Russia Discussion

[antihenry]

Do you think perhaps having moved there and benefiting directly from their foreign policy, coming on the internet to attack someone for defending it might also be seen as a little hypocritical? If you had moved to live in Russia and lived the dream of the down with the west brigade it would appear more consistent.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think Putin's Russia will be better for even the Russians in Crimea never mind the minorities who are now trapped there. Decrying western/US policy is one thing moving on to equate Russian and the US systems and ideology as the same, is quite something else.

What do you know about Crimea and Russians and minorities there? I was born in Russia, have lived in the US for years, currently living back in Russia and have been to Ukraine on several occasions.

Did it ever occur to you that, perhaps judging about the world by reading Western media is a bit one sided and narrow-minded? There are many things you simply cannot comprehend unless you've been to the places (or better yet, lived there) you read about in the Economist or watched on a CNN report. The history of countries and mentality of people varies from one place to another greatly and you always have to take that into consideration. The problem with American approach is, they think everybody has the same values and priorities they do and see the world the way they see it, and what's worse, that they know what's better for other people.

I don't know for sure what's in store for Crimea under Putin, but I have a feeling that over the next decade the country of Ukraine will suffer far more than the Russians and other nationalities in Crimea.

 

[NM]

We can agree to disagree then, and move on.

Fair enough

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

What do you know about Crimea and Russians and minorities there? I was born in Russia, have lived in the US for years, currently living back in Russia and have been to Ukraine on several occasions.

Did it ever occur to you that, perhaps judging about the world by reading Western media is a bit one sided and narrow-minded? There are many things you simply cannot comprehend unless you've been to the places (or better yet, lived there) you read about in the Economist or watched on a CNN report. The history of countries and mentality of people varies from one place to another greatly and you always have to take that into consideration. The problem with American approach is, they think everybody has the same values and priorities they do and see the world the way they see it, and what's worse, that they know what's better for other people.

I don't know for sure what's in store for Crimea under Putin, but I have a feeling that over the next decade the country of Ukraine will suffer far more than the Russians and other nationalities in Crimea.

It doesn't really have anything to do with a Western or US view point or media if you are trying to make the case that people don't want a say in the way they are governed or that there is a unique bond between Russians and the minorities in Crimea. A bond which would make Putin and the Russian oligarchy treat them better than they have in the past or better than they treat other minorities currently. Then I don't believe you; nor do I think you have any way to support that claim.


Russia has shown that it is on a path away from democracy and tolerance which is sad and unproductive and they have taken Crimea with them. They and you will live to regret it because no good ever comes from suppressing legitimate dissent like this. The Ukrainians have a point that their country would be better being part of a future which works with the EU and no amount of Russian tanks can change that fact. The Russian govt can plant as many puppet rulers in the Ukraine, or parts of the Ukraine that they wish to take over so they can rob the places blind, but that won't make it in those peoples best interests, Russian or not.


What ever difficulties Ukraine faces the Russians have made them ten times worse for no reason other than the nationalistic arrogance of unfettered imperial expansionism. It isn't NATO troops forcing compliance with EU wishes on a country whose borders Russia had said it would honour back in the day when we all hoped it might be making a different way in the world. Russia has reverted to type and you can ask people in Poland the Baltic States or other former Soviet controlled nations how it will go for the Ukrainian, Tatar or dissenting minorities in Crimea.

 

[gooDevil]

ouch

 

[Raoul]

It doesn't really have anything to do with a Western or US view point or media if you are trying to make the case that people don't want a say in the way they are governed or that there is a unique bond between Russians and the minorities in Crimea. A bond which would make Putin and the Russian oligarchy treat them better than they have in the past or better than they treat other minorities currently. Then I don't believe you; nor do I think you have any way to support that claim.


Russia has shown that it is on a path away from democracy and tolerance which is sad and unproductive and they have taken Crimea with them. They and you will live to regret it because no good ever comes from suppressing legitimate dissent like this. The Ukrainians have a point that their country would be better being part of a future which works with the EU and no amount of Russian tanks can change that fact. The Russian govt can plant as many puppet rulers in the Ukraine, or parts of the Ukraine that they wish to take over so they can rob the places blind, but that won't make it in those peoples best interests, Russian or not.


