Ukraine Thread

[Husar]

In related news, Russia continues sabre rattling: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...pping-25-19831

A new report from Jane’s suggesting that the Kremlin is undertaking draconian defense cuts is wrong, a top analyst specializing in Russian affairs says. While the Jane’s report cites cuts of twenty-five percent—or one trillion rubles—the actual reductions are only about seven percent or roughly 230 billion rubles.

Unacceptable of course, here is a relevant graph from a reliable German source:
http://www.der-postillon.com/2017/03...7-prozent.html


(It says planned military expenditures for 2017 in billion US-dollars)

[Gilrandir]

Yes, surprisingly Kiev remained silent, so I had to look in Beirut.

Do you mean that you monitor on a regular basis ALL Ukrainian sources, either in Russian, Ukarainian or in English and found them surprisingly silent on the topic? Such poor searching skills. I guess I can help you:
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F...97%D0%BD%D1%96
http://www.dw.com/uk/%D1%87%D0%BE%D0...%B8/a-37928008
http://ua.censor.net.ua/news/426655/...vanofrankivsku

https://www.unian.info/economics/181...ine-photo.html

If you can't read them, I can assure you that this news has been discussed in Ukraine for a couple of weeks. It seems that you are under impression that "Kiev" conceals it from someone (especially from you). You can at least address other more reputable sources which would not make such glaring blunders and whose reportes are closer to the scene than Beirut.

https://sputniknews.com/business/201...nctions-banks/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...banks-46173581

Αsking for proof of atrocities committed by the Azov Batallion is similar to asking for proof of the naughtiness of SS and therefore similar to Holocaust denial, but if you insist, you can start by that Wikipedia paragraph and its linked UN reports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_B...and_war_crimes

Did you read what you linked? First of all, the war crimes in it are referred to as "alleged" (meaning not proved legally). Second of all, where did you see me denying atrocities? I can very well assume that the war being a dirty thing done without white mittens such cases may happen on both sides of the conflict. I denied atrocities against Russian-speaking minority. If the atrocities did take place they were not linguistically or ethnically motivated. The wikipedia article never mentions it.

I stand corrected for the statue, though, I didn't know that the Ukrainian government had already gone full-Nazi, banning parties it dislikes.

Somehow, only two kinds of ideologies and parties propagating them are banned in Ukraine - the Nazi one and the Communist one. Now tell me why banning Nazis is a democratic thing to do and banning Communists is a nazi thing to do.

I guess it's a natural evolution from the rioters beating old communist veterans and ethnic minorities, imitating the Lvov pogrom. Despicable.

Do you mean like this?


It was in Kharkiv in spring 2014 when a pro-Ukrainian rally was dispersed by pro-Russians and one of the demonstators was kicked in the face by a woman (a nurse by profession).

So, I would like to have a similar proof of beating old communist veterans and ethnic minorities. It is true if some old people come with the symbols of communism some overly zealous people may try to take them away. The process may involve some pushing and shoving, but it is an overstatement to speak of beating. As for "beating ethnic minorities", I never heard of it (I mean beating people BECAUSE they were ethnic minorities).

Generally, it is sad to see a person so ridden by stereotypes and fake news who denies himself critical thinking and believes that Ukrainians are a bunch of nazis whose main aim is to imitate progroms and hunt for pensioners and minorities. This is the very picture of Ukraine Russian media are trying so hard to create.

[Crandar]

So, why did you mention Beirut and doubt the report, if the news were also published by Ukrainian media? A bit self-contradictory.

I suggest reading the three linked reports, because there, there are more definitive statements than allegations.

I am not in favour of banning Nazism, but Nazism=/=Communism. I understand that the allies of Hitler could have a different viewpoint, because of their inability to admit their cruelty, but the civilised world is capable of discerning between gulags and death camps, between purges and holocaust, between a bloodthirsty government and a bloodthirsty ideology.

Nice deflection about Kharkiv. Meanwhile, in reality.
https://www.rt.com/news/258557-ukrai...s-attack-vday/
They even attacked a Mongol child in Barcelona, Jesus. Nice to see however how you justify the bullying of old people, I'm sure UPA used similar arguments when dealing with Poles.

