Russia Discussion

[Momochiru]

Lets see what happened in Kosovo: it was a traditional Serbian territory, but in the last few decades it got mostly populated by Albanians. When they wanted to separate, the Serbs didn't like it, hence the war. NATO came and facilitated the separation.

What are the similarities with Ukraine: Crimea is traditional Russian territory and almost exclusively populated by Russians; the rest of Eastern Ukraine has also a very sizable Russian population and is pro-Russian - they want to separate and join Russia, which is also in Russia's interest. The rest of Ukraine doesn't like it, hence the current conflict.

The way I see it is, if USA and NATO want to apply the same criteria, they should allow Eastern Ukraine to separate and join Russia, if that's what the local population wants.

 

[Raoul]

Lets see what happened in Kosovo: it was a traditional Serbian territory, but in the last few decades it got mostly populated by Albanians. When they wanted to separate, the Serbs didn't like it, hence the war. NATO came and facilitated the separation.

What are the similarities with Ukraine: Crimea is traditional Russian territory and almost exclusively populated by Russians; the rest of Eastern Ukraine has also a very sizable Russian population and is pro-Russian - they want to separate and join Russia, which is also in Russia's interest. The rest of Ukraine doesn't like it, hence the current conflict.

The way I see it is, if USA and NATO want to apply the same criteria, they should allow Eastern Ukraine to separate and join Russia, if that's what the local population wants.

The only flaw in your logic is that eastern Ukrainians don't want to join Russia.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-poll-finds-15-eastern-ukraine-want-join-russia/

Also, if you remove the coercive element of Putin's thugs in Crimea, its quite likely that Crimeans wanted to remain an autonomous region as they were before the Russian invasion and forced referendum, which by the way did not ask they wanted to remain a part of Ukraine. The only two questions on it were should Crimea become Russian or should Crimea remain "autonomous" ?

See here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../06/do-crimeans-actually-want-to-join-russia/

 

[Momochiru]

The only flaw in your logic is that eastern Ukrainians don't want to join Russia.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-poll-finds-15-eastern-ukraine-want-join-russia/

Also, if you remove the coercive element of Putin's thugs in Crimea, its quite likely that Crimeans wanted to remain an autonomous region as they were before the Russian invasion and forced referendum, which by the way did not ask they wanted to remain a part of Ukraine. The only two questions on it were should Crimea become Russian or should Crimea remain "autonomous" ?

See here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../06/do-crimeans-actually-want-to-join-russia/

Maybe, there are multiple polls with different results to suit both sides. I know people from Ukraine and they are all super pro-Russian. Even if Crimea wanted to stay autonomous Ukraine still wouldn't allow them.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Lets see what happened in Kosovo: it was a traditional Serbian territory, but in the last few decades it got mostly populated by Albanians. When they wanted to separate, the Serbs didn't like it, hence the war. NATO came and facilitated the separation.

What are the similarities with Ukraine: Crimea is traditional Russian territory and almost exclusively populated by Russians; the rest of Eastern Ukraine has also a very sizable Russian population and is pro-Russian - they want to separate and join Russia, which is also in Russia's interest. The rest of Ukraine doesn't like it, hence the current conflict.

The way I see it is, if USA and NATO want to apply the same criteria, they should allow Eastern Ukraine to separate and join Russia, if that's what the local population wants.

Kosovo has emotional overtones for Serbs going back to the Middle Ages. Crimea was historically Tartar then Turkish territory that was conquered by Russia (far from Russians' ancestral homelands) in the late 18th century due to its significance as a naval base. It's a bit like British people getting misty eyed over Gibraltar. Having said that, you are right that the the majority of the people there (with the big military presence) probably regard themselves as Russian so, despite the thuggish nature of the seizure in breach of international law, it is plausible at some level. Eastern Ukraine is different though - the tensions there have very much been engineered by Russia, not least through them pumping propoganda through Russian language TV stations.

By the way, I remember Russia adopting a very different approach when their territories in the Caucuses wanted to secede....

 

[Raoul]

Maybe, there are multiple polls with different results to suit both sides. I know people from Ukraine and they are all super pro-Russian. Even if Crimea wanted to stay autonomous Ukraine still wouldn't allow them.

There are definitely a lot of pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, but you have to remember that this entire movement to secede did not take flight until Russian operatives began fomenting paranoia about fascists in Crimea, coupled with a soft invasion of Russian troops taking over the parliament and installing a pro-Russian operative as the leader. Eastern Ukraine saw a similar situation with loads of Russian operatives then actual Russian troops invading their area. Both cases are the result of a soft Russian invasion. I visited southern Ukraine last month and did not see a single trace of pro-Russian sentiment, in fact Putin's meddling in Ukraine has given rise to a sort of pro-Ukrainian nationalism and a sense of national identity that was either dormant or didn't exist at all prior to this year.

 

[antihenry]

Surely you're not using these examples as justification to invade Crimea? You're still dealing with land that officially belongs to another country.

Why does it bother you so much when it comes to invading other countries? Here's one example. US president used the September 11 terrorist act as an excuse to rally support for an unlawful invasion in Iraq, the country that had nothing to do with those terrorists (who were mostly Saudis) and cited weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the military operation. The result of that invasion was a catastrophe of huge proportions, hundreds of thousands dead, and a turmoil that continues to tears that country apart to this day. Have things gotten better in Iraq because of that? Somehow it doesn't look that way. And that's just one example.

Why don't you support a Russian program that emphasizes democracy, good governance, the rule of law, a free media, and an open civil society ?