What ever difficulties Ukraine faces the Russians have made them ten times worse for no reason other than the nationalistic arrogance of unfettered imperial expansionism. It isn't NATO troops forcing compliance with EU wishes on a country whose borders Russia had said it would honour back in the day when we all hoped it might be making a different way in the world. Russia has reverted to type and you can ask people in Poland the Baltic States or other former Soviet controlled nations how it will go for the Ukrainian, Tatar or dissenting minorities in Crimea.

You've hit the nail on the head.

I think the main problem in Russia is a form of "Russian Exceptionalism" that manifests itself in nationalism that is stoked up by people like Putin, who envisage Russia's regional and global role to be at the same level as during the Soviet years. This is what underpins the neighborhood bullying that takes places in the region; most recently in Ukraine, and which is fundementally incompatible with the aspirations of people who want more autonomy and a greater say in how their nations are governed. In order to maintain this construct, Putin has to play the strong man role by scaling back individual and press freedoms, curtailing civil society, and using dark, Soviet era, fear mongering propaganda about the impending attack of marauding fascists to justify the annexation of part of another country. If Russia is to prosper, it will involve a truly democratic system where individual freedoms are respected, institutional corruption is rooted out of government and business, and the narcisstic delusion of Russian exceptionalism is replaced with an ideal of cooperation over coercion.

 

[antihenry]

It doesn't really have anything to do with a Western or US view point or media if you are trying to make the case that people don't want a say in the way they are governed or that there is a unique bond between Russians and the minorities in Crimea. A bond which would make Putin and the Russian oligarchy treat them better than they have in the past or better than they treat other minorities currently. Then I don't believe you; nor do I think you have any way to support that claim.


Russia has shown that it is on a path away from democracy and tolerance which is sad and unproductive and they have taken Crimea with them. They and you will live to regret it because no good ever comes from suppressing legitimate dissent like this. The Ukrainians have a point that their country would be better being part of a future which works with the EU and no amount of Russian tanks can change that fact. The Russian govt can plant as many puppet rulers in the Ukraine, or parts of the Ukraine that they wish to take over so they can rob the places blind, but that won't make it in those peoples best interests, Russian or not.


What ever difficulties Ukraine faces the Russians have made them ten times worse for no reason other than the nationalistic arrogance of unfettered imperial expansionism. It isn't NATO troops forcing compliance with EU wishes on a country whose borders Russia had said it would honour back in the day when we all hoped it might be making a different way in the world. Russia has reverted to type and you can ask people in Poland the Baltic States or other former Soviet controlled nations how it will go for the Ukrainian, Tatar or dissenting minorities in Crimea.

When you say Ukrainians, who do you mean? There are over 40 million people in the country and far from everybody feels the same way about joining the EU. They all want a say in the way they should be governed, not just the junta and their supporters that came to power with US backing by overthrowing a legitimately elected president. Whether Yanukovich was corrupt is irrelevant, most of the country's politicians including all former presidents were corrupt to various degrees, what matters is, he was elected democratically, and those who US and EU support, weren't, so your point about puppet rulers should be directed at US, not Putin. Ukraine as a country has been run and ruined by a bunch of corrupt oligarchs for many years, and now the new "government" appointed them to run various regions of the country (Taratuta, Kolomoyskyi) without even bothering to ask what the people living there think of that. Doesn't look very democratic to me, but hey, this is American friendly government, so it's fine.

Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia for over two decades, it belongs to Russia historically, the people everywhere have the right for self determination, and they used it by voting overwhelmingly in favor of joining. If you have been to Crimea, you'd know that the vast majority of the population are overjoyed, this is what they dreamed of. Isn't the whole point of democracy a right for a human being to decide his own future freely? And those Tatars your heart bleeds so much for, already got two positions in a new Crimea government, and by the looks of it, only their Kiev based "leaders", that ended up without power and influence, who are unhappy about it and voice their displeasure.

I'm no fan of Putin, but in this case his opponents are even bigger hypocrites than he is.