[Gilrandir]

So, why did you mention Beirut and doubt the report, if the news were also published by Ukrainian media? A bit self-contradictory.

It was YOU who gave a source from Beirut explaining it that "Kiev is surprisingly silent about it". I knew all the way that Ukraine doesn't hush these stories as you seem to think.

I suggest reading the three linked reports, because there, there are more definitive statements than allegations.

This is why I referred to THEM, not to a Beirut written story of doubtful value containing a number of mistakes.

I am not in favour of banning Nazism, but Nazism=/=Communism.

If one compares the number of victims Ukraine suffered from both, Communists will have a confident lead.

I understand that the allies of Hitler could have a different viewpoint, because of their inability to admit their cruelty, but the civilised world is capable of discerning between gulags and death camps, between purges and holocaust, between a bloodthirsty government and a bloodthirsty ideology.

I don't know who you mean by the allies of Hitler. Ukraine? The USSR? UPA?
The first didn't exist as an independent state at that time. The other two at different times were allies of Hitler and at other times fought against him. Much as "the civilised world" was hobnobbing with Hitler and helping him to gulp down the civilised Czechoslovakia.

As for discerning the difference: one must judge both by the result. Which for Ukraine was quite identical.

As for inability to admit cruelty: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...nd-and-ukraine

The Ukrainian leader sought to mollify his Polish hosts, kneeling before a memorial to the victims of the Volhynia massacre.

Did any leader of "the civilised world" do the same apologizing for Dresden or Hiroshima bombing?

Nice deflection about Kharkiv. Meanwhile, in reality.
https://www.rt.com/news/258557-ukrai...s-attack-vday/

I didn't deny such facts, but you said something about beating. Where is it? And the beatings of ethnic minorities?

They even attacked a Mongol child in Barcelona, Jesus.

The source, please. Otherwise I will hold it one of the Russian propaganda stories telling how Ukrainians crucify small boys in Donbas and rape epileptical elderly women and own two Russian-speaking slaves each.
http://english.gordonua.com/news/exc...nda-60117.html

Nice to see however how you justify the bullying of old people, I'm sure UPA used similar arguments when dealing with Poles.

I didn't justify anything. I stood for truth. And the truth is the was no BEATING as you claim. Read my previous post carefully.

And I don't justify UPA. What you don't seem to know (or are reluctant to admit) is that atrocities were there on both sides and the ones committed by UPA came as an answer to the Polish pacification policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifi...astern_Galicia

[Crandar]

My comment about the silence was a response to you highlighting Beirut, please don't try to weasel out of your self-contradiction. My initial post was only a link and twice the word "nice". Oh, and the phrase "Meanwhile in Ukriane".

As I said, the allies of the Nazis have of course a different perspective. They would have had an even more radically different one, if the heroic Red Army didn't stop Hitler's plans about the Slavs. Or Sarmatians, if you prefer.

I believe that the civilised world understands the difference between strategic bombing and a genocide. The ethnic minorities part is included in the three UN reports you chose to ignore.

Finally, if 35 killed Ukrainians are equal to 100,000 killed Poles, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.

Oh, and the proof thing:

[Gilrandir]

My comment about the silence was a response to you highlighting Beirut, please don't try to weasel out of your self-contradiction. My initial post was only a link and twice the word "nice". Oh, and the phrase "Meanwhile in Ukriane".

I don't see any self-contradiction in what I said. If you explain it clearer perhaps I will see.

As I said, the allies of the Nazis have of course a different perspective.

If you don't specify "the allies of the Nazis" any further discussion is impossible.

They would have had an even more radically different one, if the heroic Red Army didn't stop Hitler's plans about the Slavs. Or Sarmatians, if you prefer.

Arguing with you is next to impossible since you don't hear (or pretend not to) what I say. So for the last time:

1. I don't deny the valor of those who fought Hitler.
2. Almost all the sides who eventually ended up fighting Hitler at some stage were his allies (in a broad sense of the word - either de jure or de facto, signing treaties of friendship (the USSR) or helping him to invade other countries (Britain and France in Munich)).
3. In view of the previous, no one has a moral high ground to accuse anyone.
4. There were participants in WWII who fought against both Germans and Soviets.
5. Atrocities were rampant everywhere, and ANY atrocities are bad.

