Ukraine-in-a-thread

[Husar]

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...t?fsrc=rss|lea

An Article in the Economist - which boils down to the fact that Putin is lieing, we all know he's lieing and he manufactured the crisis, and he's getting away with it.

Russia’s recent conduct is often framed narrowly as the start of a new cold war with America. In fact it poses a broader threat to countries everywhere because Mr Putin has driven a tank over the existing world order.

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

I don't have time to read more of this propaganda, as though Putin was the first head of state to lie in public.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm not supporting a war. I think economic sanctions would have been enough - or will be enough to stop Putin from invading Eastern Ukraine.

CR

[Sarmatian]

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations

That's a bit like saying Messi knows a trick or two with the ball.

[Gilrandir]

Putin is pulling the same trick NATO did in 1994 for Kosovo.

Nope. NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet).

[Gilrandir]

White Rus refers to Belarus.

In Russia before 1917 Ukraine has traditionally been termed "Lesser Rus".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And that's a problem because in the existing World Order America and the people who finance the Economist tell other countries what they can and cannot do and we really wouldn't want that to change.

I don't have time to read more of this propaganda, as though Putin was the first head of state to lie in public.

OK - try being Moldovan, then.

I'm sure they're totally relaxed about the way things are going.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think Putin is trying to imitate Hitler, it was perhaps an illegal landgrab but my point is that I don't care and don't see why we should get involved as much as we do. The Ukrainian "revolutionaries" and their nazi friends are responsible for this. They made a revolution, replaced the government, enacted more and far more influential laws than any unelected interim government should and then they acted surprised that their neighbor and former ally who they just turned away from is angry about this. Oh, and they antagonized the large parts of the country which voted for the previous president, the one they chased away.

So whenever in the neighboring country something happens that displeases you, you have a right to invade it and bite off some of its land? I thought this approach had died somewhere in the middle of the 20th century. Now the whole world has to own up to it: agreements don't matter any more. You can disregard them and do whatever you want and the others will lump it. It is not about Ukraine any more, it is about the whole system of international relations.

[Brenus]

"NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet)" You are having a laugh. The biggest US base in Europe! (see Camp Bondsteel).

"It is not about Ukraine any more, it is about the whole system of international relations." This was just a crisis in waiting. With the new interventionism from the West (or more or less good reasons, and I was one supporting "the right to intervene for Humanitarian Purposes!!!), it was just matter of time it bites back. Unfortunately for Ukraine, it came when a genuine movement for social and political changes was high-jacked.

Now, it looks like more Russian Minorities in other Countries wish to be oppressed by Putin.

Can I remind here that the West pledged to Gorbachev that NATO will not expend on Former Communist Countries. And what did happened? So how Russia is supposed to make about Western Promises?

[Gilrandir]

Putin is being opportunistic here, and has obviously had contingency plans for this ready at need, but it is hard to see him as having hatched the whole thing on his own -- more like a prepared chess player seizing a positional advantage when offered.

I have read an article that claims that Russia was (and is) ready for the kind of sanctions that are being introduced now. They are a good excuse to offer for the economic hardships that it is experiencing and is likely to experience in future. Moreover, the sanctions will boost the support for Putin and contribute to the spread of nationalism which Putin can utilize.
The article states that when the sanctions become really hurtful, Russia will invade Eastern Ukrane and make sanctions a thing to be negotiated: the West removes the sanctions, Russia withdraws from Eastern Ukraine.
To me all this sounds sensible.

[Gilrandir]

"NATO didn't annex Kosovo nor let anyone incorporate it (yet)" You are having a laugh. The biggest US base in Europe! (see Camp Bondsteel).

Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country.

[Brenus]

"Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country." And what does change?

[Gilrandir]

Can I remind here that the West pledged to Gorbachev that NATO will not expend on Former Communist Countries. And what did happened? So how Russia is supposed to make about Western Promises?

Gorbachev was the president of a country that stopped existing. Can you be expected to hold your promise to, say, Austro-Hungary?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

What is the most bewildering is the impression that because the US makes mistakes when it comes to foreign policy, we are now on the same level as a "democratically elected leader" who is purposely agitating a nation that has done nothing but restrain itself from using force against hostile occupying forces whether they be Crimean rebels or Russian forces in disguise.

The public US mentality is still shaped by the Cold War, we have not adapted our public view of the world to the new reality, and we make errors because of it. But you can't say that any public support for military action comes from a place of imperialism or tyranny. Despite our idiotic policies, we felt they were what was best for supporting democracy and promoting the Western values of human rights. Do private companies and contractors get their hands dirty and their pockets filled, sure. It's the business of war.

