Russia Discussion

[Danny1982]

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.

The Saudi intervention in Bahrain happened in 2011.

Same thing about giving Putin a pass should be said about the US and Obama. (even assuming Putin is in the wrong in this one)

 

[Eboue]

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.

It's not a contest Danny. If saying countries shouldn't invade their neighbors is the moral high ground, where does that leave you?

If you want to discuss this on realpolitik terms, then yes I think everyone realizes that there is a good case to be made for Crimea being part of Russia and Putin knows the west won't stop him from taking it. But you're trying to have it both ways. You're justifying an invasion and a vote held in a less than free environment while also scolding others for undemocratic actions.

If anyone is being the hypocrite here, it's you. As a non-interventionist, I don't think Crimea is worth fighting for and if there had been a fair and free referendum in which Crimea voted to join Russia, that would be fine. All the posturing on both sides is for other conflicts. The west will ultimately accept Crimea's annexation because there are good reasons for it. That doesn't mean the methods of achieving it can't be criticized.

 

[Raoul]

The Saudi intervention in Bahrain happened in 2011.

Same thing about giving Putin a pass should be said about the US and Obama. (even assuming Putin is in the wrong in this one)

Its already been explained. In an anarchic system, the most powerful states act to consolidate their power and interests. This explains "hypocrisy" and double standards and why the likes of the US and Russia are interventionist in certain instances and not in others.

 

[Danny1982]

It's not a contest Danny. If saying countries shouldn't invade their neighbors is the moral high ground, where does that leave you?

If you want to discuss this on realpolitik terms, then yes I think everyone realizes that there is a good case to be made for Crimea being part of Russia and Putin knows the west won't stop him from taking it. But you're trying to have it both ways. You're justifying an invasion and a vote held in a less than free environment while also scolding others for undemocratic actions.

If anyone is being the hypocrite here, it's you. As a non-interventionist, I don't think Crimea is worth fighting for and if there had been a fair and free referendum in which Crimea voted to join Russia, that would be fine. All the posturing on both sides is for other conflicts. The west will ultimately accept Crimea's annexation because there are good reasons for it. That doesn't mean the methods of achieving it can't be criticized.

Define "fair and free". Under a US/EU controlled/supported government?

You know that holding it under other circumstances is not suggested so we know the will of the people better, but to suppress that will of the people better. I think pretty much everybody knows what the real will of the people in Crimea is, which is, in my eyes at least, what matters the most.

I'm pretty clear in what I want and what I support in both cases, so no, I don't think I'm the one being the hypocrite here.

Also, if you want to talk laws and legality, then you're also a hypocrite by supporting the coup in the first place. It was also "best to wait until the next elections to have a proper and democratic vote", wasn't it?

This is where you can't have it both ways. Either support the coup and support Crimea's independence, or criticize both, and since the coup came before Crimea's independence, the latter will have a justification that the coup doesn't have.

 

[Danny1982]

Its already been explained. In an anarchic system, the most powerful states act to consolidate their power and interests. This explains "hypocrisy" and double standards and why the likes of the US and Russia are interventionist in certain instances and not in others.

Like I said many times here and elsewhere, I have no problem with the US looking after their interests.

I have no problem even with you as a regular person to come here and say that you just want to serve your interests. I think that's a fair game, and I wouldn't criticize or even blame you.

What I have a problem with is people coming here and saying the US/EU are doing this to protect the "Ukrainians/Crimeans/international law/whatever else they don't really give a rat's a** about". The US and the EU don't care about the Ukrainians or the Crimeans, just like Russia don't really care about them. The whole conflict is a political one.

If we are going to talk the "right and wrong" here then the will of the people involved is with Russia, so imo Russia is the one in the right this time. However, that doesn't mean that "being in the right" is the reason why Russia is doing this, because Russia, just like the US, is a nation that is only looking after its own interests.

 

[Raoul]

Like I said many times here and elsewhere, I have no problem with the US looking after their interests.

I have no problem even with you as a regular person to come here and say that you just want to serve your interests. I think that's a fair game, and I wouldn't criticize or even blame you.

What I have a problem with is people coming here and saying the US/EU are doing this to protect the "Ukrainians/Crimeans/international law/whatever else they don't really give a rat's a** about". The US and the EU don't care about the Ukrainians or the Crimeans, just like Russia don't really care about them. The whole conflict is a political one.

If we are going to talk the "right and wrong" here then the will of the people involved is with Russia, so imo Russia is the one in the right this time. However, that doesn't mean that "being in the right" is the reason why Russia is doing this, because Russia, just like the US, is a nation that is only looking after its own interests.

That's partially sensical, but you still need to consider that US and EU actions towards Russia are based on the fact that Russia is authoritarian (at least by western standards of Democracy), and there is an element of rejecting Russia's approach towards human rights that underpins the actions of the west. If Russia were a full on Democract that didn't squash dissent, imprison anyone who dares speak out against the state, and invade neighoring countries to expand their land, then none of this would be taking place.

 

[Danny1982]

That's partially sensical, but you still need to consider that US and EU actions towards Russia are based on the fact that Russia is authoritarian (at least by western standards of Democracy), and there is an element of rejecting Russia's approach towards human rights that underpins the actions of the west. If Russia were a full on Democract that didn't squash dissent, imprison anyone who dares speak out against the state, and invade neighoring countries to expand their land, then none of this would be taking place.

Here is where I differ with you. I don't think democracy plays a major role here (otherwise they would have been much tougher on Saudi Arabia for its multiple interventions in almost all neighbouring countries). I think it's all about being an enemy to them, in the sense that it's a major country that is not willing to be an ally with the US/EU.

Also Turkey, which a member in the NATO, isn't an example for democracy either, and they were even caught trying to set up a false flag operation in Syria to justify a full invasion.

 

[Eboue]

Define "fair and free". Under a US/EU controlled/supported government?

You know that holding it under other circumstances is not suggested so we know the will of the people better, but to suppress that will of the people better. I think pretty much everybody knows what the real will of the people in Crimea is, which is, in my eyes at least, what matters the most.

I'm pretty clear in what I want and what I support in both cases, so no, I don't think I'm the one being the hypocrite here.

Also, if you want to talk laws and legality, then you're also a hypocrite by supporting the coup in the first place. It was also "best to wait until the next elections to have a proper and democratic vote", wasn't it?

This is where you can't have it both ways. Either support the coup and support Crimea's independence, or criticize both, and since the coup came before Crimea's independence, the latter will have a justification that the coup doesn't have.