 

[Raoul]

Even if many Crimeans would like to join Russia and the Ukrainian govt is currently "unelected", that still doesn't justify a Russian invasion and rushed referendum that has no internantional legitimacy. Even if you don't respect the interim government, they should have waited for the Ukrainian elections then allowed Ukrainians to deal with the Crimea issue through their own legislative process. Of course Putin, couldn't allow that because the Ukrainians would likely elect a government that would seek to preserve Ukrainian territory, which Putin won't stand for. Let's call this what it is - a territorial land grab of a neighboring country. It was rightfully rejected by the UN, EU, NATO, and is a desparate act by someone seeking to improve his popularity at home.

 

[antihenry]

You're right, it's a land grab. Kind of like those US States, that used to be a part of Mexico. Now, that's a land grab of all land grabs. Don't seem to remember a referendum though, but apparently, there was a whole war with quite a few casualties.

And while you're at it, why not return the whole USA to its rightful owners, the Native Americans, if you worry about the rights of minorities in Crimea so much. Stalin may have deported Tatars, but white Americans pretty much massacred a whole lot of those poor Indians, that had a misfortune to get in the way of the future owners of their lands. Not to mention a minor detail of enslaving the generations of blacks for centuries in that free and beautiful country of yours. Yes, we have a lot to learn from America.

 

[Raoul]

Trying to minimize the significance of it by comparing to other historical issues is ducking the issue. The world in 2014 is completely different than it was hundreds of years ago. Try to deal with the issue at hand please.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Trying to minimize the significance of it by comparing to other historical issues is ducking the issue. The world in 2014 is completely different than it was hundreds of years ago. Try to deal with the issue at hand please.

What is that supposed to mean, we don't deal with shit older than a year any more? How weird.

 

[Raoul]

What is that supposed to mean, we don't deal with shit older than a year any more? How weird.

Obviously the world is a different place today than it was 70 years ago when Hitler did this sort of thing. Norms have changed.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Obviously the world is a different place today than it was 70 years ago when Hitler did this sort of thing. Norms have changed.

I don't really see much difference. Your lot has been in the war business ever since Hitler. Bombing, invading, murdering in numerous countries around the world. The pretexts were different, Hitler wanted to establish a tausendjähriges Reich while you were apparently fighting communism and terrorism and desperately trying to promote democracy out of the nobility of your heart. Out of all nations on God's green earth Americans are the last, literally bottom of the list, who should get all morally upset about this issue. Poor Putin, even if he were to stay in power for the next fifty years, just wouldn't be able to catch up with you.

Not even mentioning the fact that this whole Ukraine mess was started by the US in the first place. As I said earlier, it's all just very very weird.

 

[Silva]

How did the US start this then?

 

[Raoul]

I don't really see much difference. Your lot has been in the war business ever since Hitler. Bombing, invading, murdering in numerous countries around the world. The pretexts were different, Hitler wanted to establish a tausendjähriges Reich while you were apparently fighting communism and terrorism and desperately trying to promote democracy out of the nobility of your heart. Out of all nations on God's green earth Americans are the last, literally bottom of the list, who should get all morally upset about this issue. Poor Putin, even if he were to stay in power for the next fifty years, just wouldn't be able to catch up with you.

Not even mentioning the fact that this whole Ukraine mess was started by the US in the first place. As I said earlier, it's all just very very weird.

I don't think you can compare the world today to what it was during the cold war or during the time of native Americans. I though that much would be simple to agree on.

 

[antihenry]

Trying to minimize the significance of it by comparing to other historical issues is ducking the issue. The world in 2014 is completely different than it was hundreds of years ago. Try to deal with the issue at hand please.

I'm not ducking anything, just pointing out your hypocrisy. You feel you can berate Russia for Crimea, and yet the history of your own country is a great example of how you can create a whole country by massacring massive numbers of the indigenous population and driving the rest off their lands and land grabbing another half of the territory from your Southern neighbors by going to war with them over it. No referendums, no right for self-determination, and while 'all men are created equal', apparently some have infinitely more rights than others.

The funniest part is how US posters are trying to use the time factor to justify their own bullshit. According to Matt earlier, you can't hold US accountable for things that previous administration did. Raoul doesn't feel the history is relevant, if it doesn't suit his views. It's one of those 'do as I say, don't do as I do' things, I guess.

