5 ms·

Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters j

Yeah, he annexed it covertly, denied it was him, his loyal supporters denied it was him, and then when it turned out it was him, suddenly his loyal supporters justified with "lots of history and lots of US meddling." That does make you a Russophile.

saynsedit 10y ago
I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors... For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-training-neo-nazis-in-ukraine.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-... Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article. > The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’” > This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld. So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country. This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine. We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.
dntrkv 10y ago
The logic of Putin apologists never ceases to amaze me. I remember when the situation in Ukraine/Crimea was just unfolding and I was discussing it with a friend. At first his position was "There is no proof Russia is in Ukraine, that is just Western propaganda. What do you think, Putin is trying to annex Ukraine? Come on, that's ridiculous" a few months later, Putin annexes Crimea. All of a sudden, his argument changes to "Well Crimea has a very interesting history, and plus, all the people living there really want to be part of Russia" you can't win with these people. They will keep changing their argument. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine tomorrow, you will see the same changes in their arguments with justifications for his terrible decisions. Also, you can always bet on them saying something along the lines of "Well the US did X, so that totally validates Russia doing Y"
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Ukraine is not an isolated event. It's yet another chess piece in a long and drawn out American/Russian chess game that's been played since WW2. Yes, Russia is being bullish on Ukraine. This is happening after America has expanded NATO into multiple ex-Warsaw pact countries eastward of the Berlin Wall after an agreement was made for that not to happen. http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html Given that there is evidence that America was also meddling in the future of Ukrainian government, it's not hard to see that Ukraine is an important geopolitical asset that both superpowers are willing to manipulate. It's not as simple as Putin annexing Ukraine for some evil world domination plan, it looks more defensive than offensive on their part in the grand scheme of things. The fact that your friend was wrong does not make all geopolitical analyses that are more complex than Russia being the bad guy and America being the good guy incorrect. Any argument that the situation is morally clear cut is overly simplistic and harmful.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Which country joined NATO due to tanks rolling through it? It's intellectually dishonest to act like a country choosing to join an alliance is the same as a country being invaded and annexed. If that region wanted to become part of Russia, why did tanks have to do it? If it's defensible that Russia rolled tanks through a sovereign state, why did Russia deny it was them? NATO arguably going against its word does not warrant a clear cut violation of state sovereignty.

saynsedit 10y ago

I don't believe I justified any of Russia's actions. It's a complicated situation and there are lots of questionable actors... For example, there is credible speculation that the US funded anti-Russian neonazis in Ukraine http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-training-neo-nazis-in-ukraine.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/04/is-the-u-s-... Am I saying the US is "bad"? Am I saying that Russia is "good"? No, I'm saying proxy conflicts like this are gray and complicated and it's not a typical "good guy" "bad guy" situation.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article. > The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’” > This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld. So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  It's undeniable that the euromaidan protests had a strong right-wing nationalist component. They were violent and essentially terrorized the country. This essentially led the president of Ukraine to resign. That right-wing faction then controlled Ukraine's government, and is still very strong in Ukraine. We immediately recognized that new government and provided them with aid. That is insane! In the west, their only saving grace was that they were anti-Russian.

dntrkv 10y ago

The logic of Putin apologists never ceases to amaze me. I remember when the situation in Ukraine/Crimea was just unfolding and I was discussing it with a friend. At first his position was "There is no proof Russia is in Ukraine, that is just Western propaganda. What do you think, Putin is trying to annex Ukraine? Come on, that's ridiculous" a few months later, Putin annexes Crimea. All of a sudden, his argument changes to "Well Crimea has a very interesting history, and plus, all the people living there really want to be part of Russia" you can't win with these people. They will keep changing their argument. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine tomorrow, you will see the same changes in their arguments with justifications for his terrible decisions. Also, you can always bet on them saying something along the lines of "Well the US did X, so that totally validates Russia doing Y"

saynsedit 10y ago
Ukraine is not an isolated event. It's yet another chess piece in a long and drawn out American/Russian chess game that's been played since WW2. Yes, Russia is being bullish on Ukraine. This is happening after America has expanded NATO into multiple ex-Warsaw pact countries eastward of the Berlin Wall after an agreement was made for that not to happen. http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html http://spiegel.de/international/world/a-663315.html Given that there is evidence that America was also meddling in the future of Ukrainian government, it's not hard to see that Ukraine is an important geopolitical asset that both superpowers are willing to manipulate. It's not as simple as Putin annexing Ukraine for some evil world domination plan, it looks more defensive than offensive on their part in the grand scheme of things. The fact that your friend was wrong does not make all geopolitical analyses that are more complex than Russia being the bad guy and America being the good guy incorrect. Any argument that the situation is morally clear cut is overly simplistic and harmful.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Which country joined NATO due to tanks rolling through it? It's intellectually dishonest to act like a country choosing to join an alliance is the same as a country being invaded and annexed. If that region wanted to become part of Russia, why did tanks have to do it? If it's defensible that Russia rolled tanks through a sovereign state, why did Russia deny it was them? NATO arguably going against its word does not warrant a clear cut violation of state sovereignty.