How about a referendum overseen by international observers? As I've already stated, I think it's probably right that Crimea end up with Russia so you are wrong to suggest that I want it to be under a US controlled government. My interest is not in the outcome of the referendum but in democratic choice for those involved.

Do you honestly believe that 97% voted to join Russia? Honestly?

The fourth paragraph is just you putting words in my mouth so I don't bother to respond to that.

 

[Raoul]

Here is where I differ with you. I don't think democracy plays a major role here (otherwise they would have been much tougher on Saudi Arabia for its multiple interventions in almost all neighbouring countries). I think it's all about being an enemy to them, in the sense that it's a major country that is not willing to be an ally with the US/EU.

Also Turkey, which a member in the NATO, isn't an example for democracy either, and they were even caught trying to set up a false flag operation in Syria to justify a full invasion.

There are always exceptions in international politics. In your examples, neither Turkey nor Saudi are threats to the prevailing power structures of American and European power. In fact, both support it.

 

[antihenry]

That's partially sensical, but you still need to consider that US and EU actions towards Russia are based on the fact that Russia is authoritarian (at least by western standards of Democracy), and there is an element of rejecting Russia's approach towards human rights that underpins the actions of the west. If Russia were a full on Democract that didn't squash dissent, imprison anyone who dares speak out against the state, and invade neighoring countries to expand their land, then none of this would be taking place.

If it's all about human rights and democracy, why do US support the new government, that came to power by anti constitutional means and toppled the democratically elected president? The government that has right wing nationalists on some key posts, and those guys make Putin look like a bastion of liberalism.

It was the same in Syria some time earlier. Assad may be a dictator, but the forces US supported against him were just as bad and in some ways worse, and the pro democracy argument on the part of USA would only be good for comedic value.

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

Why is it that these guys are automatically paid agitators, but Euromaidan activists are true heroes of their country? Because you don't like what they've got to say? Or you think 45 million Ukrainians all think the same way and any anti-new government or anti-West dissent is just a Russian provocation?

I'm sure, Russian intelligence plays a part in those events, just like US State Department, CIA, etc., supported the opposition in Kiev in many ways, and have a strong influence on those in charge in Kiev right now. That doesn't mean that there isn't a genuine confrontation inside Ukraine over what direction the country should be going or that those protesters are all bought, it's a retarded point of view, which by the way is typical for anyone who was brainwashed by the propaganda, be that Western or Russian kind, whatever doesn't suit your agenda, just blame the evil and conspiring enemy.

 

[Danny1982]

How about a referendum overseen by international observers? As I've already stated, I think it's probably right that Crimea end up with Russia so you are wrong to suggest that I want it to be under a US controlled government. My interest is not in the outcome of the referendum but in democratic choice for those involved.

Do you honestly believe that 97% voted to join Russia? Honestly?

The fourth paragraph is just you putting words in my mouth so I don't bother to respond to that.

Like the ones who covered the Olympics? Or the ones who are investigating the maidan shooting right now?

The referendum would not have been held in the first place under the new Ukrainian government, and Crimea would have never been allowed the chance to join Russia if the new government seized control. Don't tell me you don't know that.

I apologize if I inadvertently put words in your mouth, please point out the parts where I misunderstood your opinion.

 

[Danny1982]

There are always exceptions in international politics. In your examples, neither Turkey nor Saudi are threats to the prevailing power structures of American and European power. In fact, both support it.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[Bross]

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.

The point isnt that Americans shouldnt be allowed to have concerns because of their history. Thats a daft point, agreed. But when the arguments Raoul for instance uses to discredit Russia can be directly applied to what a major US ally in Saudi Arabia is doing, and he also refuses to acknowledge the similarity and that the US should sweep their own chimney before getting involved in Europe, hypocrisy becomes a valid point to bring up. The US has far more influence over a country like Saudi Arabia than Russia. Saudi Arabia is a bastian of the middle ages in terms of democracy and human rights, yet the US does nothing to press for change in that region.

Personally i perfectly understand that they dont. They have their interests in that region, and the Saudi ally is extremely important. It is an insignificant price to pay for the US that this ally doesnt care about democracy. The anti-Russia posters on here dont use that line of reasoning though.

What Id like to see is the anti-Russian American posters to just admit that Putin is doing what hes doing because he wants to protect his interests, just like the reason the US doesnt start huffing and puffing on Saudi Arabia or Israel is to protect their own interests. Instead they are hypocritically trying to make the case that Putin is the morally deplorable big bad wolf who is a special case in world politics.

 

[Eboue]

Like the ones who covered the Olympics? Or the ones who are investigating the maidan shooting right now?

The referendum would not have been held in the first place under the new Ukrainian government, and Crimea would have never been allowed the chance to join Russia if the new government seized control. Don't tell me you don't know that.

I apologize if I inadvertently put words in your mouth, please point out the parts where I misunderstood your opinion.

Thinking that a new government would consolidate power in land that is within their boundaries is not justification for invasion. You haven't answered whether you think 97% support annexation.

 

[Eboue]

The point isnt that Americans shouldnt be allowed to have concerns because of their history. Thats a daft point, agreed. But when the arguments Raoul for instance uses to discredit Russia can be directly applied to what a major US ally in Saudi Arabia is doing, and he also refuses to acknowledge the similarity and that the US should sweep their own chimney before getting involved in Europe, hypocrisy becomes a valid point to bring up. The US has far more influence over a country like Saudi Arabia than Russia. Saudi Arabia is a bastian of the middle ages in terms of democracy and human rights, yet the US does nothing to press for change in that region.

Personally i perfectly understand that they dont. They have their interests in that region, and the Saudi ally is extremely important. It is an insignificant price to pay for the US that this ally doesnt care about democracy. The anti-Russia posters on here dont use that line of reasoning though.

What Id like to see is the anti-Russian American posters to just admit that Putin is doing what hes doing because he wants to protect his interests, just like the reason the US doesnt start huffing and puffing on Saudi Arabia or Israel is to protect their own interests. Instead they are hypocritically trying to make the case that Putin is the morally deplorable big bad wolf who is a special case in world politics.

Raoul is capable of defending his position on his own. Unless someone has engaged with me, I haven't followed this thread all that closely since it's a lot of the same arguments over and over.

Saying that Putin is a "morally deplorable big bad wolf" doesn't preclude others from also fitting into that category. I would argue that while Obama has engaged in his share of morally reprehensible policies, he's still quite a bit better than Putin. But again, this doesn't have to be a pissing contest. If you want to start a thread about the failings of American foreign policy, go ahead. I will even agree with you. But when discussions about a specific issue like this get turned into "yeah but what about slavery" it's tedious.