I believe that the civilised world understands the difference between strategic bombing and a genocide.

So Hiroshima and Dresden were strategic bombings? And they are quite OK? Now I don't think you have right to speak of any moral compass or astrolabe.

The ethnic minorities part is included in the three UN reports you chose to ignore.

How could I ignore something I didn't see? Give me the text and I will judge.

Finally, if 35 killed Ukrainians are equal to 100,000 killed Poles, then there's something wrong with your moral compass.

My moral compass (evidently different from yours) tells me not to gauge the degree of guilt by the number of victims, but to denounce ANY atrocities.
By the way, the number of Ukrainians killed by Poles was much greater than 35:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre

http://www.holm.kiev.ua/?lang=2

The martyr’s death symbol for Kholm Ukrainian population is the village of Sagryn where on March 10, 1944 the Army Krajowa soldiers slaughtered atrociously its peaceful residents: during one night over 300 Ukrainian farms were burnt, over 1200 Sagryn inhabitants and those who came from the neignbouring villages were tortured and murdered.

But you seem to think that only those committed by UPA and Nazis deserve denouncing, while those committed by "the Good Side" (like mass rapes of German women by the Soviet soldiers) are a righteous anger of the wronged. Well, carry on, dude.

Oh, and the proof thing:

I see a man hitting another of Asiatic appearance several times on the face.
1. How do I know the perpetrator was a Ukrainian?
2. How do I know the perpetrator was a Ukrainian nazi?
3. How do I know the victim was Mongolean (and not Chinese or Korean)?
4. How can the ethnic/racial character of the conflict (and not just simple bullying, robbery attempt or a conflict over other things - like a girl or football preferences) be proved?

But even if it was the way you describe it - what do you want to prove? That there are Ukrainian nazis? I don't deny it. There are nazis in Ukraine as much as anywhere. Or do you think I support this guy in the video? By the way, it may come as a shock to you, but there are Nazis in Greece and they behave no better:


Generally, I have an impression that your agenda amounts to:
1. Historically Ukrainians were Hitler's friends.
2. Ukraine is now ruled by nazis and it is no wonder because see #1.
3. As opposed to Ukraine, all the civilised world has already exterminated those ignoble practices so it can teach Ukraine what is right and what is wrong.

If you are so adamant in your delusions and don't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit into this frame -

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile, SBU made the ban official:
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/410787.html

And another assassination of a Russian official, now in Ukraine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-dead-in-kiev

[Crandar]

Girlandir, please be consistent.
You said that the genocide in Volhynia and Galicia were a response to Polish atrocities. When I laughed at your example, you used some hardly convincing sanctimonious deflection and, because you knew no sane person equates 35 with 100,000, you gave me a massacre committed after the genocide in Galicia.
Do the Ukrainians act proactively? Jesus.

The rest of your post is whattaboutism, intentional misunderstanding of what the English word ally means, refusal to acknowledge the universally recognized necessity of bombing them to prevent an operation that would cost 5 to 10 million extra dead Japanese and a constant refusal to read three linked reports in a damn wikipedia paragraph.

[Gilrandir]

Girlandir, please be consistent.
You said that the genocide in Volhynia and Galicia were a response to Polish atrocities.
When I laughed at your example, you used some hardly convincing sanctimonious deflection and, because you knew no sane person equates 35 with 100,000, you gave me a massacre committed after the genocide in Galicia.
Do the Ukrainians act proactively? Jesus.

Crandar, please, be attentive and read what I WROTE, not what you THINK (or you WISH) I wrote.
I said it was a response to PACIFICATION POLICY, not to atrocities. Mass atrocities started later, when the WWII broke. And yes, both sides participated in them. This is what you stubbornly refuse to admit choosing to rub in the number of victims killed by one side and ignoring the other.

Summarizing the debate:
My view of the story:
UPA killed Poles - yes, how cruel.
Armia Krajowa killed Ukrainians - yes, how cruel.
Conclusion: let's admit it, apologize and move on.
Your view of this story:
UPA killed Poles - yes, how cruel.
Armia Krajowa killed Ukrainians - hardly convincing. And if it happened casualties were too petty to speak of and be indignant about.
Conclusion: Ukrainians are a root of all evil.