What country in the world couldn't use more democracy, better governance and all those good things you've mentioned? Russia certainly could. But I think we should start with your biggest allies in the Arab world Saudi Arabia and your biggest trading partner China, both much worse offenders than Russia in that respect. In fact, you should start sanctioning them right away. While you're at it, don't forget to punish yourselves for meddling in other countries' affairs for decades and causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead and refugees in the lands that apparently were hurting for America to come and fix their problems.

Why won't we do that and then we'll talk what can be done to make Russia a better place.

 

[Revan]

Lets see what happened in Kosovo: it was a traditional Serbian territory, but in the last few decades it got mostly populated by Albanians. When they wanted to separate, the Serbs didn't like it, hence the war. NATO came and facilitated the separation.

What are the similarities with Ukraine: Crimea is traditional Russian territory and almost exclusively populated by Russians; the rest of Eastern Ukraine has also a very sizable Russian population and is pro-Russian - they want to separate and join Russia, which is also in Russia's interest. The rest of Ukraine doesn't like it, hence the current conflict.

The way I see it is, if USA and NATO want to apply the same criteria, they should allow Eastern Ukraine to separate and join Russia, if that's what the local population wants.

That's what Serbs say, but it isn't the case. From registration more than a hundred years ago:

Austrian registration (1899):
Albanian 47.88%
Serbian 43.7%

British estimation (1906)
Albanian 2/3
Serbian 1/3

Noel Malcolm estimation for 1912 (based on a few Serbian stats)
Albanian around 70%
Serbian 25%

1921:
Albanian 65.8%
Serbian 26%

1931 (Kingdom of Yugoslavia registration):
Albanian 60%
Serbian (and other slavic population) 32.64%

1948 estimation:
Albanian 68.46%
Serbs 23.62%

What really happened, is that after the constitution of 1974, Albanian rights increased on Kosovo. Albanians could run and become mayors, ministers etc. The University was open on the Albanian language. While local Serbs had slightly more rights, they weren't exactly content with this and a lot of them left Kosovo (cause they didn't want to be ruled from Albanians). On the other side, Albanians natality is much higher than that of Serbians which made stats change (on 1991 there are estimated to be around 85% Albanian and around 10% Serbs).

When Milosevic came to power he went batshit crazy and one of the first things he did was to change the constitution, revoking the rights for Albanians. University was closed as were closed high schools (to his credit, he allowed primary schools continue being open), which made Albanian start parallel education. A few hundred thousand people lost their job cause they were Albanian, and there started a big presecution of Albanian population. A lot were beated, some of them to death for no reasons at all. After 7 years of peaceful resistance (lead by president of Kosovo whosomehow weirdly thought that he can copy Ghandi and be succesful on it), the first armed resistance began. Serbians responded killing quite a lot of Albanians, making a few massacres where entire villages were executed and the leader of mission of OSCE called that in one of them had happened 'crime against humanity'.

Then in Rambouille happened a meeting between Albanian leaders (both from KLA and from president which generally were against each other) and Serbian leaders. Serbia didn't accept to change anything and they didn't sign the proposed peace treaty. On the other hand, they intensified killing of people. Kosovan Liberty Army also finally managed to be armed much better, though still not a match for Yugoslavian army. And so, NATO (pretty much US, UK and Turkey) had to intervene otherwise it would have happened even worse than in Bosna. When the war ended, around a million Albanians (50% of the entire population) had already left Kosovo, and around 12000-15000 were killed. 2000 of bodies haven't still be found.

Then after a few years started a process of negotiations between Serbia, Albanian leaders in Wiena for the final status of Kosovo. It was lead by Marti Ahtisari (ex prime minister of Finland). After 2 years of negotiations he proposed indipendence for Kosovo, while Serbian population will have a lot more rights than minorities around the world (positive discrimination). Serbia didn't accept that, Russia threatened for veto, which means that Kosovo had to declare indipendence without going to Security Council. So far had been recognized from 110 states, including but not limited to US, Turkey, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and 23 out of 28 EU coutries (all bar Spain, Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus and Romania).

To relate the situtation - why I don't care at all what happend on Crimea - the situations are completely different. Ukraininan state and army hasn't been killing Russians in Crimea and east Ukraine. They weren't persecuted them. They didn't fire Russian population from their jobs for being Russians. Despite what Vladimir Putin said about similarities between Kosovo and Crimea (he said the same in war of Georgia for similarities between Kosovo and Abkhazia/Osetia), there aren't no similarities at all. Also, considering how devoted is Putin when it comes to sovereinity of states (he threatened that Russian will veto Kosovo if they want to enroll on UN), it is quite weird seeing him invading countries, eventhough the situation there was more softer than it was in Kosovo.

While I don't have nothing against East Ukraine joining Russia (I believe on nations' right for indipendence), the problem is that there are a lot of similar situations all over the world, and in some way it will open Pandora box. So bar wars or humanitary chatastrophes (which happened both in Kosovo and Bosna), I am not sure that it is a right idea to redraw the borders of Europe. Obviously, Putin doesn't give a shit about Russian population there, and this is more a territorial war and also a showing of muscles.

 

[DFreshKing]

Not shouting you down - just surprised at the moral relativism. I think it's fairly clear Russia and the West are qualitatively different, whatever the imperfections of the latter. Speaking up here can be genuinely dangerous, even on issues that you would not think are unduly sensitive (e.g. Environmental campaigns to stop a highway being built through a forest leading to beatings so brutal they end up with limb amputations). As for not doing business with them, Russia is far from the worse offender in terms of trading partners (the Gulf states, for example) so it's probably not fair or realistic to single them out for ostracisation - it's just the example I'm most familiar with.

Well the point was morally similar as in the effect the 'leaders' are trying have not in the methods of suppression. As I said previously our gripes are much more first world as in we don't like the choices being made.

Both outcomes are the same in the fact that the leaders get there policies through even when democratically you would expect majority decisions.