 

[Raoul]

Which is exactly my point.

Its my point as well - double standards are built into the prevailing power structures of the system, thus arguing about hyprocrisy is futile.

 

[Danny1982]

Thinking that a new government would consolidate power in land that is within their boundaries is not justification for invasion. You haven't answered whether you think 97% support annexation.

Ah sorry forgot about that. Clearly don't know what the precise number would be, but I have no doubt in my mind that a clear majority of the people there wants to join Russia, which is the most important thing for me.

Also you can't call it an invasion now. Crimea has democratically joined Russia as far as I'm concerned (meaning that is what the Crimean people wanted), and if you insist on calling that an invasion and disregard what happened after that, then we should do the same with the coup and disregard the coming Ukrainian elections (as well as the current Ukrainian government) and demand no less than reinstalling Yanukovich.

 

[Eboue]

Ah sorry forgot about that. Clearly don't know what the precise number would be, but I have no doubt in my mind that a clear majority of the people there wants to join Russia, which is the most important thing for me.

Also you can't call it an invasion now. Crimea has democratically joined Russia as far as I'm concerned (meaning that is what the Crimean people wanted), and if you insist on calling that an invasion and disregard what happened after that, then we should do the same with the coup and disregard the coming Ukrainian elections (as well as the current Ukrainian government) and demand no less than reinstalling Yanukovich.

I think a majority would likely vote got annexation too. But doesn't the fact that the results came in at 97% suggest that it wasn't a free and fair referendum?

Your reasoning for the second point is silly. A vote farther down the line (of questionable veracity) doesn't change the facts.

 

[Raoul]

The point isnt that Americans shouldnt be allowed to have concerns because of their history. Thats a daft point, agreed. But when the arguments Raoul for instance uses to discredit Russia can be directly applied to what a major US ally in Saudi Arabia is doing, and he also refuses to acknowledge the similarity and that the US should sweep their own chimney before getting involved in Europe, hypocrisy becomes a valid point to bring up. The US has far more influence over a country like Saudi Arabia than Russia. Saudi Arabia is a bastian of the middle ages in terms of democracy and human rights, yet the US does nothing to press for change in that region.

Personally i perfectly understand that they dont. They have their interests in that region, and the Saudi ally is extremely important. It is an insignificant price to pay for the US that this ally doesnt care about democracy. The anti-Russia posters on here dont use that line of reasoning though.

What Id like to see is the anti-Russian American posters to just admit that Putin is doing what hes doing because he wants to protect his interests, just like the reason the US doesnt start huffing and puffing on Saudi Arabia or Israel is to protect their own interests. Instead they are hypocritically trying to make the case that Putin is the morally deplorable big bad wolf who is a special case in world politics.

If you accept the pursuit and consolidation of power as the dominant motivation in international politics, then there will be normal double standards in how states deal with one another.

 

[Danny1982]

I think a majority would likely vote got annexation too. But doesn't the fact that the results came in at 97% suggest that it wasn't a free and fair referendum?

Your reasoning for the second point is silly. A vote farther down the line (of questionable veracity) doesn't change the facts.

Ukraine is a pretty divided country. About 80% of the people of Crimea voted for Yanukovich, and 90% in Lugansk and Donetsk, so it's not that abnormal to see percentages in the region of 90% in Ukraine. I don't know if it was 100% fair and free, but I think if there was anything seriously flawed in the process (on a major scale) the Western Journalists/observers would have picked on it and exposed it. And don't tell me there are no Western Journalists/observers in Crimea.

You can't call my second point silly because that's the most widely used point/excuse here by all the people supporting the US policies around the world, and I just gave you an example in my previous post.

 

[Eboue]

Ukraine is a pretty divided country. About 80% of the people of Crimea voted for Yanukovich, and 90% in Lugansk and Donetsk, so it's not that abnormal to see percentages in the region of 90% in Ukraine. I don't know if it was 100% fair and free, but I think if there was anything seriously flawed in the process (on a major scale) the Western Journalists/observers would have picked on it and exposed it. And don't tell me there are no Western Journalists/observers in Crimea.

You can't call my second point silly because that's the most widely used point/excuse here by all the people supporting the US policies around the world, and I just gave you an example in my previous post.

Yes, I can call it silly. Because it is silly. If other people make that point then their point is silly too.

I really can't stress enough that this isn't a contest. If something is wrong then it's wrong,

 

[naturalized]

Ah sorry forgot about that. Clearly don't know what the precise number would be, but I have no doubt in my mind that a clear majority of the people there wants to join Russia, which is the most important thing for me.

Also you can't call it an invasion now. Crimea has democratically joined Russia as far as I'm concerned (meaning that is what the Crimean people wanted), and if you insist on calling that an invasion and disregard what happened after that, then we should do the same with the coup and disregard the coming Ukrainian elections (as well as the current Ukrainian government) and demand no less than reinstalling Yanukovich.

With respect, let me address this point because this is quite blatantly wrong, even though it seems to have been treated as common ground in this thread.

Simply put, it's a well-established ground of international law that a community doesn't own the territory it happens to inhabit. If 100% of Crimeans decided they wanted to join Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or the United Federation of Mars, it doesn't make it Russian, or Saudi, or Martian territory. It simply doesn't. That's not a technicality or a loophole, it's a point of international law that's well-established because there are good reasons behind it. There are significant portions of Northern Ireland that wish to become RoI territory. That does not legitimate an Irish invasion of N.Ireland to liberate those people. There are significant portions of southern Thailand that wish to join Malaysia. That does not legitimate a Malaysian invasion. It would make absolute nonsense of the doctrine of state sovereignty if the popular mandate was allowed to abrogate state borders unilaterally and extra-legally. Tl;dr: it doesn't matter if 101% of Crimeans wanted to join Russia. Any occupation, however mellifluously worded as a desire to give effect to the popular will, is void and an act of war. International law - and more to the point, international norms simply just don't work the way you think they do.

In any case, why is the Crimea to be treated as an autonomous unit capable of making its own decisions about which state to join, and not, say, a county, a city, or a township, or my family? Why can't I simply express my will that I'd like my home address to be treated as Russian territory and occupied?

If Crimeans want to be a part of Russia - and I think they do - they can. They can't take Crimea with them. That's not Crimean property, that's Ukrainian territory. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bross]

If you accept the pursuit and consolidation of power as the dominant motivation in international politics, then there will be normal double standards in how states deal with one another.

Agreed completely.