 

[Silva]

America doing morally abhorrent things isn't a justification for Russia doing morally abhorrent things. Just because McCarthy was a cnut doesn't mean that Russia's hard-line against dissent is fine, similarly just because America was a landgrabber in the past doesn't mean Russia annexing Crimea is fine. If you can't justify Russian aggression towards Ukraine on its own merits, then there's no justification for it.

 

[Raoul]

America doing morally abhorrent things isn't a justification for Russia doing morally abhorrent things. Just because McCarthy was a cnut doesn't mean that Russia's hard-line against dissent is fine, similarly just because America was a landgrabber in the past doesn't mean Russia annexing Crimea is fine. If you can't justify Russian aggression towards Ukraine on its own merits, then there's no justification for it.

This pretty much sums up the myopic poverty of the pro-Russian view. Bad things happened in the past, therefore Russia should be allowed to invade and annex Crimea.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

When you say Ukrainians, who do you mean? There are over 40 million people in the country and far from everybody feels the same way about joining the EU. They all want a say in the way they should be governed, not just the junta and their supporters that came to power with US backing by overthrowing a legitimately elected president. Whether Yanukovich was corrupt is irrelevant, most of the country's politicians including all former presidents were corrupt to various degrees, what matters is, he was elected democratically, and those who US and EU support, weren't, so your point about puppet rulers should be directed at US, not Putin. Ukraine as a country has been run and ruined by a bunch of corrupt oligarchs for many years, and now the new "government" appointed them to run various regions of the country (Taratuta, Kolomoyskyi) without even bothering to ask what the people living there think of that. Doesn't look very democratic to me, but hey, this is American friendly government, so it's fine.

Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia for over two decades, it belongs to Russia historically, the people everywhere have the right for self determination, and they used it by voting overwhelmingly in favor of joining. If you have been to Crimea, you'd know that the vast majority of the population are overjoyed, this is what they dreamed of. Isn't the whole point of democracy a right for a human being to decide his own future freely? And those Tatars your heart bleeds so much for, already got two positions in a new Crimea government, and by the looks of it, only their Kiev based "leaders", that ended up without power and influence, who are unhappy about it and voice their displeasure.

I'm no fan of Putin, but in this case his opponents are even bigger hypocrites than he is.

Firstly this elected president doesn't agree with Russia annexing Crimea. You know you are wrong when even the puppet starts talking back to you.


Secondly, if Crimea wants to be part of Russia then let the Ukrainians deal with that because the Russians made Crimea part of Ukraine in the first place. So Russia should let all the people in Ukraine sort their issues out for themselves. Russia could have an opinion, offer support, voice concerns, and make an argument. That is what should have happened had Russia not decided it was 1950 all over again. Russia is the reason the country is in a mess in the first place the Russian oligarchy lest we forget tried to poison the last guy the Ukrainians elected who they disliked. They have been interfering in the politics in the Ukraine ever since it decided it wanted independence because they want to control them and in the end we see exactly how far they will go when the tanks roll in.


Thirdly, when the rest of the Ukraine votes for a new president which will happen later this year, if the threat of Russian invasion of even more of Ukraine dissipates, then where will your argument be on who speaks for Ukraine? My guess is they are not going to be Russia's buddies and roll over for Putin's mob. As a govt in every way they can, they will try to stick it to Russia that would be the natural response but I don't live there. So well done Russia, your plan to win friends and influence people there has worked perfectly. Meanwhile the rest of Europe now knows it can't deal with Russia as a reasonable party and will start to act accordingly. Long term I think it will be a disastrous decision for all Russians.


Lastly, right now you support Putin move here for whatever reason but the real question for you is what does all this mean when you don’t support him further down the line. Frankly good luck with stopping his next bout of crazy xenophobic over reaction and god forbid he ever takes aim at you and yours. That would be my worry if I were living in Putin’s Russia.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

What is that supposed to mean, we don't deal with shit older than a year any more? How weird.

This argument gets you no where fast. If you want to compare US actions in the 18 or 19 century then the fair comparison is with every other country during the same period. Was Russia a bastion of democracy and a guiding light on human rights and proper relations with indigenous peoples during this time? I think not.