Most UK citizens (and I am falling into your trap of speaking for others here although there is research data to support) do not want invasions, airstrikes and wars yet that is what we have. (as an example)

In a true democracy leaders would know the will of the people and implement it.

 

[DFreshKing]

There are definitely a lot of pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, but you have to remember that this entire movement to secede did not take flight until Russian operatives began fomenting paranoia about fascists in Crimea, coupled with a soft invasion of Russian troops taking over the parliament and installing a pro-Russian operative as the leader. Eastern Ukraine saw a similar situation with loads of Russian operatives then actual Russian troops invading their area. Both cases are the result of a soft Russian invasion. I visited southern Ukraine last month and did not see a single trace of pro-Russian sentiment, in fact Putin's meddling in Ukraine has given rise to a sort of pro-Ukrainian nationalism and a sense of national identity that was either dormant or didn't exist at all prior to this year.

It is hardly paranoia, there is a well known nazi element within the New Ukrainian government. Strangely not a problem to the west, a bit like the Syrian al qaeda is (WAS) not a problem either.

 

[Raoul]

It is hardly paranoia, there is a well known nazi element within the New Ukrainian government. Strangely not a problem to the west, a bit like the Syrian al qaeda is (WAS) not a problem either.

There are communists and fascists in Ukraine, just as there are in Russia - but that doesn't give the Russian government a green light to exploit internal unrest and help themselves to their preferred piece of Ukrainian land.

 

[Raoul]

Why does it bother you so much when it comes to invading other countries? Here's one example. US president used the September 11 terrorist act as an excuse to rally support for an unlawful invasion in Iraq, the country that had nothing to do with those terrorists (who were mostly Saudis) and cited weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the military operation. The result of that invasion was a catastrophe of huge proportions, hundreds of thousands dead, and a turmoil that continues to tears that country apart to this day. Have things gotten better in Iraq because of that? Somehow it doesn't look that way. And that's just one example.

You have to get away from attempting to justify the Ukraine invasion by pointing at other invasions. Certainly two wrongs don't make a right do they ? That's a poor argument to justify invading another country.

What country in the world couldn't use more democracy, better governance and all those good things you've mentioned? Russia certainly could. But I think we should start with your biggest allies in the Arab world Saudi Arabia and your biggest trading partner China, both much worse offenders than Russia in that respect. In fact, you should start sanctioning them right away. While you're at it, don't forget to punish yourselves for meddling in other countries' affairs for decades and causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead and refugees in the lands that apparently were hurting for America to come and fix their problems.

Why won't we do that and then we'll talk what can be done to make Russia a better place.

Again, why not focus on your own country rather than pointing at other examples where Democracy doesn't exist to justify why it shouldn't in your own case.

 

[DFreshKing]

There are communists and fascists in Ukraine, just as there are in Russia - but that doesn't give the Russian government a green light to exploit internal unrest and help themselves to their preferred piece of Ukrainian land.

In Government? no - and certainly not supported and helped by the west. How you can back these actions irrespective of your bias is just crazy to me.

Whatever Russia has done is in response to an illegitimate coup which has been orchestrated by the west, no amount of excuses or justifications make that ok.

 

[Raoul]

In Government? no - and certainly not supported and helped by the west. How you can back these actions irrespective of your bias is just crazy to me.

Whatever Russia has done is in response to an illegitimate coup which has been orchestrated by the west, no amount of excuses or justifications make that ok.

However you feel about the Ukrainians chasing their corrupt President out the country, their new government and parliament have been legitimately elected by a majority of Ukrainians in internationally recognized elections this year, which has reinforced the spirit of last year's revolution in a democratic context. There is no getting around the reality that the will of Ukrainians is being enforced by the current government, which is decidedly pro-western. Hardly a surprise given how Russian meddling has ruined much of the country through corruption and now war.

 

[DFreshKing]

However you feel about the Ukrainians chasing their corrupt President out the country, their new government and parliament have been legitimately elected by a majority of Ukrainians in internationally recognized elections this year, which has reinforced the spirit of last year's revolution in a democratic context. There is no getting around the reality that the will of Ukrainians is being enforced by the current government, which is decidedly pro-western. Hardly a surprise given how Russian meddling has ruined much of the country through corruption and now war.

Honestly it is beyond parody. The illegitimate coup chased out the elected leader. The coup was backed by the west. This is not even disputed by the bbc!

The elections thereafter are no more legitimate than the farce in Crimea - New leaders sworn in and quickly have elections while their rivals are still engulfed in civil war - do you think the east voted much?

 

[Momochiru]

That's what Serbs say, but it isn't the case. From registration more than a hundred years ago:

Austrian registration (1899):
Albanian 47.88%
Serbian 43.7%

British estimation (1906)
Albanian 2/3
Serbian 1/3

Noel Malcolm estimation for 1912 (based on a few Serbian stats)
Albanian around 70%
Serbian 25%

1921:
Albanian 65.8%
Serbian 26%

1931 (Kingdom of Yugoslavia registration):
Albanian 60%
Serbian (and other slavic population) 32.64%

1948 estimation:
Albanian 68.46%
Serbs 23.62%

What really happened, is that after the constitution of 1974, Albanian rights increased on Kosovo. Albanians could run and become mayors, ministers etc. The University was open on the Albanian language. While local Serbs had slightly more rights, they weren't exactly content with this and a lot of them left Kosovo (cause they didn't want to be ruled from Albanians). On the other side, Albanians natality is much higher than that of Serbians which made stats change (on 1991 there are estimated to be around 85% Albanian and around 10% Serbs).