Although I must admit you are very consistent in pursuing this conclusion.

The rest of your post is whattaboutism,

What about the Mongol? Any news of other Ukrainian nazis beating Malaysians, Cambodians or Tibetians?

intentional misunderstanding of what the English word ally means,

Since "ally" is someone united with someone else FORMALLY by a treaty, UPA was never an ally of Germany. Moreover, an organization can't possibly ally (sign a treaty) with a country. Unlike the USSR: http://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=442

refusal to acknowledge the universally recognized necessity of bombing them to prevent an operation that would cost 5 to 10 million extra dead Japanese

Wonderful! Hiroshima was bombed TO SAVE JAPANESE! And Dresden, I presume, to save Germans. Now you would tell me that Ukrainians are cruel? If you claim that both were "the universally recognized necessity", name the universe in which this is recognized. I bet it is the civilised universe of the winners of the WWII. But do the losers of the WWII hold the same opinion?

and a constant refusal to read three linked reports in a damn wikipedia paragraph.

I didn't know you wanted me so little as to read three tiny repots two of which are 53 pages long and one - 49 pages long. That I won't. What I did read was the wikipedia paragraph you referred to:

Human rights violations and war crimes
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) have connected the Azov Battalion to alleged war crimes such as mass looting, the use of torture, beatings of detained civilians, the abduction of journalists, electrocution and waterboarding. An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015". Another OHCHR report noted use of rape and torture, writing: "A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the 'Azov' and 'Donbas' battalions in August-September 2014. The victim's health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital."


It said NOTHING of ethnically or linguistically motivated crimes, which you claimed to have been committed by Ukrainian nazis. Seeing the nature of your allegations and your inability to furnish proofs (not just "hardly convincing sanctimonious deflections" with Mongols and never-beaten pensioners) I think I'm right in believeing I would find NOTHING in report which would corroborate your empty accusations. But if you are so eager to prove your point, read the reports yourself and quote the parts that expose ethnic or/and linguistic motivation of the ALLLEGED crimes mentioned in them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gilrandir:

Be careful when arguing against morality in international affairs. However poorly honored in the past -- and you are correct that most (all?) polities have, in the past, done things that current moral sensibilities find reprehensible -- the attempt to impose some form of higher moral standard/some code of behavior that surpasses the nation-state, still has value. Without that effort, even where it is limited to a desire for the "respect" of other nations, we are left with nothing but realpolitik.

Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir:

Be careful when arguing against morality in international affairs. However poorly honored in the past -- and you are correct that most (all?) polities have, in the past, done things that current moral sensibilities find reprehensible -- the attempt to impose some form of higher moral standard/some code of behavior that surpasses the nation-state, still has value. Without that effort, even where it is limited to a desire for the "respect" of other nations, we are left with nothing but realpolitik.

Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

I said nothing about disrispect of morality in any sphere, including international affairs. My stance is that before attempting to impose a higher moral code everybody should agree that in the past no nation (whether in alliance with Hitler or opposing him) was exempt from exercising dirty practices. Then everybody should apologize for the past grievances and stop referring to them to push their current agenda.

[Sarmatian]

That's a silly excuse. Everyone committed crimes, so everyone's equal. Not by a long shot.

As long as excuses are found for those crimes and as long as criminals are revered by certain groups, organizations or states, it will talked about. You can't not discuss it when in 2017 a person like Bandera is honoured.

[Brenus]

Gilrandir, Under the rules of realpolitik, Crimea belongs to Russia by right of conquest.

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

[Gilrandir]

As long as excuses are found for those crimes and as long as criminals are revered by certain groups, organizations or states, it will talked about.

If you read what Crandar said, he found enough excuses for bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden.

As for revering criminals, I posted a picutre of a certain Arsen Pavlov aka Motorola whose mural appeared on a wall in Belgrade. Has anyone bothered to erase it yet?

You can't not discuss it when in 2017 a person like Bandera is honoured.