This self defeatist attitude that has taken hold in the West is cancerous. I'm glad Americans still have the sense that the world can be improved and that it still needs to be protected.

[Gilrandir]

"Yet there was no referendum for joining, say, Albania and no official inclusion into any country." And what does change?

Though essentially it may have been similar (introducing a military base) it was not an enlargement of country X who promised in 1994 to guarantee the integrity and security of country Y, at the expense of country Y. And Russia didn't have to plant a base in Crimea - it is already there.

[Sarmatian]

Gorbachev was the president of a country that stopped existing. Can you be expected to hold your promise to, say, Austro-Hungary?

It's not same.

Russia is the legal successor of USSR. Any deal made with USSR is applicable automatically to Russian Federation. Like the permanent security council seat - it didn't dissolve when USSR disintegrated, it was immediately transfered to Russian Federation.

Autria-Hungary has no legal successor state.

[Gilrandir]

It's not same.

Russia is the legal successor of USSR. Any deal made with USSR is applicable automatically to Russian Federation. Like the permanent security council seat - it didn't dissolve when USSR disintegrated, it was immediately transfered to Russian Federation.

Autria-Hungary has no legal successor state.

But Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine after February 21 (or what was the exact date) 2014 as a legal successor of Ukraine before that date and claims that Budapest memorandum can't be applied in this case. Does it make any sense? As for Gorbachev, was there any official document signed saying that NATO promises not to expand eastward?

[Sarmatian]

But Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine after February 21 (or what was the exact date) 2014 as a legal successor of Ukraine before that date and claims that Budapest memorandum can't be applied in this case. Does it make any sense? As for Gorbachev, was there any official document signed saying that NATO promises not to expand eastward?

No. Russia doesn't recognize this government as a legitimate government of Ukraine.

It's legal double talk. UN Charter and many other international documents also forbid change of borders. That didn't stop the great powers to invade and dissect countries when it suited them.

USA signed dozens of documents and charters that should have forbade them from recognizing Kosovo. See how that worked out?

The legal excuse is that it all refers to forced change of borders by outside influence. In the case of Kosovo, Crimea and some other cases, it is argued that it was legal because the population itself voted for it.

[Husar]

Really? You're trying to make some point about how the west is telling countries what to do and doesn't want that to change, when it's Putin who got riled up because his puppet ruler of Ukraine was deposed, and manufactured the crisis as a farcically thin pretext to invade and annex his neighbor?

No, I'm saying that you artificially blow this out of proportion by saying things like "annex his neighbor" instead of "annex an island that likes to be with them more anyway" and use a farcically thin pretext to put sanctions on Russia after you made their neighbors revolt and turn against Putin. You didn't even shy away from marginalizing the part the fascists play in the revolution.
And again, you tried to do pretty much the same thing when Cuba turned to communism and ousted your puppet dictator who was arguably far worse than Yanukovich, and that's where your moral highground went down the slippery slope.
I also didn't say the West is telling countries what to do, I said America and the people who finance the Economist. Why else did not a single country in Europe want to harbor Snowden? Why did one country even bring down a machine on a diplomatic mission merely on the suspicion that Snowden was on board? Because America told them to and they all obey.

But somehow - essentially because the US isn't saintly in international relations - invading and annexing another country like this is okay.

Good God.

CR

And so just because Cubans had enough of the murderous dictator you had installed there, sending a bunch of exiles there with US-supplied weapons to invade and annex the island is okay, just because Russia doesn't have a splendid track record in international relations?
Please explain how the bay of pigs was "not saintly" while Crimea is "like Hitler!!!!". Or are you just jealous that the Russians succeeded while you are still left with boycotting Cuba like a whiny child that never gives up a gripe? (and trying to assassinate their head of state)

Oh and on the last note, I didn't say it is okay, you are bending what I said again. I said it's not okay but given the circumstances our reaction to it is wrong, was wrong and may even have lead to it happening in the first place.

[Gilrandir]

No. Russia doesn't recognize this government as a legitimate government of Ukraine.

As Putin put it, "We had an agreement in 1994 but we have no agreement with THIS Ukraine." And not recognizing current government of Ukraine should automatically mean recognizing Yanukovych. If he is still president, then Russia must obey the treaty all the same.

