Ukraine (and Russia)

[Passdagas the Brown]

Why is it the job of the US to stop the "territorial ambitions" of any country? What makes us the police man of the world? What makes our shooting of foreign people good while when other countries do that it is bad? And if you want to get nitty-gritty, especially since none of the times we've done that it has been benevolent but has been in the selfish interest of some within the US.




Especially given that the "territorial ambitions" are to reclaim territory that was theirs long before, as I've already pointed out.


Oh, and don't forget Texas-USA-Mexico.

The fact that Crimea was once part of Russia is irrelevant. A large chunk of the American Southwest was once part of Mexico, but that does not justify Mexico seizing that land from the United States.

Crimea is currently part of Ukraine, and Russia is pressuring the region - through a military occupation - to join Russia.

Of course we're calling their military presence "pressure." It's only not pressure when the US does it. Until the US double standard is dispensed with, dropping the myth of the US as the essential nation and the only one with a right to intervene, we can't have a fruitful discussion.

Oh, and when I wrote "Texas-USA-Mexico" I wasn't hypothesizing about Mexico reclaiming land that was theirs, I was directly writing about the Texas-Mexico war and the US-Mexico war in which the US seized a large part of Mexico. The US was an aggressive nation seizing the sovereign territory of another nation. Our hands aren't clean.

No nation's hands are clean. But you're comparing the actions of nations in the 19th century to the actions of nations in the second decade of the 21st century.

The United States has not militarily occupied part of a nation and tried to annex it in a very long time.

You seem to be arguing in a world that never created a United Nations, and never enshrined state sovereignty in international law.

If your argument boils down to "The US seized territory from other nations in the distant past, and therefore has no right to oppose such actions by other nations in 2014" then I am afraid we cannot have a meaningful discussion.

If the standard for intervention is that the intervening nation or nations must be as pure as Jesus, then IMO, we will never see any progress on matters of peace and justice.

As I've said before, I believe the somewhat moral need to stand up to the less moral in defense of liberalism. In this case, the US needs to stand up to Russia.

Lastly, I do believe that the United States government is a fundamentally more decent one than Putin's Russia. So if there's a double standard, it's because an interventionist US is far preferable, IMO, to an interventionist Russia - the latter being an almost guaranteed humanitarian nightmare.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Ok, then let us discuss just about everything done in the War on Terror. Especially the invasion of Iraq for the crime of having absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 and being an enemy of Al Qaeda.

As well as how well the US has managed the invasion of Afghanistan, complete with drone bombing of wedding parties and second strikes on first responders.

And let us not forget the intervention in Libya.

I'll concede your first objection, that the US didn't annex any of those. But the argument made by the US constantly, over and over, is that if the strongman doesn't like the US he's a dictator but if the strongman does like the US he's democratically elected.

The US government has no concern over the plight of Ukraine or Ukrainian people. The US is interested only because Russia is powerful enough to potentially oppose US military intervention world-wide and the US doesn't want anybody able to say "no" to the US.

Strip away all the rhetoric being fed to the public about how there is this massive concern for those people. None of the people feeding us that rhetoric give a damn about those people. This is nothing less and nothing more than power politics on the international stage, and the rhetoric is to convince the people to support yet another move of power politics.

If this does go to war, and I sincerely hope that cooler heads prevail in Washington, it won't be about safeguarding Ukrainian self-determination. It will be because Russia is powerful enough to potentially mess up US plans to dictate to the rest of the world what positions their governments will take.

[River]

The US is involved because the US leads NATO and Ukraine is bordered by four now very rattled NATO allies. Let us not forget that the rest of Europe probably isn't too thrilled at the idea of an expansionistic Russia. They've got pretty long memories...and bones to pick with the Russians (and each other) that go back centuries. Furthermore, Ukraine is at the doorstep of NATO and the EU. If it can't be under the western cloak, it would be preferable if it were neutral. Especially since the gas flows through it.

Anyway, I've had a few spare moments to do some more reading. Control of the Crimean peninsula has changed hands many times over the course of recorded history. I think I'll have to visit some day after things calm down - I have a thing for old ruins and there must be quite the variety there. Anyway, at one point, it was controlled by the Genovese and it is thought that the ship that brought the Black Death picked up the disease in Crimea. Eventually, it came under Russian control. In 1954, while Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR, Russia gifted the territory as a gesture of goodwill and to celebrate 300 years of Russian domination over Ukraine. In the early 90's, when the USSR broke apart, Crimea briefly declared independence and then held a referendum and joined Ukraine. Russia has since leased its naval base in Sevastapol. The current lease expires in 2042.