I dont see how Putin's actions make him a special threat to international security or democratic values though. Its all about interactions between nations / coalitions, not the actions of one nation in a vacuum (unless there is some incredibly stupid action like launching a nuke that neither Putin nor the West will do out of nowhere).

Putin's annexation of Crimea can be seen as a threat to EU and NATO influences, primarily because of the precedence it sets with regard to the Baltic NATO countries. But similarily, the massive western support for a dubious power grab in Kiev is a threat to Russian interests. In the end both parties try to gain as much influence and power as possible from the situation. Most of the public comments, threats of sanctions and excluding Russia from G8 is just posturing for power.

What I fear though in all this is that someone a bit loopy with ulterior motives and low regard for the possible consequences decide to posture too much and cross a line in terms of escalation. Thats the danger here. Someone like Tymoschenko would fit that bill, and she should be kept away from the picture completely. Getting too bossy with Russia and expecting them not to act on their threats of increased gas prices or reduced gas delivery is also a high gamble.

 

[Raoul]

Agreed completely.

I dont see how Putin's actions make him a special threat to international security or democratic values though. Its all about interactions between nations / coalitions, not the actions of one nation in a vacuum (unless there is some incredibly stupid action like launching a nuke that neither Putin nor the West will do out of nowhere).

Putin's annexation of Crimea can be seen as a threat to EU and NATO influences, primarily because of the precedence it sets with regard to the Baltic NATO countries. But similarily, the massive western support for a dubious power grab in Kiev is a threat to Russian interests. In the end both parties try to gain as much influence and power as possible from the situation. Most of the public comments, threats of sanctions and excluding Russia from G8 is just posturing for power.

What I fear though in all this is that someone a bit loopy with ulterior motives and low regard for the possible consequences decide to posture too much and cross a line in terms of escalation. Thats the danger here. Someone like Tymoschenko would fit that bill, and she should be kept away from the picture completely. Getting too bossy with Russia and expecting them not to act on their threats of increased gas prices or reduced gas delivery is also a high gamble.

This is a moral question that each person will probably take a different position on. Russia is quite an authoritarian state that has never really climbed out of the Soviet era in terms of its sense of exceptionalism and nationalism that underpins the bullying of neighboring states. There are very limited individual freedoms, freedom of the press, gay rights, and other civil liberties that many of us take for granted. Putin's ideas of expanding the Russian sphere to former Soviet glory is fundamentally dangerous to Europe and the system of complex economic interdependence that we are in at the moment. This is precisely why the west has taken such a harsh reaction to the invasion and annexation of Crimea and this latest round of rent a mob agitators we're seeing in eastern Ukraine. If Russia is interested in integrating economically, it must reform domestically and bring itself closer to western norms of representative democracy (vs strong man authoritarianism), civil liberties for its citizens, and global integration (vs playing power politics with energy, whilst retaining the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world). When you add these things up, there's little to justify the West not taking an even harsher position until Putin gets it in his head that the Soviet Union is dead and Russia's fastest past to prosperity is cooperation rather than coercion.

 

[Bross]

Again you are making it seem like the main reason for intervening is to make Russia fall in line and become less authoritarian and more liberal. Do you agree that the US should follow a stricter line towards Saudi Arabia as well then, rather than their current approach?

 

[Raoul]

Again you are making it seem like the main reason for intervening is to make Russia fall in line and become less authoritarian and more liberal. Do you agree that the US should follow a stricter line towards Saudi Arabia as well then, rather than their current approach?

Personally, yes i do believe the US should put more pressure on Saudi to reform.

 

[sun_tzu]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26933905

safe to say finding a diplomatic solution will be tricky if these are any indication of the people in power

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Agreed completely.

I dont see how Putin's actions make him a special threat to international security or democratic values though. Its all about interactions between nations / coalitions, not the actions of one nation in a vacuum (unless there is some incredibly stupid action like launching a nuke that neither Putin nor the West will do out of nowhere).

Putin's annexation of Crimea can be seen as a threat to EU and NATO influences, primarily because of the precedence it sets with regard to the Baltic NATO countries. But similarily, the massive western support for a dubious power grab in Kiev is a threat to Russian interests. In the end both parties try to gain as much influence and power as possible from the situation. Most of the public comments, threats of sanctions and excluding Russia from G8 is just posturing for power.

What I fear though in all this is that someone a bit loopy with ulterior motives and low regard for the possible consequences decide to posture too much and cross a line in terms of escalation. Thats the danger here. Someone like Tymoschenko would fit that bill, and she should be kept away from the picture completely. Getting too bossy with Russia and expecting them not to act on their threats of increased gas prices or reduced gas delivery is also a high gamble.

His actions make him a special threat because Russia had previously agreed not just to accept the Ukrainian borders but to protect them. Can you see how dangerous it is to put several major cities/ regions now in independent states up for grabs because that is what Putin has done? Wars have started for less and if people here can't see that while no one wants it to come to that there is a momentum which once started is very difficult to stop. Russian action in Crimea is an act of war against Ukraine that is at least one fact which propaganda can't change.


I agree that the toppling of elected govts isn't a good thing. I also think those toppling it had a very good reason for doing so. What I don't understand is why you or anyone else can think it is best dealt with by a Russian invasion given that Russia has been the cause of most of the problems which lead to the govt falling in the first place and they are in fact the worst people to get involved. Leave it to the people of Ukraine to sort it out if they can. That is why I argue against Putin's action, not because I think the US or the west are pure as driven snow.



If that is your fear then don't you think you have described Putin pretty well as the person who has already done the posturing and held a low regard for the possible consequences and crossed a line etc. This isn’t about Ukraine alone or Crimea alone it is about what kind of relations we are going to have with Russia going forward and how we deal with them in the future. Those images of Russian troops invading a sovereign state have pretty much sealed the, we can be partners with mutual respect bollocks.

 

[Bross]

His actions make him a special threat because Russia had previously agreed not just to accept the Ukrainian borders but to protect them. Can you see how dangerous it is to put several major cities/ regions now in independent states up for grabs because that is what Putin has done? Wars have started for less and if people here can't see that while no one wants it to come to that there is a momentum which once started is very difficult to stop. Russian action in Crimea is an act of war against Ukraine that is at least one fact which propaganda can't change.

I agree that the toppling of elected govts isn't a good thing. I also think those toppling it had a very good reason for doing so. What I don't understand is why you or anyone else can think it is best dealt with by a Russian invasion given that Russia has been the cause of most of the problems which lead to the govt falling in the first place and they are in fact the worst people to get involved. Leave it to the people of Ukraine to sort it out if they can. That is why I argue against Putin's action, not because I think the US or the west are pure as driven snow.