I think we've been through with discussing Bandera. He was a controversial figure, who had dark and light sides to him. One may praise the latter and condemn the former. At least no court (including the Nuremberg one) found him (or the whole UPA indeed) guilty.

As for honoring people: every nation has some honored public figures unpalatable for some other nations. For example, Suvorov, a highly praised Russian general of the late XVIII century is a sinister figure for the Poles who turned their uprisal into bloodbath. He is revered in Russia, military schools for boys are called after him and no one in Poland bats an eyelid. Pilsudsky was the initiator of pacification policy in Galicia. Ukraine doesn't mind when he is glorified in Poland. Bogdan Khmelnitsky is revered in Ukraine as one of the greatest leaders who liberated Ukraine from the Polish. His military successes were often accompanied by massacres of Jewish population. Does Isreal protest when Khmelnitsky is glorified in Ukraine? Should I mention Genghis Khan after whom half the infrastructure objects in Mongolia are named? And? Do China or Central Asian states protest? And all of them are guilty of killing thousands people.

Conclusion: history is full is dirty and noble deeds. One must now both and condemn the former and glorify the latter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you read what Crandar said, he found enough excuses for bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden.

At its roots, ethics on the battlefield is ultimately guaranteed by reprisal. The laws and customs of war are an attempt to ameliorate the need for reprisal by curtailing those events that prompt the need for reprisal.

During that conflict and among those nations involved, neither the USA nor the British were the first to specifically target a largely civilian population center. Japan's actions in China were brutal even by Asian "standards of warfare" and both Warsaw and Rotterdam preceded any British efforts targeting civilian populations.

Moreover, for all of the shock and horror associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and we didn't have many who really understood radiation all that well, especially among decision makers), the Tokyo Fire Raid killed more people.

[Montmorency]

Interesting consideration just now, and one I haven't seen in discussions of WW2 nuclear strategy: if in hope of causing the Japanese government to submit unconditionally (or nearly so) without resort to nuclears, would fire bombing and other mass destruction have proved ethically-superior (all discussion I have seen regards Japanese readiness to surrender in the abstract, or the cost-benefit ratio to amphibious invasion of the main islands.) Though plenty take some issue with strategic bombing in the war, it would indeed have been a continuation of prior means, and it would have been relatively cheap and simple.

In the end the nuclear bombs were about effecting speedy surrender toward immediate occupation, and demonstrating to the Soviet Union the power precipitating the surrender. Questioning the ethics of nuclear weapons is invariably caught up in anxiety about the American empire. I think this means more to people than any perceived inhumanity or existential threat of the weapons themselves.

[Gilrandir]

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873 and remained a part of it (and later the USSR) till it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.

Interesting consideration just now, and one I haven't seen in discussions of WW2 nuclear strategy: if in hope of causing the Japanese government to submit unconditionally (or nearly so) without resort to nuclears, would fire bombing and other mass destruction have proved ethically-superior (all discussion I have seen regards Japanese readiness to surrender in the abstract, or the cost-benefit ratio to amphibious invasion of the main islands.) Though plenty take some issue with strategic bombing in the war, it would indeed have been a continuation of prior means, and it would have been relatively cheap and simple.

In the end the nuclear bombs were about effecting speedy surrender toward immediate occupation, and demonstrating to the Soviet Union the power precipitating the surrender. Questioning the ethics of nuclear weapons is invariably caught up in anxiety about the American empire. I think this means more to people than any perceived inhumanity or existential threat of the weapons themselves.

I wasn't talking only of NUCLEAR bombings. I tried to draw attention to the fact that all parties to WWII at one time or another were involved into deeds of (to put it mildly) questionable morality which can't be justified by any strategic considerations or need for reprisals. They can be EXPLAINED by such reasons, but not JUSTIFIED.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873 and remained a part of it (and later the USSR) till it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.

I could be mistaken, but I do not think so. The assignment of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was more or less a bureaucratic streamlining thing. The USSR did not give any meaningful separate status to parts of the union save as a means to have multiple votes in the UN general assembly.

[Sarmatian]

I wasn't talking only of NUCLEAR bombings. I tried to draw attention to the fact that all parties to WWII at one time or another were involved into deeds of (to put it mildly) questionable morality which can't be justified by any strategic considerations or need for reprisals. They can be EXPLAINED by such reasons, but not JUSTIFIED.