So to make your case that Russian policy in Crimea is valid you have to say nothing can ever change in the way people deal with each other and nothing any country ever does is wrong. That is admitting defeat in all but name.

 

[antihenry]

This pretty much sums up the myopic poverty of the pro-Russian view. Bad thing have happened in the past, therefore Russia should be allowed to invade and annex Crimea.

I must have missed the part where Putin asked for anyone's permission to invade and annex Crimea. He felt he could get away with it, and he did. EU and US are not in a position to stop him so they bitch and moan and threaten with sanctions, while conveniently forgetting their own numerous sins in that department. This is what the world is like, and always was, if you're strong enough, you do whatever you feel works to your advantage, if you can get away with it. America has been doing it for ages, and European colonial empires have done so before that. Wait till a certain country in the East Asia, that counts for one fifth of the world population will really start throwing its weight around, I doubt anyone will have enough power to keep them in check.

 

[Raoul]

I must have missed the part where Putin asked for anyone's permission to invade and annex Crimea. He felt he could get away with it, and he did. EU and US are not in a position to stop him so they bitch and moan and threaten with sanctions, while conveniently forgetting their own numerous sins in that department. This is what the world is like, and always was, if you're strong enough, you do whatever you feel works to your advantage, if you can get away with it. America has been doing it for ages, and European colonial empires have done so before that. Wait till a certain country in the East Asia, that counts for one fifth of the world population will really start throwing its weight around, I doubt anyone will have enough power to keep them in check.

You're right about that. Although Putin's miscalculation is that the true cost invading Crimea will be realized through economic loss to Russia, which will lose far more through a loss in foreign investment, an exodus of capital, and a recession, than shallow nationalism of invading Crimea will ever yield.

 

[Plugsy]

It's been a huge miscalculation from Putin. Russia is now isolated on the world stage, those within its sphere of influence are now accelerating their links and ties with the west and their biggest trading partner is now seeking to impose political and economic sanctions in addition to actively seeking alternatives to the goods that Russia supplies. All this over a small, largely insignificant peninsular that they were never under any danger of losing 'use' of?

Seems a bit of a feck up to me. I think this is why Russia's tone recently has been far more conciliatory with talk of wanting an international solution and impromptu two hour phone calls to Obama.

 

[Mihajlovic]

You're right about that. Although Putin's miscalculation is that the true cost invading Crimea will be realized through economic loss to Russia, which will lose far more through a loss in foreign investment, an exodus of capital, and a recession, than shallow nationalism of invading Crimea will ever yield.

The US are hardly threatening with sanctions and isolation because they are so endlessly worried about the fate of the people of Ukraine. They are simply using this opportunity to further weaken and destabilise Russia. Only Putin will now if this whole thing was worth in in the long run. Chances are whoever comes after Obama won't give a toss about the Crimea incident. In a couple of years the global power dynamics will adjust, business will resume as usual and Crimea will remain Russian.

 

[Raoul]

The US are hardly threatening with sanctions and isolation because they are so endlessly worried about the fate of the people of Ukraine. They are simply using this opportunity to further weaken and destabilise Russia. Only Putin will now if this whole thing was worth in in the long run. Chances are whoever comes after Obama won't give a toss about the Crimea incident. In a couple of years the global power dynamics will adjust, business will resume as usual and Crimea will remain Russian.

Chances are Obama's successor will be much more aggressive in dealing with Russia. Also, the U.S. (and Europe)'s interest is a free Russia that won't cause any economic and military disruptions on Europe's doorstep - not the authoritarian mafia state that Putin is running. If Russia were truly free and interested in integrating in the global economy, none of this would be taking place.

 

[Eboue]

This thread has descended into a farce. Apparently Americans can't criticize or use non-violent measures to bring pressure upon other countries invading their neighbors because, like, SLAVERY!!!

 

[naturalized]

This thread has descended into a farce. Apparently Americans can't criticize or use non-violent measures to bring pressure upon other countries invading their neighbors because, like, SLAVERY!!!

Indeed.