The legal excuse is that it all refers to forced change of borders by outside influence. In the case of Kosovo, Crimea and some other cases, it is argued that it was legal because the population itself voted for it.

Voting is OK, independence is OK (though legality of both are highly debatable), but not inclusion by outside countries.

[Sarmatian]

As Putin put it, "We had an agreement in 1994 but we have no agreement with THIS Ukraine." And not recognizing current government of Ukraine should automatically mean recognizing Yanukovych. If he is still president, then Russia must obey the treaty all the same.

Legally, it's a load of bollox, yes. 1994 memorandum is vague enough not to present huge problems, and it's just one of many documents Russia signed that in theory should force it respect territorial integrity of Ukraine. In practice, as we've seen so many times thus far, it means little.

Voting is OK, independence is OK (though legality of both are highly debatable), but not inclusion by outside countries.

Then we get another problem. IF a part of the country secede and becomes a fully independent country, who has the right to decide what it is allowed to do?

There's nothing that can stop unification of Kosovo and Albania, other than their own constitutions. With Kosovo, that's not gonna happen in the near future for sure, because several smaller states are easier to control than one bigger. Kosovo is perfect for US interests just as it is - it's politically, militarily and economically totally dependent on the US and that ensures the long-term presence of US/NATO soldiers in one of the best strategic locations in the Balkans.

[rvg]

Remember folks how Russians were laughing at our sanctions? They aren't laughing anymore. Sanctions on just 3 (or is it 4) banks are already creating a major ruckus and major grumbling among the populace: Visa and Mastercard are no longer processing any transactions from those banks and it is starting to sting.
Notice, this is Day 1.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...And so just because Cubans had enough of the murderous dictator you had installed there, sending a bunch of exiles there with US-supplied weapons to invade and annex the island is okay, just because Russia doesn't have a splendid track record in international relations?
Please explain how the bay of pigs was "not saintly" while Crimea is "like Hitler!!!!". Or are you just jealous that the Russians succeeded while you are still left with boycotting Cuba like a whiny child that never gives up a gripe? (and trying to assassinate their head of state)

There was zero intention to annex Cuba. Our best chance to annex it came in 1900, which we did not pursue. We did want the communist regime out and thought that the Cubans would land, beat the local defense force, and then a counter-revolution would sweep Cuba. Rather stupid strategic premise in retrospect, but there you have it. Had we -- inexplicably -- ended up backing a winning counter revolution at the Bay of Pigs, the expatriates would have installed their own new kleptocracy. Back then, it was all about the Dominos -- actually annexing it would have been to annex all of its problems as well.

Btw, why do so many Europeans seem so emphatic about getting Americans to say "we're shitty self-interested bastards?" It's not like there is much of a shortage of hypocrisy among political leadership on either side of the pond. Nor is the backroom crowd of Americans wandering through our weeks blithely unaware of our own past. Most of us are big-time history buffs for God's sake!

Hell, if we get into a pissing match about tawdriness, the USA might hold its own on a jerk-move-per-year level, but Europe will out volume us big time and China has us all beat combined. So why dwell on it?

Does past inappropriate behavior mean that all future behavior to the good must be cancelled for lack of a pristine track record? If so, it bodes ill for the species.

[Sarmatian]

There was zero intention to annex Cuba. Our best chance to annex it came in 1900, which we did not pursue. We did want the communist regime out and thought that the Cubans would land, beat the local defense force, and then a counter-revolution would sweep Cuba. Rather stupid strategic premise in retrospect, but there you have it. Had we -- inexplicably -- ended up backing a winning counter revolution at the Bay of Pigs, the expatriates would have installed their own new kleptocracy. Back then, it was all about the Dominos -- actually annexing it would have been to annex all of its problems as well.

Annexation isn't always the best solution. Creating protectorates or any type of dependencies is often preferable, especially if there's a strong national identity and/or there are other problems with direct rule. US annexed Hawaii earlier, Puerto Rico in the war against Spain and so on. Mexican territory, on the other hand, was annexed outright.

Btw, why do so many Europeans seem so emphatic about getting Americans to say "we're shitty self-interested bastards?" It's not like there is much of a shortage of hypocrisy among political leadership on either side of the pond. Nor is the backroom crowd of Americans wandering through our weeks blithely unaware of our own past. Most of us are big-time history buffs for God's sake!

Hell, if we get into a pissing match about tawdriness, the USA might hold its own on a jerk-move-per-year level, but Europe will out volume us big time and China has us all beat combined. So why dwell on it?