When Milosevic came to power he went batshit crazy and one of the first things he did was to change the constitution, revoking the rights for Albanians. University was closed as were closed high schools (to his credit, he allowed primary schools continue being open), which made Albanian start parallel education. A few hundred thousand people lost their job cause they were Albanian, and there started a big presecution of Albanian population. A lot were beated, some of them to death for no reasons at all. After 7 years of peaceful resistance (lead by president of Kosovo whosomehow weirdly thought that he can copy Ghandi and be succesful on it), the first armed resistance began. Serbians responded killing quite a lot of Albanians, making a few massacres where entire villages were executed and the leader of mission of OSCE called that in one of them had happened 'crime against humanity'.

Then in Rambouille happened a meeting between Albanian leaders (both from KLA and from president which generally were against each other) and Serbian leaders. Serbia didn't accept to change anything and they didn't sign the proposed peace treaty. On the other hand, they intensified killing of people. Kosovan Liberty Army also finally managed to be armed much better, though still not a match for Yugoslavian army. And so, NATO (pretty much US, UK and Turkey) had to intervene otherwise it would have happened even worse than in Bosna. When the war ended, around a million Albanians (50% of the entire population) had already left Kosovo, and around 12000-15000 were killed. 2000 of bodies haven't still be found.

Then after a few years started a process of negotiations between Serbia, Albanian leaders in Wiena for the final status of Kosovo. It was lead by Marti Ahtisari (ex prime minister of Finland). After 2 years of negotiations he proposed indipendence for Kosovo, while Serbian population will have a lot more rights than minorities around the world (positive discrimination). Serbia didn't accept that, Russia threatened for veto, which means that Kosovo had to declare indipendence without going to Security Council. So far had been recognized from 110 states, including but not limited to US, Turkey, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and 23 out of 28 EU coutries (all bar Spain, Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus and Romania).

To relate the situtation - why I don't care at all what happend on Crimea - the situations are completely different. Ukraininan state and army hasn't been killing Russians in Crimea and east Ukraine. They weren't persecuted them. They didn't fire Russian population from their jobs for being Russians. Despite what Vladimir Putin said about similarities between Kosovo and Crimea (he said the same in war of Georgia for similarities between Kosovo and Abkhazia/Osetia), there aren't no similarities at all. Also, considering how devoted is Putin when it comes to sovereinity of states (he threatened that Russian will veto Kosovo if they want to enroll on UN), it is quite weird seeing him invading countries, eventhough the situation there was more softer than it was in Kosovo.

While I don't have nothing against East Ukraine joining Russia (I believe on nations' right for indipendence), the problem is that there are a lot of similar situations all over the world, and in some way it will open Pandora box. So bar wars or humanitary chatastrophes (which happened both in Kosovo and Bosna), I am not sure that it is a right idea to redraw the borders of Europe. Obviously, Putin doesn't give a shit about Russian population there, and this is more a territorial war and also a showing of muscles.

Of course there are many differences and Milosevic was committing atrocities in Kosovo, so NATO's involvement was justified. But at its core the situtations are very similar - both are regions predominantly populated by ethnic groups who associate themselves with the neighboring country. In both cases there are quite significant unrests and a peaceful solution to preserve the status quo is very unlikely. Kosovo was allowed to secede and in the future might decide to join Albania. You are saying that allowing Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to do the same would create a dangerous precedent and we shouldn't mess with Europe's borders, but things like that happen all the time - 40 countries have been created or changed borders since 1990 and most of them in Europe. That's an average of 2 per year - hardly a precedent.

 

[Raoul]

Honestly it is beyond parody. The illegitimate coup chased out the elected leader. The coup was backed by the west. This is not even disputed by the bbc!

The elections thereafter are no more legitimate than the farce in Crimea - New leaders sworn in and quickly have elections while their rivals are still engulfed in civil war - do you think the east voted much?

Revolutions do happen, especially when citizens have had enough of corrupt leaders. What can't be denied is that Ukrainians were justified in wanting a change in government, given their having voted twice in the past 6 months to codify their move away from Russia and towards Europe. These were internationally recognized elections with monitors in place to observe their credibility.

There's simply no legitimate comparison between democratic elections that took place in Ukraine and a forced referendum in Crimea. In fact, Russian actions in Crimea are more consistent with a classic coup d'etat than what happened in Kiev, which was more in line with a revolution.

 

[Revan]

Of course there are many differences and Milosevic was committing atrocities in Kosovo, so NATO's involvement was justified. But at its core the situtations are very similar - both are regions predominantly populated by ethnic groups who associate themselves with the neighboring country. In both cases there are quite significant unrests and a peaceful solution to preserve the status quo is very unlikely. Kosovo was allowed to secede and in the future might decide to join Albania. You are saying that allowing Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to do the same would create a dangerous precedent and we shouldn't mess with Europe's borders, but things like that happen all the time - 40 countries have been created or changed borders since 1990 and most of them in Europe. That's an average of 2 per year - hardly a precedent.

This is very important though, without those atrocies from Milosevic, Kosovo wouldn't get indipendence (at-least in short/mid future) regardless that the absolute majority of people wanted it. And considering that the 'fascist regime' on Ukraine wasn't doing anything bad to Crimea and East Ukraine, I don't think that you can justify the situations. Obviously, if they would had decided to kill Russians on Ukraine, then you (and Putin) would have had a point in the comparison.

 

[Momochiru]

There are definitely a lot of pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, but you have to remember that this entire movement to secede did not take flight until Russian operatives began fomenting paranoia about fascists in Crimea, coupled with a soft invasion of Russian troops taking over the parliament and installing a pro-Russian operative as the leader. Eastern Ukraine saw a similar situation with loads of Russian operatives then actual Russian troops invading their area. Both cases are the result of a soft Russian invasion. I visited southern Ukraine last month and did not see a single trace of pro-Russian sentiment, in fact Putin's meddling in Ukraine has given rise to a sort of pro-Ukrainian nationalism and a sense of national identity that was either dormant or didn't exist at all prior to this year.