If that is your fear then don't you think you have described Putin pretty well as the person who has already done the posturing and held a low regard for the possible consequences and crossed a line etc. This isn’t about Ukraine alone or Crimea alone it is about what kind of relations we are going to have with Russia going forward and how we deal with them in the future. Those images of Russian troops invading a sovereign state have pretty much sealed the, we can be partners with mutual respect bollocks.

Toppling the government without an election and immediately instigating anti-russian laws was the first act of international escalation in this whole debacle. That made Putin fear for his control over Crimea and I dont see how anyone can say that's an irrational fear given how extremely anti-Russian and western skewed the new government is. I dont imagine the immediate and quite frankly undeserved recognition of that new government from various western leaders gave Putin much hope that he would get any international backing if it came to a renegotiation of the deals between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea.

The Russian army took control over Crimea without firing a single shot. That in itself is testament to how pro-russian that region and its people is. I dont think Putin has shown a low regard for consequences in what he did in Crimea, if anything its been a remarkably well executed and controlled chain of events. The Crimea situation is pretty much over without a single casualty.

I also strongly disagree that Putin is comparable to Tymoschenko, who clearly seems irrationally fuelled by revenge.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Toppling the government without an election and immediately instigating anti-russian laws was the first act of international escalation in this whole debacle. That made Putin fear for his control over Crimea and I dont see how anyone can say that's an irrational fear given how extremely anti-Russian and western skewed the new government is. I dont imagine the immediate and quite frankly undeserved recognition of that new government from various western leaders gave Putin much hope that he would get any international backing if it came to a renegotiation of the deals between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea.

The Russian army took control over Crimea without firing a single shot. That in itself is testament to how pro-russian that region and its people is. I dont think Putin has shown a low regard for consequences in what he did in Crimea, if anything its been a remarkably well executed and controlled chain of events. The Crimea situation is pretty much over without a single casualty.

I also strongly disagree that Putin is comparable to Tymoschenko, who clearly seems irrationally fuelled by revenge.

If you join the story where you choose then that might be right but ignoring Russian actions in Ukraine before the govt they put there got toppled is a bit daft. They didn't just decide one day wouldn't it be fun if we toppled our own govt. It still remains Ukrainian business and by definition the removal of the govt of Ukraine by Ukrainians is a domestic not an international event, unless they start genocide or massive human rights violations. You know Russia tried to kill, by poisoning, the last guy that Ukraine elected who they didn't like. The move to force Ukraine into ties with Russia did not carry popular support and should have been left open until after a further election where it was plainly a plank in the campaign or public opinion had time to get used to the idea.



When you invade you don't decide whether you shoot or not it depends on the Ukrainian reaction. If they were not under threat of losing half their country they might have and still might act differently. Yes the Russians over powered the Ukrainian forces making resistance futile it doesn't make the invasion right though.



Tymoschenko isn't in charge of anything and is likely not to be elected president, Putin is running Russia and has invaded a neighbouring state but in your view Tymoschenko is more dangerous? If ultra nationalists take control of Ukraine now it will be a response to Russian self defeating behaviour.

 

[Bross]

If you join the story where you choose then that might be right but ignoring Russian actions in Ukraine before the govt they put there got toppled is a bit daft. They didn't just decide one day wouldn't it be fun if we toppled our own govt. It still remains Ukrainian business and by definition the removal of the govt of Ukraine by Ukrainians is a domestic not an international event, unless they start genocide or massive human rights violations. You know Russia tried to kill, by poisoning, the last guy that Ukraine elected who they didn't like. The move to force Ukraine into ties with Russia did not carry popular support and should have been left open until after a further election where it was plainly a plank in the campaign or public opinion had time to get used to the idea.

When you invade you don't decide whether you shoot or not it depends on the Ukrainian reaction. If they were not under threat of losing half their country they might have and still might act differently. Yes the Russians over powered the Ukrainian forces making resistance futile it doesn't make the invasion right though.

Tymoschenko isn't in charge of anything and is likely not to be elected president, Putin is running Russia and has invaded a neighbouring state but in your view Tymoschenko is more dangerous? If ultra nationalists take control of Ukraine now it will be a response to Russian self defeating behaviour.

If it was a domestic event then why did other countries involve themselves even before a conclusion had been reached internally in Ukraine. Western powers voiced their support for the opposition long before they actually toppled the government. No western support = highly unlikely that the government would have been replaced at all. Russia have of course been involved in the processes in Ukraine for a long time, believing otherwise would be naive. But its also naive to believe that western influence didnt play a huge part in the instatement of the new government.

Of course Tymoschenko isnt more dangerous than Putin at the moment, but that is because she has no power. In the post I orginally brought her up it was just as an example of the kind of person who should be kept away from power in this unstable situation. Obama is also more dangerous than almost any man on the planet, because of the power he controls. I dont think either he or Putin are irrational enough to cause any major international instability though.

 

[Danny1982]

With respect, let me address this point because this is quite blatantly wrong, even though it seems to have been treated as common ground in this thread.

Simply put, it's a well-established ground of international law that a community doesn't own the territory it happens to inhabit. If 100% of Crimeans decided they wanted to join Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or the United Federation of Mars, it doesn't make it Russian, or Saudi, or Martian territory. It simply doesn't. That's not a technicality or a loophole, it's a point of international law that's well-established because there are good reasons behind it. There are significant portions of Northern Ireland that wish to become RoI territory. That does not legitimate an Irish invasion of N.Ireland to liberate those people. There are significant portions of southern Thailand that wish to join Malaysia. That does not legitimate a Malaysian invasion. It would make absolute nonsense of the doctrine of state sovereignty if the popular mandate was allowed to abrogate state borders unilaterally and extra-legally. Tl;dr: it doesn't matter if 101% of Crimeans wanted to join Russia. Any occupation, however mellifluously worded as a desire to give effect to the popular will, is void and an act of war. International law - and more to the point, international norms simply just don't work the way you think they do.

In any case, why is the Crimea to be treated as an autonomous unit capable of making its own decisions about which state to join, and not, say, a county, a city, or a township, or my family? Why can't I simply express my will that I'd like my home address to be treated as Russian territory and occupied?

If Crimeans want to be a part of Russia - and I think they do - they can. They can't take Crimea with them. That's not Crimean property, that's Ukrainian territory. It's as simple as that.

Crimea is already an autonomous unit. They have their own constitution as well (even before 2014). It was a Russian territory too not too long ago, and any law that allows one person to give territory to another country, but not the millions of people who live on it, is a stupid law.