Does past inappropriate behavior mean that all future behavior to the good must be cancelled for lack of a pristine track record? If so, it bodes ill for the species.

I think it is generally because of the mindset revealed by Kerry's statement "that you simply can't go around invading sovereign state under a false pretext in the 21st century".

If you read what was written in the thread, you've noticed that quite a few Orgahs share his opinion, and most are, at best, willing to accept that "US made some mistakes in foreign policy".

The reality is - after WW2, USA was by far the most aggressive country in the world, whether it was orchestrating coups, direct invasions, fostering civil wars, supporting dictators and so on... Like the colonialism conducted by the Europeans, when it was justified by white man's burden of civilizing others, while it was, pure and simple, a land grab from the natives for various purposes, so were the US actions often justified by democratic and/or humanitarian cause.

By any yardstick, USA was the most aggressive country in the world post ww2. Then there's a gap, then there's Russia/USSR, then there's a huge gap and then everyone else.

We're a loooong way from understanding that. We're still at "we made some mistakes".


That, naturally, doesn't excuse Russian actions, but it's funny when they get criticized by USA. Wouldn't you at least chuckle if two thieves were constantly accusing each other of stealing?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it is generally because of the mindset revealed by Kerry's statement "that you simply can't go around invading sovereign state under a false pretext in the 21st century".

If you read what was written in the thread, you've noticed that quite a few Orgahs share his opinion, and most are, at best, willing to accept that "US made some mistakes in foreign policy".

The reality is - after WW2, USA was by far the most aggressive country in the world, whether it was orchestrating coups, direct invasions, fostering civil wars, supporting dictators and so on... Like the colonialism conducted by the Europeans, when it was justified by white man's burden of civilizing others, while it was, pure and simple, a land grab from the natives for various purposes, so were the US actions often justified by democratic and/or humanitarian cause.

By any yardstick, USA was the most aggressive country in the world post ww2. Then there's a gap, then there's Russia/USSR, then there's a huge gap and then everyone else.

We're a loooong way from understanding that. We're still at "we made some mistakes".

In Kerry's defense (and it loathes me to take that stance I assure you), it has been the US position that our invasions were not conducted under false pretexts -- or in the case of Iraq a mistaken pretext we presumed true.

Well, aggressive is probably a fair label. Virtually all of the actions you reference, however, are subsumed by two basic concepts: The Cold War and the War on Terror. The large bulk of our post ww2 aggressive stance was, in our eyes (and I will stipulate that we are just as prone to selective perception as the next culture), steps to counter or head off communist aggression and steps to counter Islamist terrorism. There were, of course, a number of instances that were not connected to those issues, but US policy since WW2 was dominated by those issues -- in many instances to the point of unhealthy fixation.

Pre-WW2, quite a few of our aggressive efforts were efforts to seem powerful or acquire territory -- classically imperialist stuff.

[Sarmatian]

In Kerry's defense (and it loathes me to take that stance I assure you), it has been the US position that our invasions were not conducted under false pretexts -- or in the case of Iraq a mistaken pretext we presumed true.

That is the official line, I agree. Official line from Moscow is that Ukraine government was overthrown and fascists installed in its place. Part of the country wanted to secede and they couldn't, in good conscience, refuse their wish for a democracy and freedom.

However, I find it hard to believe that US intelligence made such a mistake, especially when all other major intelligence organizations pointed out there was no evidence to support that claim.

That leaves only the option that the US leadership knowingly and willfully lied to its own population and invaded a sovereign country for selfish reasons under a false pretext.

Well, aggressive is probably a fair label. Virtually all of the actions you reference, however, are subsumed by two basic concepts: The Cold War and the War on Terror. The large bulk of our post ww2 aggressive stance was, in our eyes (and I will stipulate that we are just as prone to selective perception as the next culture), steps to counter or head off communist aggression and steps to counter Islamist terrorism. There were, of course, a number of instances that were not connected to those issues, but US policy since WW2 was dominated by those issues -- in many instances to the point of unhealthy fixation.

Cold War works for all involved sides. If we accept that American fear of communism is a justification, that the US was acting in good faith but not always with a clear head or best judgement, than that courtesy must also be extended to the other side and the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc... should also be viewed in similar light.

I'd agree that fear of mutual invasion or undermining of influence was the prime motivator and can explain some of the Cold War aggression by either side. USSR and now Russia is also guilty of an unhealthy fixation - their fear of another western invasion is bordering on the irrational. The explanation works slightly better for Russia, though, as USA-led NATO is theoretically capable of such an invasion, while Russia isn't capable of invading NATO.