Still not the same, not even close. And Bandera is still a war criminal.

Considering the mural, I have no idea, and I don't care. There are idiots everywhere, some have more and some less talent for drawing. It had nothing to do with government and no one gives a ****.

[Brenus]

Not sure the dissolution following the end of the "cold war" is really "conquest," per se, but it certainly did result from a prolonged political/economic struggle.

I was referring to the "gift" of Crimea to Ukraine by Khrushchev... Amazing how the West is found of Communist Dictatorships borders when it suits.

"I might be mistaken, but Brenus probably means that Crimea was conquered by Russian empire in 1873" and this too.

[Gilrandir]

Still not the same, not even close.

You are entitled to have you opinion of Dresden bombing or German women rapes in 1945 considering them somehow better than Nazis' atrocities. I don't.

And Bandera is still a war criminal.

I see. Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam.
You may call him that. As well you may call Begin a terrorist, Pilsudsky an oppressor of Ukrainians and Chenghis Khan a bloody conqueror. Yet they are revered in their home countries.

Considering the mural, I have no idea, and I don't care. There are idiots everywhere, some have more and some less talent for drawing. It had nothing to do with government and no one gives a ****.

If a war criminal is portrayed on the wall of a European city and no one (including the authorities) gives a damn - well, that speaks a lot of such people and I believe their right to condemn other war criminals is thus forfeit.

[Sarmatian]

You are entitled to have you opinion of Dresden bombing or German women rapes in 1945 considering them somehow better than Nazis' atrocities. I don't.

Good for you.

If a war criminal is portrayed on the wall of a European city and no one (including the authorities) gives a damn - well, that speaks a lot of such people and I believe their right to condemn other war criminals is thus forfeit.

Well, that's that, then. If graffiti are the standard now...

On a side note, I remembered an interesting graffiti case in Sarajevo after the war.

Somebody wrote in big letters on Post office wall in the center of Sarajevo

THIS IS SERBIA

and then somebody wrote underneath

You idiot, this is the post office

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was given to Ukraine by the right of conquest.

As a response to my statement that, under realpolitik Crimea could be construed as belonging to Russia by right of conquest, I do not see the link.

Russia conquered the Crimea in 1873. It was territory "owned" by the Tsars who also "owned" the Ukraine.

How does this suggest that Ukraine conquered Crimea? Crimea being a part of Ukraine was bureaucratic, with Ukraine retaining control more or less by inertia in 1991.

The 1873 conquest of Crimea by the Tsars and subsequent "Russification" efforts may well have established a populace that deemed itself more "Russian" then "Ukrainian," a factor used by the Russians along with covert troop deployment to take control of Crimea and annex it since the Ukrainian internal problems developed in 2014. So it may be argued that the Tsarist conquest helped establish the position allowing its reacquisition by Russia more recently, but I cannot see how the Tsarist conquest of Crimea means that Crimea was Ukrainian by right of conquest.

You may argue that Russia's conquest of Crimea allowed the right to dispose of the territory as they deemed fit, including it's transfer to Ukrainian oversight under Kruschev's politburo. But while that may legitimize Ukraine's claim to the Crimea, a claim reinforced by their inclusion of that territory as theirs while assuming independence (which claim was accepted by Russia), the legitimacy does not stem from any Ukrainian conquest.

THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.

[Brenus]

"How does this suggest that Ukraine conquered Crimea? Crimea being a part of Ukraine was bureaucratic, with Ukraine retaining control more or less by inertia in 1991." So, when a dictator gives a piece of land to a crony, it is ok then?
But, there is something interesting in this sentence: by inertia. That is where the problem is. No one asked before or after the population's opinions, as in the "good old times" of the colonies. Then, as for Asia, Africa and others parts, ethnic conflicts started...
Then, by pure ideology and a lot of arrogance, ignoring the changes of time, the EU and US thought it will be like with the good old drunk Yeltsin and Yugoslavia and Orange Revolutions.

[Brenus]

THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.