And even if Crimea belonged to Ukraine, that doesn't mean that it belongs to the current coup-installed Ukrainian government. It's a scandal that the international community recognize a few people toppling an elected government by force as the legitimate leaders of a country, while refuse to recognized the people's right to choose whom to be ruled by. The whole Ukrainian constitution/law collapsed when the elected government was toppled in a non-democratic way. If some parts of Ukraine don't respect the Ukrainian laws under which all of Ukraine is ruled, then there is no reason why the other parts of Ukraine should.

Of course Crimea is not the first case this has happened. When you start making exceptions for the law it means that there are loopholes and technicalities (whether you like it or not).

 

[Danny1982]

Yes, I can call it silly. Because it is silly. If other people make that point then their point is silly too.

I really can't stress enough that this isn't a contest. If something is wrong then it's wrong,

Well, technically you can call it silly. However you calling it silly doesn't change the facts (and doesn't even make it silly really).

I also hope you realize the gigantic can of worms you're opening here by calling this point silly (just to win a short sighted discussion about Crimea), and realize that the US/EU will be among the ones who will suffer the most if this can was opened.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If it was a domestic event then why did other countries involve themselves even before a conclusion had been reached internally in Ukraine. Western powers voiced their support for the opposition long before they actually toppled the government. No western support = highly unlikely that the government would have been replaced at all. Russia have of course been involved in the processes in Ukraine for a long time, believing otherwise would be naive. But its also naive to believe that western influence didnt play a huge part in the instatement of the new government.

Of course Tymoschenko isnt more dangerous than Putin at the moment, but that is because she has no power. In the post I orginally brought her up it was just as an example of the kind of person who should be kept away from power in this unstable situation. Obama is also more dangerous than almost any man on the planet, because of the power he controls. I dont think either he or Putin are irrational enough to cause any major international instability though.

I think the horse has bolted on that one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26720549


Just to put the issue in context there is a map about halfway down this page which shows why this annexation is worrying Russia's neighbours.


If Russia hadn't supported the previous incumbent the govt would have fallen earlier, in fact he probably would never have been elected in the first place. If Russia hadn't forced the issue on a trade zone he might still be in power.


Govts do fall for domestic reasons and having a view about what happens next isn't the issue, Russia had the right to a view that doesn't mean you get to send in the tanks. Or is that your suggestion any of Russia's neighbouring countries govt's fall and its free for all land grab time?

How much of Ukraine do you think it is OK for Russia to take now just Crimea or all the east and south and who decides where to draw the line?

 

[naturalized]

Danny1982, I... either don't understand your point, or you don't understand mine. Probably the former.

Crimea is already an autonomous unit. They have their own constitution as well (even before 2014). It was a Russian territory too not too long ago, and any law that allows one person to give territory to another country, but not the millions of people who live on it, is a stupid law.

Is that a reference to Khrushchev? Do you mean that Khrushchev should never have been allowed to transfer the Crimea and its inhabitants without their consent, and that it's unfair that we recognize Khrushchev's decision while ignoring the desires of the Crimean people?

Khrushchev wasn't "one person." He was the leader of the USSR, an entity that included the Crimea. It was within his legal powers to transfer the Crimean peninsula. It is not within the Crimean people's. It is not a "stupid law" (more of a norm, incidentally, rather than a law). Please understand that what you're describing - that it is legitimate to invade and occupy sovereign territory belonging to other countries because its inhabitants want to leave - is a recipe for anarchy. It was precisely that rationale that Hitler cited as the legal justification for the Anschluss.

And even if Crimea belonged to Ukraine, that doesn't mean that it belongs to the current coup-installed Ukrainian government. It's a scandal that the international community recognize a few people toppling an elected government by force as the legitimate leaders of a country, while refuse to recognized the people's right to choose whom to be ruled by. The whole Ukrainian constitution/law collapsed when the elected government was toppled in a non-democratic way. If some parts of Ukraine don't respect the Ukrainian laws under which all of Ukraine is ruled, then there is no reason why the other parts of Ukraine should.

Of course Crimea is not the first case this has happened. When you start making exceptions for the law it means that there are loopholes and technicalities (whether you like it or not).

A coup? That word is inappropriate. A coup describes a military takeover. Whatever else you can say about the Euromaidan protests, the notion that they took over Kiev through military strength is laughable. It was a peoples' power movement from start to finish. You're entitled to your belief that the Euromaidan protestors did not represent the whole of Ukraine, or even a majority thereof (a belief I suspect is wrong, but in the absence of concrete, independent polling we'll have to speculate) but to call it a coup is ridiculous.

As for the bolded, we're not having this argument because the Crimea decided to up sticks and leave. We're having this argument because Russia invaded the territory of a sovereign neighbour and annexed it. Had the Crimea decided to leave of its own accord, great. But it didn't. There's a significant difference.

 

[Raoul]

I think the horse has bolted on that one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26720549


Just to put the issue in context there is a map about halfway down this page which shows why this annexation is worrying Russia's neighbours.


If Russia hadn't supported the previous incumbent the govt would have fallen earlier, in fact he probably would never have been elected in the first place. If Russia hadn't forced the issue on a trade zone he might still be in power.


Govts do fall for domestic reasons and having a view about what happens next isn't the issue, Russia had the right to a view that doesn't mean you get to send in the tanks. Or is that your suggestion any of Russia's neighbouring countries govt's fall and its free for all land grab time?

How much of Ukraine do you think it is OK for Russia to take now just Crimea or all the east and south and who decides where to draw the line?

This is spot on. The recent history (post Soviet collapse) of Ukraine has been mired in Russian medling. That is probably the reason why western countries have an interest in Ukraine and are promoting it move closer to the EU.

 

[Danny1982]

Danny1982, I... either don't understand your point, or you don't understand mine. Probably the former.



Is that a reference to Khrushchev? Do you mean that Khrushchev should never have been allowed to transfer the Crimea and its inhabitants without their consent, and that it's unfair that we recognize Khrushchev's decision while ignoring the desires of the Crimean people?

Khrushchev wasn't "one person." He was the leader of the USSR, an entity that included the Crimea. It was within his legal powers to transfer the Crimean peninsula. It is not within the Crimean people's. It is not a "stupid law" (more of a norm, incidentally, rather than a law). Please understand that what you're describing - that it is legitimate to invade and occupy sovereign territory belonging to other countries because its inhabitants want to leave - is a recipe for anarchy. It was precisely that rationale that Hitler cited as the legal justification for the Anschluss.