The statement that "I think Russia's actions in the Crimea are wrong, but I don't feel the US should be the ones to criticize them for it" isn't just ludicrously meaningless, it's actively hypocritical. It's mere posturing. It's political hipsterism at its finest.

It's a lot like organ trading. It's a fact - an unpleasant, uncomfortable fact - that we're just not going to get enough organs from voluntary, unpaid donors. "I don't want to see anyone suffer because they can't get organs donated to replace their own failing ones, but I oppose for moral reasons the paid trading of human organs." With respect, then you do want to see people suffer, or at least you'd prefer seeing people suffer than have abstract moral principles - that don't particularly concern anyone who's neither a donor nor a donee, in fact - violated. That's fine if you sincerely hold that belief, but at least have the integrity to realize what you're saying.

The US are the only entity in the world that can stop Russia - or anyone, for that matter, from deciding that their neighbour's territory is actually theirs. If you oppose American intervention in the Crimea, you support Russian occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory. It really is that simple.

 

[711]

I'm surprised this thread's still going. It's over boys. Sorted. There really isn't a better way of keeping most people in the area happy than what's happened. European sanctions will fizzle out and everyone will be happy again. The US 'intervention' junkies should move on somewhere else. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are looking a bit nasty, why don't you go and 'intervene' over there a for a bit and leave Europe alone?

 

[naturalized]

There really isn't a better way of keeping most people in the area happy than what's happened.

Other than the Ukrainians, I presume. But feck them, eh?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Ukraine crisis: Protesters declare Donetsk 'republic'

Pro-Russian protesters who seized the regional government building in the Ukrainian city of Donetsk are reported to have declared a "people's republic".

The rebels have called for a referendum on secession from Ukraine by 11 May.

Ukrainian security officials are being sent to the eastern cities of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv after pro-Russia groups occupied government buildings.

Interim President Oleksandr Turchynov called the unrest an attempt by Russia to "dismember" Ukraine.

In an address on national TV, he said it was "the second wave" of a Russian operation to destabilise Ukraine, overthrow the government and disrupt planned elections.

Events in Donetsk bear a striking resemblance to what happened in Crimea in February and March. The group of activists who seized the local administration building first declared independence as the "Donetsk Peoples' Republic", and then voted for a referendum to be held before 11 May on whether to join Russia.

But Donetsk is not Crimea.

As an autonomous republic in Ukraine, Crimea had its own parliament that voted for independence and an administration that could organise the referendum. However, the 100 or so men who voted in Donetsk had just broken into the building and have never themselves been elected to anything. Also, while Donetsk is majority Russian-speaking, opinion polls suggest many people there still believe in a united Ukraine.

But that does not make the situation any less dangerous. Already the activists have said that if Kiev does not give into their demands they will ask Russia to send "peacekeepers."

Russia recently annexed Ukraine's Crimean peninsula after a referendum there which Ukraine did not see as valid.

As tensions mounted on Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsya told Russia's Ekho Moskvy news agency that Kiev would go to war with Russia if it sent troops into eastern Ukraine.

Moscow has thousands of troops massed along its border with Ukraine. It says it has no intention of invading but reserves the right to protect the rights of ethnic Russians.

BBC Moscow correspondent Daniel Sandford says Donetsk - an industrial city with a population of about one million - differs from Crimea in that it has many Ukrainian speakers as well as a Russian-speaking majority.

Opinion polls there have shown considerable support for a united Ukraine, he adds.

Footage posted online showed a Russian speaker telling the Donetsk assembly: "I proclaim the creation of the sovereign state of the People's Republic of Donetsk."

Earlier on Monday, protesters seized state security buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Protesters broke into Donetsk's regional government building and another in Kharkiv - Ukraine's second largest city - on Sunday. Ukrainian authorities say protesters have now left the building in Kharkiv.

Ukrainian news agency Unian says gunmen also tried to storm a Donetsk TV building on Monday but were deterred by police.

At an emergency cabinet meeting, interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk blamed Russia for the seizures.

"The plan is to destabilise the situation, the plan is for foreign troops to cross the border and seize the country's territory, which we will not allow,'' he said, adding that people engaged in the unrest have distinct Russian accents.