I'm not familiar with all the subtle undercurrents and can't take a position on who is right and who is wrong. All I can see is both sides blaming each other, which is usually the case in conflicts like this. To me far more important is to find a peaceful and sustainable solution, if it means separation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, so be it.

 

[Raoul]

I'm not familiar with all the subtle undercurrents and can't take a position on who is right and who is wrong. All I can see is both sides blaming each other, which is usually the case in conflicts like this. To me far more important is to find a peaceful and sustainable solution, if it means separation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, so be it.

That wouldn't be a solution - merely an end state that would be acceptable to Russia but not Ukraine. It would also justify that land grabs are ok for a country that is seeking to expand its sphere of influence on Europe's doorstep. The only solution here would be a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory, at which point countries could begin negotiating with one another on equal footing.

 

[DFreshKing]

I'm not familiar with all the subtle undercurrents and can't take a position on who is right and who is wrong. All I can see is both sides blaming each other, which is usually the case in conflicts like this. To me far more important is to find a peaceful and sustainable solution, if it means separation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, so be it.

It is quite clear that Crimea wanted out of Ukraine as do large swathes of the east - this was the case well before these troubles began and are more cultural and community led than Raoul will have you believe.

The difference is that when someone wants out and you agree it seems to be legitimate revolution - when you don't agree it becomes a coup etat. I have no time for either bias so it allows me to see them both for what they are - This has always been a bigger geopolitical issue much wider than Ukraine.

It pains me to feel sorry for Russia with their history of oppression (We are not any better unfortunately) but surrounding their borders with army bases is a threat they have to take seriously.

Proxy wars could well continue until the real one begins which hopefully never happens but if it did, bias or not people acting like all these manoeuvres are justifiable and acceptable are going to feel pretty stupid and probably dead - as will a large amount of the population in general.

 

[Sir Matt]

That wouldn't be a solution - merely an end state that would be acceptable to Russia but not Ukraine. It would also justify that land grabs are ok for a country that is seeking to expand its sphere of influence on Europe's doorstep. The only solution here would be a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory, at which point countries could begin negotiating with one another on equal footing.

Russia doesn't want to annex the east if they can avoid it. It's more beneficial for Russia to keep Ukraine in a state of limbo or push for a federalized government to allow them veto over government actions similar to what they have or attempted to get in Moldova with Transnistria. If Russia gains Donetsk and Slavyansk, it eliminates one of the major hurdles for Ukraine to join NATO since it wouldn't have the same territorial integrity issues. Of course then Russia would just invade somewhere else and stage resistance like they did in the other two areas.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

In Government? no - and certainly not supported and helped by the west. How you can back these actions irrespective of your bias is just crazy to me.

Whatever Russia has done is in response to an illegitimate coup which has been orchestrated by the west, no amount of excuses or justifications make that ok.

For a short post you certainly managed to fit an awful lot of wrong in there.

Putin is a fascist in every way that counts, he doesn't want to call himself that but his actions are exactly the same. He is currently taking Russia back into dark times.

Putin gives to and supports extreme right wing (fascist) parties in various eastern European countries and has no qualms about them as long as they don't side against him which the Ukrainian ones do because of Russia's bloody history in the country including the attempt to poison the last but one president and then the fact that they literally bought the last one.

The west didn't force a coup in Ukraine, Russia did by trying to force them away from the EU and into the stupid Putin invented Eurasian block.

The west was prepared to leave the Ukrainian people to sort their own issues out, it was Russia that decided to put troops into Ukrainian territory which it had previously guaranteed in international treaty and then just decide to take a part of it and call it Russian from now on.


The US/west isn't always doing the wrong thing and in this case it is clearly correct in its ongoing response to, a now obviously very dangerous Russian govt which is taking breathtaking risks with its economy and foreign relations.

 

[Nucks]

The west was prepared to leave the Ukrainian people to sort their own issues out, it was Russia that decided to put troops into Ukrainian territory which it had previously guaranteed in international treaty and then just decide to take a part of it and call it Russian from now on.

Yep, we're willing to butt out, now that our agenda to install a pro-western government has succeeded.

Don't look to far into my position on this. I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not I think what is happening is good or bad, right or wrong. I am always going to look at the picture as impartially as I can. If we can do it, why can't Russia?

I don't care for the wiggling about and weak rationalizations as to why "it's different when we do it because #democracy11!!!" and "it's bad when they do it because #nodemocracy!!111"

 

[Raoul]

Yep, we're willing to butt out, now that our agenda to install a pro-western government has succeeded.

Don't look to far into my position on this. I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not I think what is happening is good or bad, right or wrong. I am always going to look at the picture as impartially as I can. If we can do it, why can't Russia?

I don't care for the wiggling about and weak rationalizations as to why "it's different when we do it because #democracy11!!!" and "it's bad when they do it because #nodemocracy!!111"

The only flaw in what you're saying is that Ukrainians actually support a pro-European path, and as such, the internal events that led to Yanukovych getting toppled were a direct result of domestic politics. What isn't a result of domestic politics is the foreign invasion of Russian troops that ensued. Of course the west supports a pro-western Ukraine and Russia supports a pro-Russian one. But that misses the point that the revolution was innately internal to Ukrainian citizens demanding change.

 

[antihenry]

Again, why not focus on your own country rather than pointing at other examples where Democracy doesn't exist to justify why it shouldn't in your own case.

Because I don't think you can apply the same rule everywhere. There's a reason why some countries take to democracy like duck to water, while others struggle with it or dismiss the idea altogether. Russia was never in its history a democratic country in a true sense of that word, and may never become one, certainly doesn't look like it'll happen in my lifetime. The reasons for that are many and have to do with the country's history, culture, religion, mentality etc. Perhaps a generation or two later, when the country is run by people with no links to the Soviet past things may change, but who knows.