A coup? That word is inappropriate. A coup describes a military takeover. Whatever else you can say about the Euromaidan protests, the notion that they took over Kiev through military strength is laughable. It was a peoples' power movement from start to finish. You're entitled to your belief that the Euromaidan protestors did not represent the whole of Ukraine, or even a majority thereof (a belief I suspect is wrong, but in the absence of concrete, independent polling we'll have to speculate) but to call it a coup is ridiculous.

As for the bolded, we're not having this argument because the Crimea decided to up sticks and leave. We're having this argument because Russia invaded the territory of a sovereign neighbour and annexed it. Had the Crimea decided to leave of its own accord, great. But it didn't. There's a significant difference.

- You are the one who called it "international law".

- What we're discussing here is Crimea declaring independence from Ukraine, and then joining Russia, not the Russian "invasion". Those are two separate issues. You're kind of jumping from one topic to the other and kind of contradict yourself by doing so. First Crimea is in principle not allowed to leave Ukraine at all, and then well, it is allowed but without Russian forces on the ground...

- What Khrushchev did was against the constitution, and it neglected the will of the parliament and the people. He didn't take the necessary legal steps to "give away Crimea" either. He also gave it under different circumstances, where Ukraine was supposed to be part of the Soviet Union. Should we also correct all of this by restoring the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over its territories as well?

- Hitler again, what a shock. Hitler did not take his place in history because of the Anaschluss, but because he invaded all of Europe, the holocaust, and bunch of other issues.. You could have given a much more recent example in Bush when the Iraqi people were supposed to receive the American invasion with cheers and flowers, and how he used that as an excuse to justify the invasion, I mean the "liberation".

- The bolded part is laughable. There was a people movement in Turkey as well, but it couldn't topple the government (because it didn't possess enough power), and in the next election it was clear that they were still not the majority.

Any 10% of any nation could go out and protest, but in a democratic nation that shouldn't mean anything, because the elections will decide the matter. In Ukraine however it was the violence that decided the matter, not the minority that took the streets.. The facts on the ground is that the elected Ukrainian government lost control over its security forces, allowing the protestors to invade the parliament and topple the government by force. What do you want me to call that?

 

[naturalized]

- You are the one who called it "international law".

- What we're discussing here is Crimea declaring independence from Ukraine, and then joining Russia, not the Russian "invasion". Those are two separate issues.

They are not in any way two separate issues. The Russian invasion took place on February the 27th. Crimea declared independence on March 11th. Do you seriously believe that there was no causative link between the two events?

- Hitler again, what a shock. Hitler did not take his place in history because of the Anaschluss, but because he invaded all of Europe, the holocaust, and bunch of other issues.. You could have given a much more recent example in Bush when the Iraqi people were supposed to receive the American invasion with cheers and flowers, and how he used that as an excuse to justify the invasion, I mean the "liberation".

Good point. I agree with you. So you agree that in principle, the American invasion of Iraq - coming without an international mandate, without a clear threat of war from Iraq, without a recognized casus bellum - was illegal and should be opposed?

The truth of it is, this is the crux of this issue for you, isn't it? This has nothing to do with Crimea, Russia, or the Ukraine for you. This has to do with the hypocrisy of the West, and the US, right?

With the greatest of respect, can I suggest that insofar as American actions in the past half-century or so have been, at times, self-serving and an abuse of their status as a hyperpower (the Second Gulf War most obviously), that the correct implication to be drawn from that fact is not that the US is evil and must be opposed relentlessly at every turn, but instead that the abuse of great-power status, whenever and wherever, is to be opposed by any means necessary? Let's break it down:

1. America invaded Iraq because America is strong and Iraq was (relatively) weak, and Iraq had something America wanted.
2. Thus the Second Gulf War was an immoral, illegitimate war.
3. Thus, and further, America should have been opposed in such an action.
4. Russia has invaded the Ukraine because Russia is strong and the Ukraine is (relatively) weak, and Ukraine had something Russia wanted.
5. Thus, Russian actions in precipitating and provoking the Crimean crisis have been illegitimate.
6. Thus...

The facts on the ground is that the elected Ukrainian government lost control over its security forces, allowing the protestors to invade the parliament and topple the government by force. What do you want me to call that?

.... a people's power revolution, and not a coup, exactly like I said?

I'm not sure you understand the terms you're using, to be honest.

 

[Raoul]

This is an absolutely brilliant piece that debunks most of the nonsense in this thread.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/08/nato_expansion_didnt_set_off_the_ukrainian_crisis

Part 1

Spoiler

NATO Expansion Didn't Set Off the Ukrainian Crisis

Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea has produced a great deal of handwringing in the West, with much of the ire directed at NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's slow, 15-year process of expansion into the former Warsaw Pact nations, critics allege, sparked a tragic, three-stage process: It humiliated Russia, led to the country's encirclement, and provoked its aggressive behavior toward neighbors. NATO, they say, is a relic of the Cold War, serving no purpose other than to antagonize America's potential partners in the Kremlin.

Blaming NATO's enlargement for Russian belligerence has been a feature of European security debates since the end of the Cold War, and a reliable excuse for explaining away every disagreement between Moscow and the West. "Wasn't consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?" New York Timescolumnist Tom Friedman scoffed after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, in a column aptly entitled, "What did we expect?" Returning to this complaint after last month's invasion of Ukraine, Friedman declaredthat NATO expansion "remains one of the dumbest things we've ever done and, of course, laid the groundwork for Putin's rise." Fellow New York Times columnist Ross Douthat derided NATO expansion as a "neoconservative" project (pursued, oddly enough, by Bill Clinton) "to effectively encircle" Russia. And no less a figure than the late George F. Kennan concluded that "expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post cold-war era."

Tempting as it may be to castigate NATO for the deterioration of relations with Russia, nothing could be further from the truth: It was, and remains, the Russian regime's ideology, rhetoric, and conduct that provided the impulse for NATO expansion, not the other way around. Far from representing a historic error, the enlargement of NATO into Central and Eastern Europe has been one of the few unmitigated success stories of American foreign policy, as it consolidated democracy and security on a continent once scarred by total war. Faulting NATO for Russia's bad behavior betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of post-Cold War European politics, misrepresents the organization's role as a defensive alliance, and confuses aggressor with victim.

First, a little history is in order.

