Russia versus Ukraine

Smudger, I was referring to your reference to Chile, which is indeed, a far off land.

I absolutely bow down to your better knowledge of the politics of the situation. But I think you are struggling when you resort to referring to Haig's lack of hair, past issues in far off lands and events that happened 50 to 100's of years ago.

For me, from the news streams I have been watching, that include foreign, non western news channels, it is a serious situation in the region. It doesn't matter to me that the US has given some money to an independent nation as you say, as all major powers do that, in greater or lesser degrees, and all with their self-interest in mind.

What matters to me is that the Russians are poised to enter the Ukraine, an independent nation, or at the very least are using the threat of force, of frighten the Ukraine people into doing as they are told. The fact that you equate that serious threat of force with a few weasel words spoken by someone with no hair - would be laughable if it wasn't seriously misguided. IMO.

Edit - to be honest, I don't really think that what the history in the region was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union has much relevance to the events today. Ukraine is meant to be independent and is open to wooing from any quarter including Russia or the US, but just not through violent means or threats of violence.

 

But my point is, are they meant to protect the illegitimate 'government' which has resulted from protests? Considering part of the criteria of sovereignity is protecting the welfare and best interests of the people, does this mean that Ukraine itself is no longer a sovereign state as it has an unelected government which came to power by force, therefore voiding its own treaty? So therefore could Russia not argue it is actually protecting the people from a government it doesn't want?

I find it hard to understand how everyone is jumping in to stand-up for a self-appointed government. I'm not saying I'm pro-Russia, or anti-Russia for that matter, I just refuse to think things are as black and white as we're told.

 

I am sure it is not as black and white as some are making out. For example, there are lots of doubts about the legality of the elections by which the ousted President came to power in the first place several years ago.

But surely, the starting point is that the Ukraine is an independent country. That came as part of the break up of the Soviet Union. The population speak a number of languages, including Russia following the decades of Russian rule, but that does not mean that Russia has any more right to invade than other countries, surely! Russia should accept that the Ukraine is no longer part of their empire. Let us follow that through with Scotland.

Say, for example, Scotland voted to go independent. Then 20 years down the line, there was a debate as to whether they should stay closer to the remaining UK or the EU. Peaceful protests developed into violent protests until the Leader was ousted and a new Government installed that wanted to get closer to the EU. Does that justify tanks on the border, invasion, threats, etc. Surely we would urge the Scots to democratically make their choice, but do what we can to influence them. But, using force?

I don't think so.

 

It seems very unlikely to me that Ukraine's politicians would simply make up the existence of a threat made by Russia. It's not like the US, NATO or the UN is going to rush to help them; Russia's military is extremely formidable. Where is the advantage?

 

Could just settle it over a game of football?

 

So the deadline came and went and Putin has decided to pull some troops back. The worrying part is that they are now reported to be looking at other areas in Ukraine to base themselves.

The "new" government in Ukraine wants to stay closer to The EU, whilst the ousted government wanted closer ties with Russia. There is going to be a struggle for power until a resolution is set. I think today may be a big day in the future of all of this.

 

It is good that they are pulling them back, but the reports of other areas being occupied outside The Crimea, isn't. Russia has far more interest in Ukraine, than Syria. Russia acted as a neutral with Syria whilst overlooking the dismantling process.

Russia has its own interests here with Ukraine. The Western world are seeing the new Ukrainian government, which many wanted and were protesting for, as the ruling government whilst Putin and The Kremlin see the ousted government still in control. It is going to a be long case of talks between the 2 to find a happy balance that all can support.

 

Until Russia pull back and enter talks then everyone is going to have worries. I highly doubt those in Kiev are wanting to fight a battle they know they won't win. The resolution of all of this is based on Russia's actions. People have already died, Ukrainians at the hands of their own police force during the protests. Russia are trying to show their might. They have less than the allowed troops in The Crimea but they are in areas which goes against the agreement.

 

Does anyone else think that the way in which this whole independence movement has been undertaken is just farcical?

 

Yes, a total farce. The obvious threat of force by the Russians is deplorable and no "referendum" should be brought under those circumstances.

However, even with some vote rigging, it does seem that the vast majority want to be part of Russia. But it should be decided under a state of stability, not threats.

 

The whole situation is much more complicated than Western governments would have you believe.

Governments of all colours have allowed us to become dependent on countries who shun democracy. It is scandalous and only the ultra-rich have benefited, as usual. Sanctions will hurt the West as much as the Russians, probably more so.

We are reaping what we have sown and this will just be the beginning.

 

What on earth are you on about, RRC?

 

What has any of this regurgitated history book nonsense got to do with the current debacle?

 

Maybe I've misinterpreted a whole host of the last two decades but I find it astonishing how the West feel as though they have some kind of moral superiority having militarily and destructively invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria where by you do wonder how much of it was actually justified and how much the media have reported in Bush/Blair's favour. So much damage has been caused to these countries*.

And yet Russia are threatened for having a referendum (regardless of whether it was rigged) to see if a region formerly in the USSR and arguably majority Russian wants to join that nation.

I don't know the ins and outs of international politics but I hear that this is immoral and unlawful, or something. I just don't understand why though when compared to the US/UK's dealings.

 

It isn't "the West", it is the UN. Even China has not backed Russia in these circumstances.

It is very easy to look at either recent history, or past history and come up with reasons why one or another country has not acted in the best way to try and justify action or inaction today.

Surely, we need to look at the current situation and judge it thus.