What bothers me is that you, like most Americans, readily accept the idea that you can interfere in other country's business and somehow change things around overnight, because you think you know what's truly best for them. Does it ever work, really? I realize that the men who actually decide these things couldn't care less about democracy and freedom and prioritize their country's geopolitical goals (as they see them) over everything else, but they consistently manage to sell that "we're the good guys fighting the bad guys" concept to the US public, and somehow millions eat it up without ever questioning their methods and more importantly, results of those policies all across the globe.

Somehow you don't see how immoral it is on US part to do everything they can in order to bend everyone to their will? Maybe they'll invade you and change the regime they don't like. Or perhaps they'll sponsor and arm the opposition to the leaders they want out. Or they'll sanction you and force others into doing the same by applying economic and political pressure on everyone who doesn't follow their lead. Or they'll do a secret deal with their Saudi friends to keep the oil prices low so they'd try and hurt your economy. They'll befriend the dictators and train terrorists when and if it suits them and turn on democratically elected leaders next, if those guys don't fit their plans for that particular country/region. And it's all in the name of democracy and freedom, of course.

Crimea will remain a part of Russia, right or wrong. Southeast of Ukraine will remain a volatile and unstable part of the country for some time. And unless some serious financial aid from the West comes to Ukraine in the very near future, the country will collapse, and US and EU will have to share the blame for it, along with Russia. You wanted it, you got it, now it's time to sort out the mess and pay the bills which Russia used to do for a very long time.

 

[Raoul]

Because I don't think you can apply the same rule everywhere. There's a reason why some countries take to democracy like duck to water, while others struggle with it or dismiss the idea altogether. Russia was never in its history a democratic country in a true sense of that word, and may never become one, certainly doesn't look like it'll happen in my lifetime. The reasons for that are many and have to do with the country's history, culture, religion, mentality etc. Perhaps a generation or two later, when the country is run by people with no links to the Soviet past things may change, but who knows.

What bothers me is that you, like most Americans, readily accept the idea that you can interfere in other country's business and somehow change things around overnight, because you think you know what's truly best for them. Does it ever work, really? I realize that the men who actually decide these things couldn't care less about democracy and freedom and prioritize their country's geopolitical goals (as they see them) over everything else, but they consistently manage to sell that "we're the good guys fighting the bad guys" concept to the US public, and somehow millions eat it up without ever questioning their methods and more importantly, results of those policies all across the globe.

Somehow you don't see how immoral it is on US part to do everything they can in order to bend everyone to their will? Maybe they'll invade you and change the regime they don't like. Or perhaps they'll sponsor and arm the opposition to the leaders they want out. Or they'll sanction you and force others into doing the same by applying economic and political pressure on everyone who doesn't follow their lead. Or they'll do a secret deal with their Saudi friends to keep the oil prices low so they'd try and hurt your economy. They'll befriend the dictators and train terrorists if it suits when it them and turn on democratically elected leaders next, if those guys don't fit their plans for that particular country/region. And it's all in the name of democracy and freedom, of course.

Crimea will remain a part of Russia, right or wrong. Southeast of Ukraine will remain a volatile and unstable part of the country for some time. And unless there's some serious financial aid from the West comes to Ukraine in the very near future, the country will collapse, and US and EU will have to share the blame for it, along with Russia. You wanted it, you got it, now it's time to sort out the mess and pay the bills which Russia used to do for a very long time.

Good post. Time will tell how all of this plays out. My best guess is that Putin will eventually hit a tipping point where the economic pressure may result in the collapse of the Russian economy. We are months away from that imo, unless he comes to his senses and gives up his project in Ukraine.

 

[Momochiru]

Because I don't think you can apply the same rule everywhere. There's a reason why some countries take to democracy like duck to water, while others struggle with it or dismiss the idea altogether. Russia was never in its history a democratic country in a true sense of that word, and may never become one, certainly doesn't look like it'll happen in my lifetime. The reasons for that are many and have to do with the country's history, culture, religion, mentality etc. Perhaps a generation or two later, when the country is run by people with no links to the Soviet past things may change, but who knows.

I think there is some truth to what you said that Russia cannot be a true democracy and needs a strong authoritarian leader. I work with a lot Russian and Ukrainian ex-pats. Interesting enough, all of them including the Ukrainians support Putin. These are people who have lived in North America for 10-20 years or more, but they still have family and friends back home, so they are familiar with the view of the common people both here and there. Yet they still back up Putin all the way. When I ask them what they think about him they use words like "true leader", "very smart man" or "much better than Obama or Bush". They keep telling me how much he has done for Russia in the last 10-15 years. They are telling me how he has done miracles for the economy and under him the average salary in Russia increased 15 times, how he supposedly jailed or executed some big mafia bosses, so Russia is much safer place now, how he supports the sports and gives incentives for sports at all levels and so on.

One guy was telling me how Putin has found the best balance between capitalism and state controlled economy - he is allowing the Russian oligarchs to make billions, but only if they run their business in a way that's beneficial to Russia. The comparison was made with the USA where the big business controls everything and in result many industries have been outsourced to China or other Asian countries, because it's more profitable for the big business, but it's very detrimental to the country as a whole and it's causing USA to slowly lose it's competitive advantage and how Putin would never allow anything like that in Russia.

I don't know what to make out of it - it's not like they have been brainwashed by the Russian propaganda - they have left Russia a while ago and also they are smart guys who are not easy to brainwash - all of them have university degrees, some have PhD's. Maybe there is more to Putin than the villain the western media is painting him to be...