Russia's hostile actions towards neighbors hardly ended with the collapse of Soviet communism. On the contrary, Moscow continued to bully its former republics and satellites throughout the early and mid 1990s, even before the first round of NATO enlargement (to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999). In 1992 and 1993 -- after Russia formally recognized the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania -- Moscow cut off energy supplies to these small, reborn democracies in an attempt to pressure them into keeping Russian military forces and intelligence officers on their sovereign territory. From 1997 to 2000, according to former U.S. Ambassador to Lithuania Keith C. Smith, Russia halted oil shipments to the country no less than nine times after it refused to sell refineries to a Russian state company. To this day, the Russian Foreign Ministrymaintains that the Baltic republics -- which Russia militarily conquered, occupied, and subjugated for nearly five decades -- "voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940." The Balts didn't become part of NATO until 2004. Given this history, is it any wonder why these countries -- or any other country victimized by Soviet-imposed tyranny -- would want to join the alliance? Is it NATO's fault for saying OK?


Critics of NATO expansion like to point out that, in exchange for earning Soviet acceptance of German unification, the United States and its allies promised not to expand the Atlantic alliance. This is a myth, stemming from a selective Russian interpretation of the diplomacy at the tail end of the Cold War. In February of 1990, with hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops still stationed in East Germany, then-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, traveled to Moscow to meet with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. A day earlier, President George H.W. Bush had sent Kohl a letter suggesting that East German territory be given a "special military status" -- the specifics of which would be determined later -- within NATO, implying that the alliance would indeed continue to expand. Hoping to earn speedy Soviet authorization for the removal of their troops and the unification of Germany, however, Genscher toldGorbachev that, "NATO will not expand itself to the East."

But the Germans were not speaking for Washington, never mind the NATO alliance. Furthermore, as historian Mary Elise Sarotte haspointed out, Genscher's concession was never made in writing, and nor did Gorbachev "criticize Mr. Kohl publicly when he and Mr. Bush later agreed to offer only a special military status to the former East Germany instead of a pledge that NATO wouldn't expand." Ultimately, a legally binding agreement not to expand NATO beyond its pre-1990 borders never materialized, and Russia's latter-day claim that it was deceived by the West has no basis in fact.

Russia's cries of Western betrayal are really just a smokescreen. Far from threatening Russia, NATO has repeatedly gone out of its way to be conciliatory. A 1997 agreement outlining relations between the two former adversaries stipulated that the NATO states had "no intention, no plan, and no reason" to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of its new members. These "three no's" were intended as an expression of goodwill and a reaffirmation of NATO's founding principle: that it is a defensivealliance with no designs on Russian territory. In the spirit of transparency, the organization founded the NATO-Russia Council in 2002 to facilitate cooperation between Moscow and member states.

Not only did Western leaders repeatedly and explicitly make clear that NATO posed no threat whatsoever to Russia's security, some even suggested that Russia ultimately join the very military alliance that had been established to contain it during the Cold War. "We need Russia for the resolution of European and global problems," Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said in 2009. "That is why I think it would be good for Russia to join NATO." This hardly constitutes "cram[ming] NATO expansion down the Russians' throats," as Friedman alleges. Regardless, Sikorski was rebuked immediately by then-Russian envoy to NATO and now Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, whoretorted that "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power...For the moment, we don't see any real change in the organization, we only see the organization getting ready for the wars of past Europe."

With its invasion of Crimea, the first forcible annexation of European territory since World War II, it is Russia, and not NATO, that has returned the continent to "the wars of past Europe." More significant, however, was what this terse exchange revealed about the debate over NATO expansion: It has never really been about the enlargement of a defensive military alliance, but rather the nature of the Russian regime itself. If Russia had followed a democratic path (like the former communist states which joined NATO) and ceased posing a threat to its neighbors, there would have been nothing preventing it from becoming a suitable candidate for membership. After all, if the foreign minister of Poland, a nation historically terrorized by Russia and which is once again rearming itself in light of Crimea, proposed that Russia join NATO, who could possibly oppose it? As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt aptly pointed out on Twitter recently, it was the "historic failure of Russia that a quarter of a century after fall of Soviet Union the new generations in its neighbors see it as an enemy," while, in contrast, "A generation or two after 1945 Germany is surrounded by countries that, after all the horrible pain and suffering, see it as a friend."

​

​

 

[Raoul]

Part 2

Spoiler

Russia's hostility to NATO enlargement stems from the same root as all of its conflicts with the West: the zero-sum worldview and neo-imperialist agenda of President Vladimir Putin. In 2005, he declared the breakup of the Soviet Union to be "a major geopolitical disaster of the 20th century." And if there was any remaining doubt that he intends to reconstitute the empire, Putin erased it with his furious March 18 speech to Russia's Federation Council in which he essentially reserved the right to invade and annex any territory where ethnic Russians claim to feel oppressed. To say that NATO expansion "laid the groundwork for Putin's rise," as Friedman does, gets the situation exactly backwards. Putin's ascent was almost entirely the product of domestic factors, namely, the economic chaos of the 1990s and the popular desire for a firm response to the insurgency in Chechnya. NATO expansion barely registered on the minds of ordinary Russians.

With Russia amassing tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's eastern border and stoking ethnic conflict in the hopes of providing a pretext for gobbling up even more territory, lending credence to Moscow's complaints about NATO expansion is intellectually irresponsible and geopolitically dangerous. In the midst of negotiations to deescalate the crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has demanded that Ukraine essentially dismember itself into autonomous regions (the easier for Russia to meddle in the country's eastern provinces, which are heavily populated with ethnic Russians) and "firm guarantees" forswearing NATO and EU membership. Given that Russia has already invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory, and that it has shown no sign of discontinuing its aggressive behavior on the country's borders, these ultimatums constitute nothing less than a threat to use additional force if its demands are not met. Rather than firmly rebut these outrageous attempts to violate the sovereignty of an independent country, Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that Russia has "legitimate concerns" in Ukraine. This despite the fact that according to a new poll, 66 percent of ethnic Russian citizens there feel no pressure or threat from the new government in Kiev, a direct refutation of Moscow's relentless propaganda to the contrary.

The assertion by Russia (and its Western apologists) that NATO constitutes a threat has always been a ruse. As was the case during the Cold War, it is Russia that threatens its neighbors today, not vice-versa. Russia's real reason for opposing NATO expansion, as one Ukrainian Foreign Ministry official told me in Kiev last month, is that the alliance's collective security provision would prevent Moscow from invading its neighbors, something that Russia has done twice in the last six years. It is for this reason that NATO -- and its expansion -- remains vital for European security and stability.

To appreciate the hypocrisy of faulting NATO enlargement for the present predicament, one need only consider the claim that the military alliance has "encircled" Russia. There is only one country in Europe being encircled right now -- and it isn't Russia.