He said Russian troops remain within 30km (19 miles) of the frontier. The city of Luhansk is just 25km from the Russian border.

Police have blocked roads into Luhansk and armed reinforcements are being sent to the restive cities.

Officials said Ukrainian National Security Secretary Andriy Parubiy and Security Service chief Valentyn Nalyvaychenko have been sent to the city.

Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has already arrived in Kharkiv and First Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Yarema is on his way to Donetsk, a spokeswoman said.

She said they had "all the authority necessary to take action against separatism."

President Turchynov has cancelled a visit to Lithuania to deal with the unfolding events.

The crisis has heightened nervousness in many other eastern European states, with Czech President Milos Zeman saying Nato should deploy troops in Ukraine if Russia invades.

"If Russia decides to extend its territorial expansion to eastern Ukraine, the fun is over," he told Czech public radio on Sunday.

In another development on Monday, Nato said it was limiting Russian diplomats' access to its headquarters in Brussels.

It comes days after Nato foreign ministers agreed to suspend all practical co-operation with Moscow over its annexation of Crimea.
Crimea death

The latest developments come as Ukraine's defence ministry said a Russian soldier had killed a Ukrainian military officer still loyal to Kiev in eastern Crimea late on Sunday.

Another Ukrainian officer present is reported to have been beaten and detained by Russian troops in Sunday's incident in the small town of Novofyodorovka.

The circumstances of the incident are unclear.

Russian news agencies reported that prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into the death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26919928

 

[Raoul]

He's at it again. Paid agitators demanding a referendum, but not elections. Apparently he won't stop until serious sanctions are put in place.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...russia-activists-declare-independence-donetsk

 

[Danny1982]

This thread has descended into a farce. Apparently Americans can't criticize or use non-violent measures to bring pressure upon other countries invading their neighbors because, like, SLAVERY!!!

Did I miss the measures the US (or the EU) took to pressure the Saudi army not to invade Bahrain to crush the protestors there?

Well I know that was three whole years ago (ancient history, it doesn't apply...etc.), but I have to ask the question now (before the next US elections), because by 2016 Obama won't be the president, and my question will expire.

 

[Raoul]

Did I miss the measures the US (or the EU) took to pressure the Saudi army not to invade Bahrain to crush the protestors there?

Well I know that was three whole years ago (ancient history, it doesn't apply...etc.), but I have to ask the question now (before the next US elections), because by 2016 Obama won't be the president, and my question will expire.

We've already established that presenting double standards isn't a viable argument against what Putin is doing.

 

[Sultan]

This thread has descended into a farce. Apparently Americans can't criticize or use non-violent measures to bring pressure upon other countries invading their neighbors because, like, SLAVERY!!!

I hardly think anyone other than Russians have an issue with what the USA/Europe are trying to achieve in Ukraine. People are just questioning the selective nature of it's policy, than looking at each situation in it's isolation.

 

[Eboue]

Did I miss the measures the US (or the EU) took to pressure the Saudi army not to invade Bahrain to crush the protestors there?

Well I know that was three whole years ago (ancient history, it doesn't apply...etc.), but I have to ask the question now (before the next US elections), because by 2016 Obama won't be the president, and my question will expire.

I hardly think anyone other than Russians have an issue with what the USA/Europe are trying to achieve in Ukraine. People are just questioning the selective nature of it's policy, than looking at each situation in it's isolation.

My frustration comes from the fact that apparently you aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter if you country did something similarly bad in the past. But the fact is that every country has skeletons in their closet. No history is pure enough to take the moral high ground in international affairs. If we disqualify international criticism and international sanctions because of offenses committed in the past, there isn't anyone left who can "legitimately" raise a voice or even a hand to a country that attacks its neighbor. Should every response be dismissed on the charges of hypocrisy, there might as well not even be an international system. Which is why every situation does need to be looked at on its merits.

I don't think anyone is defending slavery or colonialism or the support of brutal dictators solely because they are anti-communist, so there really isn't a need to bring it up constantly. It makes it hard to discuss the subject at hand if you constantly have to justify your right to have an opinion at all.