 

[Raoul]

I think there is some truth to what you said that Russia cannot be a true democracy and needs a strong authoritarian leader. I work with a lot Russian and Ukrainian ex-pats. Interesting enough, all of them including the Ukrainians support Putin. These are people who have lived in North America for 10-20 years or more, but they still have family and friends back home, so they are familiar with the view of the common people both here and there. Yet they still back up Putin all the way. When I ask them what they think about him they use words like "true leader", "very smart man" or "much better than Obama or Bush". They keep telling me how much he has done for Russia in the last 10-15 years. They are telling me how he has done miracles for the economy and under him the average salary in Russia increased 15 times, how he supposedly jailed or executed some big mafia bosses, so Russia is much safer place now, how he supports the sports and gives incentives for sports at all levels and so on.

One guy was telling me how Putin has found the best balance between capitalism and state controlled economy - he is allowing the Russian oligarchs to make billions, but only if they run their business in a way that's beneficial to Russia. The comparison was made with the USA where the big business controls everything and in result many industries have been outsourced to China or other Asian countries, because it's more profitable for the big business, but it's very detrimental to the country as a whole and it's causing USA to slowly lose it's competitive advantage and how Putin would never allow anything like that in Russia.

I don't know what to make out of it - it's not like they have been brainwashed by the Russian propaganda - they have left Russia a while ago and also they are smart guys who are not easy to brainwash - all of them have university degrees, some have PhD's. Maybe there is more to Putin than the villain the western media is painting him to be...

At the end of the day this conflict is about power - the west vs Russia. Unfortunately for Putin and the Russians, given the lopsided structure of global power, there's only one way this story will end, and that's with Russia in utter disarray due to a major recession.

 

[Raoul]

Interesting piece about Putin's ways being starkly similar to those of 1930s fascists.

Why It’s Time to Start Calling Putin a Fascist

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/05/12/why-it’s-time-start-calling-putin-fascist

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has thrown the term “fascist” around a lot lately, especially against pro-Western Ukrainians. To him, Kiev’s government is a “fascist junta,” and Russian (state) TV likes to show them alongside footage of Nazi war criminals.

Needless to say, Putin is using the term more as a swear word than as an accurate description of a political ideology. Ukrainians supporting democracy and European integration are as far away from fascism as you can get.

But let’s remember for a second that fascism isn’t just a swearword, but an actual political movement. A brief look at the core features of fascism shows that Putin shares all of them.

It may be time to start calling Putin a fascist. Doing so would help people around the world understand what kind of a threat they are dealing with.

Fascism started off as a political movement in Italy during World War I and spread across Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Spain’s Franco are all considered parts of the fascist movement.

At its core, fascism was a reaction to the spread of Western liberal democracy and its values. While Western democracies in France, Britain or the U.S. were based on individual freedom and small government, fascists emphasized the national collective.

They sought a strong state with a powerful army, headed by a dictator who controlled most aspects of life, including press, arts, and sports. Their nationalist myth was rooted in history. Mussolini saw himself as successor to the Roman emperors, and Hitler to the Germanic leaders and medieval German emperors.

Fascists despised what they perceived as decadent Western values, including everything from democracy, press freedom over expressionist art to homosexuality. Among Hitler’s most forgotten victims are homosexuals, who were murdered in concentration camps by the thousands.

Following World War II and the mass murders by Hitler and his allies, politicians mostly stopped calling themselves fascists. But that doesn’t mean fascism as an ideology disappeared. In fact, we are currently seeing its resurrection in Putin’s Russia.

Like Hitler and Mussolini, Putin views a strong state headed by a charismatic leader controlling the press and most aspects of social life as superior to Western democracy. Since assuming power in 2000 Putin has rigged elections, bullied NGOs, expanded state-led social organizations, taken control of media and increased the powers of the President to the point where he appoints governors and virtually nothing can be done in Russia without his consent.

Like the fascists of the 1930s, Putin believes in the importance of a strong military and is currently overseeing the largest investments in the Russian army since the fall of the Soviet Union.

He also shares the fascists’ historical myth-making by implicitly putting himself in a line with past rulers like Peter the Great and Stalin, of whom he speaks admiringly. Putin’s nationalism is well documented, and it has recently taken an expansionist turn similar to Hitler’s.

Much like Hitler justified his invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia with the argument that both regions were once part of the German empire and thus historically German, Putin has employed history to justify his actions in Ukraine. In his May 9th speech on Crimea, he argued that his invasion had “righted a historical wrong,” and he has repeatedly pointed out that large parts of Ukraine were historically part of Russia. His apparent desire to unite all ethnic Russians in the Russian state is equally reminiscent of Hitler’s attitude towards German minority groups in Eastern Europe.

Perhaps the greatest similarity between Putin and the fascists of the 1930s is his hostility towards what he perceives as decadent Western values. His crusade against homosexuals and artists, including Pussy Riot and Pyotr Pavlenski, as well as his touting of “Russian values” as superior to Western ones exhibit a fundamental tenet of fascism: the belief that a strong leader is needed to keep the nation pure and save it from the harmful influence of Western culture.

If Putin shares all major features of fascist ideology, it is about time to start calling him one. He may not refer to himself as a fascist, but neither did Hitler. He may admire the Soviet Union, but he only admires it for its strong state and its fostering of Russian greatness. Whether he would admit it or not, Vladimir Putin is a fascist.

Acknowledging this can help us better understand his appeal. Many separatists in Ukraine don’t merely want to join Russia, they want to join Putin’s Russia with its autocratic state and anti-gay laws. A surprising number of separatists interviewed by Western media have ranted against the “Euro-gays” in Kiev. This indicated that their separatism isn’t just about nationality, but also about ideology and culture. As in the 1930s, fascism as an explicit alternative to Western values appeals to many.