 

They've not backed it, they've not condemned it. Outside of Europe and America, I would guess no one cares much. 'Small poor European nation has contentious referendum' as a headline would only get people worried about disruptions to the international haggis supply.

 

Reports that a Ukranian servicemen has died after being shot by ze Russianz

 

A nice way to think about is is a heroin addict who tells you not to do heroin is still morally right. If you don't understand that then theres no hope.

Sean Walker form the guardian just tweeted to confirm this. Also a tartar man's funeral today who died in mysterious circumstances.

 

Tartars can **** off. They've been ruining teeth for years.

 

No but they have come out and stated that they do not think sanctions against Russian officials should be enforced. It is primarily the UK and the US mouthing off about this. Two countries with a bit of a god complex when it comes to being world police.

Yes, everything needs to be looked at case by case. I completely agree with that and this clearly isn't a black and white issue.

What I said was that I'm astonished by the moral superiority that the UK and US are displaying. In recent history Iraq was invaded due to the presence of WMDs which we now know were false accusations, yet Bush and Blair still went in and caused a lot of casualties, fatalities and damage to infrastructure of a nation that was not directly threatening the lives of our native people. So it absolutely smacks of hypocrisy that we are now condemning a relatively peaceful (if illegal) takeover of Crimea, which has a mostly Russian population and is historically Russian too! China are rightly quiet due to their history with Tibet and I see no need for us to be spouting off globally once again.

The heroin addict is a hypocrite and may be "morally right" in one aspect of current life but not all and does not necessarily deserve to be listened to over others. Great analogy. Maybe you could expand on this despite there being "no hope" for me.

 

I know what you said about Iraq, I just think it was completely irrelevant to Ukraine.

It isn't just the UK and the US, it is just that you don't hear about what the other EU leaders are spouting. They tend not to broadcast statements made by French or Italian politicians in the Uk, when they have English speaking home politicians saying much the same thing. I've just been in Germany and they are certainly "spouting off" about Putin, even with their close dependence on Russia for energy. Do you think they have no moral right to say anything either, considering the small matter of Hitler? How far back do you want to go?

I just wish that when people form or defend their opinions they look at the current situation rather than just making political arguments about totally unrelated issues. In my view, it demonstrates a very poor argument.

Certainly, the Baltic States are less worried about Iraq and Tony Blair than they are about Putins implied desire to recover lost ground after the Soviet Union collapsed. All your moaning about WMD in Iraq will not make the Latvians feel any more secure in their lives.

 

Ignoring the media mass-hysteria and all the soundbites coming from politicians, I've been trying to concentrate on the comments made by (or reportedly made by) those actually living in Crimea.

For the most part it seems like the majority really do want to join Russia instead of remaining where they are. Given that their ethnic and historical background is undoubtedly Russian, if the populace really does feel that way then I'm almost inclined see Putin's perspective.

If the UK bordered with somewhere that was ethnically and historically British and that place entered a destabilizing period similar to that in Crimea, I'm not sure I could really criticise the UK Government from acting in the interests of those citizens if they legitimately didn't want to remain where they were. Ultimately, I think a government's first responsibility should be to its own citizens, not the international community. On that basis I have a grudging respect for Putin's actions, which is quite surprising given my initial reactions to this situation.

 

I'm confused by you claiming we are in no position to point out the moral facts of the situation, yet seem to agree that we're morally right about it. I thought it was a rather basic concept to grasp. What do you suppose we do then if we aren't allowed to voice our moral opinion on the matter because of the past?

 

Apart from the Russian military personnel that are meant to remain in the naval base, there are no Russian citizens in Crimea, as Crimea is in the Ukraine, perfectly legally and constitutionally. Yes, most of them may be speaking the Russian language but they are not Russian citizens, as you call them, they are Ukrainian citizens. This was legally fully accepted by Russia, and was the basis of all the treaties and agreements over the past 20 odd years.

What is the point of such treaties and International Laws if, as you say, force can be used in defiance of them, by an outside nation, whenever they please?

 

I suppose Russia would counter what is the point of elections if the Government can be overthrown by force and it's successor recognised immediately by the West? It's hard to imagine that America or even we would have behaved differently if our military base was in a similar position.

The only way to keep Ukraine together would be for all parties to back down and consider all arrangements transitory until elections. And certainly Russia needs to contain Russian provocateurs in the Crimea who look like they wish to tip the situation over the abyss.

Sadly Russia will be happy with the land grab and the West with Ukraine set against it's neighbour as our proxy.

 

Yes, good point, but elections are an internal matter. Surely you are not suggesting that it is right for any major power to use force against a smaller nation when such things happen, are you? You are right, though, such events should be the forerunner to a democratic process of forming a stable governing body.

As for whether or not the US would intervene in a similar nature, I would suggest not, as demonstrated by their base in Cuba which has remained in place since 1903 even though Cuba disputes the legality of the original treaty and even though the Cuba Revolution saw a very anti US dictatorship take over.

 

Not a good example. For one there was the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961 and two America is probably the most interventionist country the world has ever seen having been at war in one form or another for 217 out of the 238 years it has existed, give or take a year.

I still like HBO though.

 

I think it's a very good example. The base has survived through two world wars, plus the cold war, within a US hating communist dictatorship.

The Bay Of Pigs was a CIA backed internal revolutionary movement, 12 years after the Cuban Revolution, not as a direct response to it and there was no threat to the US base on the island. Thus it is totally different from what is happening in Ukraine.

It certainly does not back your argument that the US would do the same as Russia.

 

It's not ZZ. What it shows is imperial forces generally endure whatever the will of the people. Had the Americans accepted Cuban self determination they would have left.