As for Ukraine, I'm not going to get too in depth because I will certainly frak it all up, but it's safe to say that the history between Ukraine and Russia is long and deep, that before there was a USSR there was a Russian Empire and Ukraine was part of it, and when the USSR started coming undone, there were prominent Russians who considered an independent Ukraine unthinkable (not sure if Putin was one). None of this, however, justifies an invasion or the staging of a bogus referendum (logically, you can't have a true referendum if there is no option for those that prefer the status quo). You can sit around and whinge about dirty hands and so forth if it gives you pleasure to play into Putin's hands. However, the fact of the matter is Putin has been very blatant about rebuilding Greater Russia and something very nasty is waking up in Europe right now. Hopefully, the situation will be resolved without a bloodbath.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Yes, "play into Putin's hands."

It's the old "if you don't support one side you support the other side" meme, and it is quite a faulty meme. Take the street gangs Crips and Bloods. If they were in a fight, which they do sometimes, one could make the argument "if you don't support the Crips then therefore you support the Bloods", except it would be a faulty argument for someone who just doesn't want to get involved in their gang war. Not being a Blood does not make one a Crip.

Ukraine is not part of the US. Russia is not part of the US. Crimea is not part of the US.

Why is it that every time two countries start having tense relations with each other, the US seems to have a need to pick a side? Declare one side to be good and support it, declare the other side to be bad and oppose it. What makes their problems our problems?

[Primula Baggins]

NATO, for a start, quite specifically makes the problems of NATO members in the region our problems.

[Frelga]

I still don't have the time for that monograph, but for a less depressing look at some history of the situation I highly recommend the Polish/Ukrainian epic movie, With Fire and Sword. The DVDs are on sale now on Amazon. The whole movie used to be on YouTube, but not anymore.

Here's a battle scene, though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6UkzJs9h0

The upshot of that conflict was Ukraine separating from Poland and ultimately joining with Russia. Speaking to the wounded Pole in the opening scene is Bohdan Khmelnytsky.

Word of warning - it's a great movie, with a romantic story at heart, but it portrays a war, and some scenes are graphic.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In 1954, while Ukraine and Russia were both part of the USSR, Russia gifted the territory as a gesture of goodwill and to celebrate 300 years of Russian domination over Ukraine.

Small correction to this. In 1954 the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union , led at the time by the Ukrainian Nikita Khrushchev, General Secretary of the Communist Party, decreed that the Crimean peninsula be transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

What Color is Ukraine’s ‘Color Revolution’? Washington whitewashes Ukraine’s brownshirts

As the real nature of Ukraine’s 'democratic' and allegedly 'pro-Western' opposition becomes all too apparent, the pushback from the regime-change crowd borders on the comic. The War Party is stumbling all over itself in a frantic effort to cover up and deny the frightening provenance of the neo-fascist gang they’ve helped to seize power in Kiev.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Cen,

1. Nice job parroting Putin's propaganda. The neo-fascists in Ukraine have about the equivalent amount of power that neo-Nazis or neo-Confederates have in the United States. Not to mention the strong Jewish contingent in the Ukrainian revolution - including the new PM Yatsenyuk (which that terrible article of yours failed to mention). Is the Jewish Yatsenyuk a fascist and anti-Semite? The truth is, the Ukrainians in power now are a very diverse, pro-democracy, pro-EU crowd. Almost all are staunch liberals, and a tiny few are arch-conservatives with fascist sympathies. I find it astounding that you would swallow that report wholesale. As someone who's spent a decent amount of time in the region, and in Russia and pro-Russian parts of Serbia, it is the most common form of Russian propaganda. Democratic opposition? Fascist western imperialists!

2. I would never forget Libya. Despite its instability, it's a far better place without Qaddafi at its head. The removal of Qaddafi is one of the greatest achievements by the US, it's allies and the UNSC in the 21st century. A victory for human rights, and a real deterrent for future autocrats who would commit mass atrocities against their publics. The main foreign policy failure of this Administration is, IMO, the failure to help remove Assad from power in the early days of the revolution, when there was a coherent, moderate Syrian opposition in place that could have removed Assad. Now there is very little the world can do.