More importantly, calling Putin a fascist could help dispel the myth that Putin’s ideology is offering something new. A number of Western commentators, including the influential German columnist Georg Diez, have argued that Putin’s Russia is part of a new wave of state-sponsored capitalism spearheaded by China. But while China’s model of authoritarian capitalism under a communist guise is genuinely novel, Putin is merely recycling ideas from the 1930s.

If people understand that Putin is promoting an ideology that has been tried before and led to disaster, they may be less likely to view him as a hero.

I propose that when Western politicians talk about the threat Putin is posing to the West, they should call that threat by its name: fascism. Independent media should start referring to Putin as a fascist much like they refer to David Cameron as a conservative. Unlike Putin’s use of the term, it wouldn’t be mere name-calling. It would simply be a recognition of the facts.

 

[gooDevil]

Of course he's a fascist, was if ever in question?

And the U.S. right wing wants to make our government more fascist.

 

[DFreshKing]

For a short post you certainly managed to fit an awful lot of wrong in there.

Putin is a fascist in every way that counts, he doesn't want to call himself that but his actions are exactly the same. He is currently taking Russia back into dark times.

Putin gives to and supports extreme right wing (fascist) parties in various eastern European countries and has no qualms about them as long as they don't side against him which the Ukrainian ones do because of Russia's bloody history in the country including the attempt to poison the last but one president and then the fact that they literally bought the last one.

The west didn't force a coup in Ukraine, Russia did by trying to force them away from the EU and into the stupid Putin invented Eurasian block.

The west was prepared to leave the Ukrainian people to sort their own issues out, it was Russia that decided to put troops into Ukrainian territory which it had previously guaranteed in international treaty and then just decide to take a part of it and call it Russian from now on.


The US/west isn't always doing the wrong thing and in this case it is clearly correct in its ongoing response to, a now obviously very dangerous Russian govt which is taking breathtaking risks with its economy and foreign relations.

Wall of pointless text did not read but cheers for your input.

 

[Raoul]

Wall of pointless text did not read but cheers for your input.

What parts of his post are pointless or incorrect?

 

[DFreshKing]

What parts of his post are pointless or incorrect?

all of it.

 

[Raoul]

all of it.

Can you be specific ?

 

[Raoul]

Of course he's a fascist, was if ever in question?

And the U.S. right wing wants to make our government more fascist.

Its really remarkable how his actions are similar to good old fascism isn't it, and yet his apologists in his thread, like lobotomized sheep, have fallen for Putin's line that fascists are taking over in Ukraine.

 

[DFreshKing]

Its really remarkable how his actions are similar to good old fascism isn't it, and yet his apologists in his thread, like lobotomized sheep, have fallen for Putin's line that fascists are taking over in Ukraine.

You should not be insulting especially as mod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

Is Putin to blame for these? - and even if he was is it still correct to call them fascists and is it still correct to support their place in government.

Your bias is frankly embarrassing and one of the main reason debate is next to impossible in most CE threads you enter.

If you are referring to me I would add my points are more drawing parallels with how the west manipulate as well as Putin, I am not saying either are right in fact I am saying both are incredibly wrong in almost all things they do geopolitically.

 

[Raoul]

You should not be insulting especially as mod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

Is Putin to blame for these? - and even if he was is it still correct to call them fascists and is it still correct to support the place in government.

Your bias is frankly embarrassing and one of the main reason debate is next to impossible in most CE threads you enter.

If you are referring to me I would add my points are more drawing parallels with how the west manipulate as well as Putin, I am not saying either are right in fact I am saying both are incredibly wrong in almost all things they do geopolitically.

I wasn't referring to you, however the general sentiment of blindly giving Putin, who is oddly similar to a 1930s fascist, a free pass for what he's doing while farcically trying to blame the west for his actions is just a bit laughable though. He needs to be unapologetically called out for what he's doing, which is destabilizing Europe to meet his neo-fascist agenda.

 

[Sir Matt]

You should not be insulting especially as mod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

Is Putin to blame for these? - and even if he was is it still correct to call them fascists and is it still correct to support their place in government.

Your bias is frankly embarrassing and one of the main reason debate is next to impossible in most CE threads you enter.

If you are referring to me I would add my points are more drawing parallels with how the west manipulate as well as Putin, I am not saying either are right in fact I am saying both are incredibly wrong in almost all things they do geopolitically.

Svoboda got a wopping 6.5% in the elections. Certainly indicative of the entire government. I think it's safe to assume everyone in the British government is a racist since the BNP have gotten 6.3% in an election.

 

[Nucks]

The only flaw in what you're saying is that Ukrainians actually support a pro-European path, and as such, the internal events that led to Yanukovych getting toppled were a direct result of domestic politics. What isn't a result of domestic politics is the foreign invasion of Russian troops that ensued. Of course the west supports a pro-western Ukraine and Russia supports a pro-Russian one. But that misses the point that the revolution was innately internal to Ukrainian citizens demanding change.

Some Ukrainians support a pro-west movement. Some support a pro-Russian movement. The issue isn't who would win. The issue is that the pro-west took the matter into their own hands allegedly with outside support through extra-legal means. The elections since then on either side really prove nothing since the opposition has been excluded, either by circumstance or by self choice.

You're basically discounting half of the country. Eastern Ukraine clearly favours a pro-Russian movement. So what they want only counts if it aligns with the current US administrations desire?

 

[DFreshKing]

Svoboda got a wopping 6.5% in the elections. Certainly indicative of the entire government. I think it's safe to assume everyone in the British government is a racist since the BNP have gotten 6.3% in an election.

Three members of their party hold positions in the Ukrainian government.

How many has BNP got in ours again?

I think its safe to assume you missed the salient point.