feel doubtful about its accuracy because Crimea has approximately a 17% native population- Crimean Tatars and 25% regular Ukrainians.
     There are some difficulties that have not been resolved yet before Crimea's annexation. For instance, Russia has no land borders with the peninsula, so it is unclear how Crimea is going to be supplied with food, water and energy resources. Another important question is what currency will be used. As it has been stated, Crimea will be a region with two currencies - the ruble and the hryvnia until 2016. The issue with the minority (Crimean Tatars), who refuse to participate in the referendum due political reasons, is still left unresolved.
     I believe that Crimia’s annexation by Russia can serve as an example which would provocate protests among other countries to separate their territories from the current borders. Several European regions such as Catalonia, Spain; Scotland, UK; Venice, Italy; have expressed their desire to secede and fight for independence. The Italian island of Sardinia is also requesting for referendum. And it is not only about independence — some Italian activist groups urge Rome to sell the Sardinia island to Switzerland, as they believe that the Italian political and administrative system is ineffective to solve the country's problems.
     As for me, it does not seem like Putin is going to be satisfied with just Crimea, he may want continue to occupy other regions of Ukraine under the banner of protection interests of the Russian population. From my perspective, Russians aggressive actions toward Ukraine are linked with a desire to prevent Ukraine's integration with the European Union, and as a result possible accession to NATO. Recent events have shown that Ukraine has favored its choice to Europe, and Russia has fear about that. In my opinion, Russia should not force Ukraine to unite with them, but they have done a gross interference in the internal affairs of another country. It is every nation’s right to decide its own future, although only by political means rather than military force and aggression. We do have examples of countries separating, sometimes peacefully.  Czechoslovakia split in the Czech Republic and Slovakia peacefully; they still trade with each other and share travel rights but they are separate countries. Yugoslavia broke into 5 separate countries not so peacefully but the West supported that break-up. In this way, separation is also a possible solution to the conflict.

Why Is U.S. Internet Speed Slow?

On March 6, 2014 Crooks and Liars political blog published an article titled “Why IsU.S. Internet Speed Slower Than Estonia’s? ” The article is about Internet speed and general telecommunication issues. The author, Susie Madrak, sees a problem in market monopolization, where big companies like Comcast and Time Warner have divided up markets and put themselves in a position where no competition left. And above, they continuously charge customers higher and higher without investment in improving internet technology. Market is not open to completion and it is hard for new competitor to pass barriers to entry.

Author’s argument credibility is accurate and she provides wide evidence of it: “the U.S. ranks a shocking 31^st in the world in terms of average speeds of 20.77 Mbps. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps.  Its upload speeds are even worse, globally, the U.S. ranks 42^nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps.” She talks about Korean market organization and being controlled by government. In Korea, the country with the world fastest connections, government furnished with fiber optic cable nationwide under $20 per month.

Susan Madrak's purpose is to demonstrate that dominant companies have obtained the telecommunication market to present to the American people second quality Internet access while the rest of the world leaps ahead.

I absolutely agree with the article. The unknown fact is how government has allowed a few powerful media giants to put profit ahead of the public interest. These titans manipulate the rules, raising prices, and stifling competition. In my opinion, USA has an opportunity to adopt the new wireless technologies and let new invention produce high class speed access.  The fiber is the proper way to go but US cell phone and cable monopolies have no reason to update.