In any event, most Ukrainians would be dismayed by your regurgitation of Russian talking points, while most Russians are laughing at the naïveté of the western media, that so often cannot distinguish between reality and hot air.

-PtB
P.S. And here's a public letter from Ukrainian Jewish leaders supporting the new government, and naming Russia the greatest threat to their community. I suppose this means the Ukraine fascists are forcing them to do this? Please. That anti war publication will use any excuse, no matter how false, to oppose conflict of any kind with Russia: http://eajc.org/page32/news43672.html

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

1. Nice job parroting Putin's propaganda. The neo-fascists in Ukraine have about the equivalent amount of power that neo-Nazis or neo-Confederates have in the United States. Not to mention the strong Jewish contingent in the Ukrainian revolution - including the new PM Yatsenyuk! The truth is, the Ukrainians in power now are a very diverse, pro-democracy, pro-EU crowd. Almost all are staunch liberals, and a tiny few are arch-conservatives with fascist sympathies. I find it astounding that you would swallow that report wholesale. As someone who's spent a decent amount of time in the region, and in Russia and pro-Russian parts of Serbia, it is the most common form of Russian propaganda. Democratic opposition? Fascist western imperialists!

Nice job parroting the war party's propaganda. I know, I know, they're the good guys so they can't be bad guys. Any fascists supporting the revolution are all reformed or marginal. Anybody in actual power is reformed and no longer a fascist. Anybody who is unabashedly fascist is marginal - especially because the other fascists are all reformed.

2. I would never forget Libya. Despite its instability, it's a far better place without Qaddafi at its head. The removal of Qaddafi is one of the greatest achievements by the US, it's allies and the UNSC in the 21st century. A victory for human rights, and a real deterrent for future autocrats who would commit mass atrocities against their publics. The main foreign policy failure of this Administration is, IMO, the failure to help remove Assad from power in the early days of the revolution, when there was a coherent, moderate opposition in place that could have removed Assad. Now there is very little the world can do.

Yes, indeed. A chaotic mess now, ruled by religious radicals. But Qadaffi, who I agree was a bad man, is gone and that makes everything good. As of now, the US government still considers Libya an "extraordinary threat". One bad guy gone, another bad guy in charge, it is a victory for human rights. Here's another example of the human rights victory in Libya.

Fortunately Obama failed to intervene in Syria. His advisers are determined to ignite World War Three. But Obama failed to get UN approval, and then having failed with his usual method he tried the constitutional method and failed to get congressional approval. That is really one of the few pieces of good news with regards to Obama's foreign policy.

In any event, most Ukrainians would be dismayed by your regurgitation of Russian talking points, while most Russians are laughing at the naïveté of the western media, that so often cannot distinguish between reality and hot air.

And you still haven't established the one and most important point of the whole discussion - how any of this is the business of the US. The typical naive US policy view whenever there is a conflict anywhere is to declare one side to be good and the other bad, and then intervene on behalf of the good guys simply because they've been declared good. Even if they are bad in other countries (such as the difference between Afghanistan and Syria). But sometimes there isn't a good side, sometimes the issues aren't so clear cut and both sides are a mix of good and bad, and some times it really honestly truly isn't our job.

And given that the administration really doesn't care about the Ukrainian people, this is really about US supremacy and nothing more. THAT is the biggest talking point I'm refuting. This is about US supremacy, and any talk about how selflessly disinterested we are and our deep love for those we intend to "help" is nothing more than talk intended to get the masses to support a war over US supremacy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to ask that both of you review the "Guidelines for Political Discussions" stickied at the top of this forum. In particular No. 1 (and potentially) No. 6. Sarcasm especially has a way of escalating. There are plenty of places on the internet where debate and disagreement are encouraged, even sought after. Here measured discourse is the goal.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Cen,

You posted an article claiming that the current Ukrainian government is dominated by neo-fascists. Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the current Ukrainian PM is Jewish, that Jewish leaders throughout Ukraine support the new government, while cherry-picking isolated examples of neo-fascists' participation in the revolt. It is blindingly obvious that it is not me cherry-picking the data - it is you. I don't read or listen to propaganda on any side. I look at the facts, and make an informed judgment. And frankly - understanding the situation quite well (and observing it very closely) - I think I have more credibility than a stridently ideological blog like anti war.com.