 

[Raoul]

My frustration comes from the fact that apparently you aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter if you country did something similarly bad in the past. But the fact is that every country has skeletons in their closet. No history is pure enough to take the moral high ground in international affairs. If we disqualify international criticism and international sanctions because of offenses committed in the past, there isn't anyone left who can "legitimately" raise a voice or even a hand to a country that attacks its neighbor. Should every response be dismissed on the charges of hypocrisy, there might as well not even be an international system. Which is why every situation does need to be looked at on its merits.

I don't think anyone is defending slavery or colonialism or the support of brutal dictators solely because they are anti-communist, so there really isn't a need to bring it up constantly. It makes it hard to discuss the subject at hand if you constantly have to justify your right to have an opinion at all.

What i find particularly shallow is the argument that Putin's actions should be free from criticism because other countries have done bad things in the past. If that's the case we shouldn't even bother having threads like this.

 

[Eboue]

What i find particularly shallow is the argument that Putin's actions should be free from criticism because other countries have done bad things in the past. If that's the case we shouldn't even bother having threads like this.

Yes. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we would have naked realpolitik that these same people profess to despise so much.

 

[Sultan]

My frustration comes from the fact that apparently you aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter if you country did something similarly bad in the past. But the fact is that every country has skeletons in their closet. No history is pure enough to take the moral high ground in international affairs. If we disqualify international criticism and international sanctions because of offenses committed in the past, there isn't anyone left who can "legitimately" raise a voice or even a hand to a country that attacks its neighbor. Should every response be dismissed on the charges of hypocrisy, there might as well not even be an international system. Which is why every situation does need to be looked at on its merits.

I don't think anyone is defending slavery or colonialism or the support of dictators solely because they are anti-communist, so there really isn't a need to bring it up constantly. It makes it hard to discuss the subject at hand if you constantly have to justify your right to have an opinion at all.

I agree with your sentiments.

We will always have people arguing the hypocritical nature of nations politics because in a global community we will always have people closer to certain conflicts due to their religious, political agendas or geographical locations.

 

[Danny1982]

We've already established that presenting double standards isn't a viable argument against what Putin is doing.

My apologies if I have missed a crucial part of the discussion here, but my impression was that what was established here is that things from way way in the past don't count now, because "times have changed", not the admission that the current US administration (even under Obama) are also having double standards in dealing with the same conflicts in different parts of the world.

 

[Raoul]

My apologies if I have missed a crucial part of the discussion here, but my impression was that what was established here is that things from way way in the past don't count now, because "times have changed", not the admission that the current US administration (even under Obama) are also having double standards in dealing with the same conflicts in different parts of the world.

Not only have times changed significantly (ie global norms are different now than before), but its also quite myopic to give Putin a pass because other countries have done bad things in the past.

 

[Danny1982]

My frustration comes from the fact that apparently you aren't allowed to have an opinion on the matter if you country did something similarly bad in the past. But the fact is that every country has skeletons in their closet. No history is pure enough to take the moral high ground in international affairs. If we disqualify international criticism and international sanctions because of offenses committed in the past, there isn't anyone left who can "legitimately" raise a voice or even a hand to a country that attacks its neighbor. Should every response be dismissed on the charges of hypocrisy, there might as well not even be an international system. Which is why every situation does need to be looked at on its merits.

I don't think anyone is defending slavery or colonialism or the support of brutal dictators solely because they are anti-communist, so there really isn't a need to bring it up constantly. It makes it hard to discuss the subject at hand if you constantly have to justify your right to have an opinion at all.

Nobody is disallowing you from having an opinion on this issue or any other issue. The problem is actually with you trying to take the moral high in the conflict, and constantly referring to the history of the Soviet Union as a way to prove your points.

We don't have to be hypocrites if the governments are acting that way.

In my opinion, I have no problem with Crimea joining Russia because of the fact (which everybody knows here) that the people there wanted to be part of Crimea.

I also do have a problem with the Saudi army intervening in Bahrain, because that's against the clear will of the people of Bahrain (and there was not even a hint of a terrorist/violent nature of the protests there to merit any military intervention).

In both cases the will of the people is hardly debatable. We can't pretend to be after freedom and democracy, and then make exceptions when we don't like the results.