War on Terror is more dubious, as I see terrorism as a reaction to US actions. I don't subscribe to the idea "they hate us because we cherish freedom".
]

[Brenus]

Don’t know. How I see things is both Russia and USA controlled nothing. They thought they played smart and were completely over-powered by their creation.

The USA (to simplify) was happy with the Revolution and jumped on the opportunity to take another country out of Moscow. They were probably over-joyed.
Then all went wrong. With the Extreme-Right/Nazi in Ukraine, fear spread through of the Crimean Russians. Then Russian troops took control. Then Crimean Parliament, in 1 week, went from Independence to Referendum then becoming part of Russia… Over-maneuvered by Putin, the USA agents have now to go to explain to their President (who really had other things to do) that something went wrong.

Not sure Putin wanted this, as the price for the Russian economy might be high, but he can’t avoid to agree without risking to be defeated in the next elections (as all good dictators he need to be elected).
And now, even more Russian Minorities want to go back in Putin’s dictatorship. Probably because the democratic rules in the countries where they live are too nice and they are fed-up to be free.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is the official line, I agree. Official line from Moscow is that Ukraine government was overthrown and fascists installed in its place. Part of the country wanted to secede and they couldn't, in good conscience, refuse their wish for a democracy and freedom.

However, I find it hard to believe that US intelligence made such a mistake, especially when all other major intelligence organizations pointed out there was no evidence to support that claim.

Actually, that is just about exactly what I think happened. Nor is this just the "go to" response of the apologist. I encourage you to read Graham Allison's The Essence of Decision (used it as a focal piece for my dissertation). His treatment of the decision-making process in government during a crisis is scarily enlightening. It becomes clear that far more than rational evaluations come into play and that decisions are made often because of various internal political agendas that have zero to do with the issue at hand.

Cold War works for all involved sides. If we accept that American fear of communism is a justification, that the US was acting in good faith but not always with a clear head or best judgement, than that courtesy must also be extended to the other side and the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc... should also be viewed in similar light.

I'd agree that fear of mutual invasion or undermining of influence was the prime motivator and can explain some of the Cold War aggression by either side. USSR and now Russia is also guilty of an unhealthy fixation - their fear of another western invasion is bordering on the irrational. The explanation works slightly better for Russia, though, as USA-led NATO is theoretically capable of such an invasion, while Russia isn't capable of invading NATO.

War on Terror is more dubious, as I see terrorism as a reaction to US actions. I don't subscribe to the idea "they hate us because we cherish freedom".

I have little doubt that such factors, in reverse of those applied by the USA, applied to the CCCP's efforts in those instances you cite. Nor do I blame the decisions made as acts of evil. I find the comm0-disctatorship of the Soviets anathema because it stifles the individual so badly and works so inefficiently -- but their foreign policy efforts were actually a bit more consistent than ours and clearly motivated by their sense of self preservation. I have often thought that THAT is why "trust but verify" went over so well with them.

As to the fear factor, the Sov's truly did think that NATO could come after them and possibly destroy them. One NATO member, operating alone under different management, had come perilously close to doing so. Equally, however, the West really did fear that we would not be able to stop a massive Soviet attack short of the use of nuclear weapons -- which were anathema to us for any number of psychological reasons.


As to the War on Terror, the whole thing is a bit nebulous. Warring on an idea/concept/cause cannot be accomplished solely by military means. The 9-11 attackers very much shattered our illusions that we were fundamentally safe on our relatively peaceful continent -- even though the numbers lost here do not hold a candle to the civilian "collateral" casualties caused in our response. Yet we could not not respond -- a frustrating dilemma. We then tacked on all sorts of other projects -- such as Iraq -- that were AT BEST tangentially related to countering Islamist terrorism. We still haven't achieved the appropriate combination of military, investigative, financial and diplomatic force required.

[Kagemusha]

Why cant we just all agree that we are all hypocrites and move on? There are people to love, babies to make, business to make so there will be bread in the table and loved ones to care about. Who gives a flying genital about world politics, where there are no morals, only necessity.

[rvg]

Why cant we just all agree that we are all hypocrites and move on? There are people to love, babies to make, business to make so there will be bread in the table and loved ones to care about. Who gives a flying genital about world politics, where there are no morals, only necessity.

Because if we move on, Putin will also move on. On to the next target.