The truth is - and this is based on facts on the ground, not rhetoric - the Ukrainian opposition movement against Yanukovich, and the current government, is a very diverse mix of individuals who are united by three key attributes - pro-EU, anti-further integration with Russia, and liberal democracy. The neofascists are explicitly not welcome in this consensus, as I know from a number of interviews conducted with both leadership and mid-level officials. Those elements - who are indeed marginal - have taken advantage of the revolution to promote their brand. But again, they literally have no power over the shape of the new government.

I'm sorry, but the line you are promoting is a perverse and dehumanizing one. Calling everyone fascists is the first step in laying the groundwork for oppression. This is a tried and tested Russian tactic, and if we're not careful, the lie will spread.

I cannot be overly civil on this point, unfortunately. Too many lives hang in the balance for me to tolerate this kind of propaganda. But I will try to stay within the TOS.

-PtB
P.S. And who exactly is pushing a war with Russia? There will be no war. There cannot be, as the possibility of a nuclear exchange is unacceptable. Yes, this is about Atlanticist (i.e. NATO/US/EU) supremacy in Europe. That is exactly what it's about. And that's exactly what the current Ukrainian government wants as a check on Russian supremacy! Essentially, the majority of Ukrainians want to be tied to the EU and NATO, and want to break free of the Russian orbit. That desire is consistent with the Atlanticist desire to limit Russian aggression and influence in Eastern Europe. It's a convergence of interests, not an either/or.

And I cannot understand why you would be more in favor of Russian influence in Eastern Europe than EU/NATO/US influence. As a true libertarian, one would think that Putin's authoritarian direction would be worrying to you.

[yovargas]

And I cannot understand why you would be more in favor of Russian influence in Eastern Europe than EU/NATO/US influence. As a true libertarian, one would think that Putin's authoritarian direction would be worrying to you.

I don't think he's saying he has that preference, just that his preference should have no bearing on the decisions of foreign countries and neither should anyone else's outside of those directly involved and affected. A point I'm generally inclined to agree with unless there are some very blatant atrocities going down.

[Passdagas the Brown]

That perspective would make sense if Russia wasn't already putting direct military pressure on a foreign country: Ukraine. In a world where other powers (particularly authoritarian ones like Russia) are directly intervening in weaker nations in order to keep them in their sphere of influence, would it not be a serious folly for the US and the EU to not even attempt to counteract those powers?

Russia is seriously threatening the sovereignty of Ukraine, and the rights of its citizens (and has already seriously violated both). The US, the EU and NATO have a very serious obligation to roll that threat back.

IMO, this is why the "Ukraine (or Crimea) has historically been a part of Russia" meme is so dangerous. It can give the impression that Russia is, on some level, in the right, and it can result in leaders absolving themselves of any responsibility to protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression. The majority of Ukrainians are clamoring for support from the US and the EU. We'd do well to remember the French coming to our aid against Britain.

In the modern world, a movement toward American isolationism could be a significant threat to liberalism and democracy. If you're fine with that, it's your prerogative. But it's not a perspective that I can in any way sympathize with. I put it in the same basket as the question among the British public before the start of WWII: "What does Poland have to do with us?" Today, "What does Ukraine have to do with us?" has a simple answer, IMO. "Everything."

-PtB,
P.S. And look! The Crimean "Referendum" doesn't offer a NO vote for joining Russia. All options lead to union. What a surprise: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 ... 47557.html

[Passdagas the Brown]

And I cannot understand why you would be more in favor of Russian influence in Eastern Europe than EU/NATO/US influence. As a true libertarian, one would think that Putin's authoritarian direction would be worrying to you.

I don't think he's saying he has that preference, just that his preference should have no bearing on the decisions of foreign countries and neither should anyone else's outside of those directly involved and affected. A point I'm generally inclined to agree with unless there are some very blatant atrocities going down.

To put it simply, the preference of the majority of Ukrainians (the most "directly involved" in this dispute) is for the EU and the US to counteract Russian aggression in Crimea with whatever means they can (short of war - though the new Ukrainian government has explicitly asked for military assistance from NATO). So by your logic, if the Ukrainian government's preference is for US and EU intervention, why is it wrong for such intervention to occur?