I agree with this. The problem of course is that USA and EU had themselves broken International treaties with Serbia bombing and the secession of Kosovo.
Yugoslavia was one of the highest point of hypocrisy and break of international rules. First, not all populations had a right to separate, (btw, it was few days ago the anniversary of the Bombing campaign against Serbia) but some had. It was the first time that borders established by a Dictator were recognised without any discussion and against the recommendation of an EU commission. Pure geopolitic, but far from International rules and laws.
This was an opened door for the Putin alike...

[Gilrandir]

Good for you.

And not that good for YOU.

Well, that's that, then. If graffiti are the standard now...

It is not about the mural, it is about the reaction (or rather the absence of it) from any quarter - either from the population or from the authorities. Such absence equals tolerating glorification of war criminals.

THAT was what underscores my earlier comment to Gil.' It is the accepted customs of international law -- an attempt to impose a moral/ethical framework to replace 'might makes right' -- that supports Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Might, in the form of 'by right of conquest,' would underscore and support Russia's annexation. Therefore, I suggested that his implicit argument suggesting that no country could claim the moral high ground was rhetorically counterproductive to his larger goal of a free and independent Ukraine maintaining sovereignty over its 1992 borders.

It is not about moral or ethics. It is about abiding by laws and the treaties signed.

It was the first time that borders established by a Dictator were recognised without any discussion and against the recommendation of an EU commission.

It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

[Sarmatian]

It is not about the mural, it is about the reaction (or rather the absence of it) from any quarter - either from the population or from the authorities. Such absence equals tolerating glorification of war criminals.

Do you really expect governments to react to each graffiti? I can assure you there are much worse.

Do you really think that population of Serbia have:
1) seen the graffiti?
2) understood the graffiti?
3) care about it?
4) have a deeper understanding of this particular conflict?

They have trouble giving a damn about Kosovo, conflict in Ukraine may as well be happening on Mars as far as the general population is concerned.

[Brenus]

It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

Yes. However when EU & USA showed they didn't feel that international laws and treaties/agreements were binding when their interests demanded, it was an opened door to people like Putin. In doing this, they broke the rules, and Ukraine is paying the price...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is not about moral or ethics. It is about abiding by laws and the treaties signed.

But the whole point I am making is that laws and treaties are the "CHILD" of morality and ethics. Absent some appeal to a higher morality/ethical standard, the laws or treaties are meaningless. Without some higher standard against which all behaviors are measured, you are left with nothing more than G. J. Caesar's dictum about the victors doing whatever they want and the defeated enduring whatever the victor wishes (a.k.a. might makes right).

It doesn't matter who established the borders. What matters is the international recognition of them. After it had happened the borders drawn by any dictator are as good as those established by democratic negotiations. In case of Crimea, its belonging to Ukraine (to be precise, the sovereignty of Ukraine within its current borders) was promulgated in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Ukraine and Russia signed in 1997. After this all attempts to weasel out are against the law.

While it does matter how/by whom the borders were established in terms of levels of practical support etc., you are absolutely correct as to the illegality of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Russia broke the treaty signed with Ukraine, with the "plebiscite" for an Crimean 'anschluss' with Russia being blatantly inappropriate by all accepted international standards and an abrogation of the treaty signed with Crimea.

What I have been arguing is that applying the old classic "all have been immoral in the past" standard to undercut the "morality score" of any international actor, implicitly undercuts the spirit of the entirety of international law. Without some appeal to a higher, generally accepted ethical standard, you devolve to old fashioned might-makes-right sensibilities. By that old bronze-age standard, the Russians have a RIGHT to the Crimea because Ukraine isn't powerful enough to do shit to stop it.


With a higher standard of accepted practices in place, then other nations MUST work to redress the issue, and not acknowledge it and support it, because that kind of annexation despite treaty and under questionable plebiscite support is not condoned by UN era standards of ethical behavior among nations.


I do note however, that the West's collective response has been pretty anemic. It should have been handled in much the same manner as was the annexation of Kuwait in 1991. And yes, that does mean facing down a nation armed with nuclear weapons by asserting that any resort to those weapons will bring about a collective response in kind by the coalition opposing the annexation. You cannot bluff with this kind of stuff, it must be credible. The West's unwillingness to take this step has allowed Russian to use Caesar's approach.