In other words, the majority of Ukrainians are asking for help against Russia in this dispute. This significantly raises the legitimacy of actions by the US, EU and NATO in support of the Ukrainian government, and in opposition to Russia's action. This means the provision of military hardware to Ukraine, and the application of economic and political sanctions against Russia. Noone at all in the US (except for loons like Sarah Palin who called for a nuclear strike on Russia...) are calling for a direct US or NATO attack on Russian forces. That is not in the cards. But everything short of a direct attack should be considered.

[yovargas]

Eh, I don't really have any particular or strong opinion about this one way or the other but that particular argument seems weak to me. We're not an Army for Hire. We don't come just cuz you'd like us to.

[Frelga]

The "Ukraine (or Crimea) was under Russian control for centuries" meme is highly inaccurate. History is much more complicated than that. It's like saying that New England was under the control of UK for centuries, so the UK should annex it to protect the rights of English speaking population in New Hampshire.

Seriously, watch With Fire and Sword.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We're not an Army for Hire.

But again no one is talking about the U.S. going to war, or sending in troops, or taking any other military action. I wish people would understand that. There are other ways for the U.S. to exert influence.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Who said anything about Ukraine hiring our army? Direct U.S. military involvement would be unacceptable, as it was during the Cold War. So I agree with you there.

I'm only talking about delivering some NATO hardware and logistical support that could modestly help the Ukrainian military fill capacity gaps. And given that Ukraine is part of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, they are already eligible for logistical and some material support from NATO (as was Russia, until their involvement was recently suspended due to this action).

We're not talking about something dramatically out of the ordinary here. Ukraine has been working closely with the US, EU and NATO for many years now. Throwing that partnership aside and leaving them to the dogs, as Russia occupies Crimea (and possibly enters the rest of eastern Ukraine) would be the most dishonorable thing the US and EU could possibly do.

Luckily, the US and most of the EU is on the same page here. The one possible thorn is Germany, who is reluctant to impose harsher sanctions on Russia because of how deep the German-Russian business relationship is (particularly on gas). It's true. Harsh sanctions on Russia will hurt the German economy, and put strains on the EU economy as a whole. But hopefully Germany sees the importance of taking a short-term economic hit in order to deter Putin's aggression now and in the future.

Noone wants open war here. But a world where Ukraine is left to its own defenses against Russia is too dangerous a world to contemplate, IMO. The precedent would be terrible, and the countries of Central Asia and the Caucuses, in particular, would essentially have to throw in the towel and accept Russian domination over their nations. And Eastern European countries like Moldova and Ukraine will have to wait a lot longer for actual freedom and democracy.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The "Ukraine (or Crimea) was under Russian control for centuries" meme is highly inaccurate. History is much more complicated than that. It's like saying that New England was under the control of UK for centuries, so the UK should annex it to protect the rights of English speaking population in New Hampshire.

Seriously, watch With Fire and Sword.

Not sure if you're addressing me or not, but I agree 100%. And not only is it inaccurate, it is also a highly dangerous meme for the press to be giving credence to at this moment in history. It's a meme that Russia cleverly uses to dampen support, particularly in the EU, for the defense of Crimea and punitive measures against Putin. As a voracious reader of European media (especially papers in Italy, France, Romania, the UK, Germany and Serbia) I can say with confidence that the meme has already been too widely distributed, without an effective counter (though there have been a number of articles attempting to do so).

IMO, this is an example of how "anti war" ideology can actually seriously impede justice, when it is misapplied. Given the advocacy goal of "peace at any price," history and facts can often be dramatically twisted in order to tamp down any support for serious action against an aggressor nation like Russia. In this case, the "Crimeans want to be part of Russia, and have historically been part of Russia" meme is largely touted by anti-war thought leaders, some of whom I have spoken with recently. And I can say with 100% confidence that this infuriates the liberals in Ukraine who are supporters of (or part of) the new government. It's a very harsh slap in the face. And I can also say that the leadership in Russia laughs heartily when these elements of civil society in Western Europe run with their propaganda. Having had a lot of previous interaction with some of those leaders in the Duma, it sometimes baffles them how naive the western press can be. "Shocking level of naivety" is a phrase I heard more than once.