9 ms·

Wait wait.. Russia plainly invaded two of its neighbors, and annexes part of them. Is that just "behaving badly" in your book?

yokisan 10y ago
For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.
- macintux 10y ago
  ish
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- geoka9 10y ago
  This is not true. Unless by "initiated their conflict" you mean cessation from the USSR in 1991.
  - yokisan 10y ago
    Sigh. Must we? "EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attacks-unjustifiable-eu https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
    - atsaloli 10y ago
      South Ossetia used to be part of Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia
      - dagenleg 10y ago
        And Kosovo used to be part of Serbia. Just because a region is/was a part of your country does not mean you can do whatever you want in there.
        geoka9 10y ago
        So I guess you can do shelling and ethnic cleansing of those who don't support your desire to break away? http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_...
        dagenleg 10y ago
        Both sides committed crimes in Kosovo, you know. History rarely is as black and white as you would want it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War#Kosovo_Albanian_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War#K...
        geoka9 10y ago
        My argument is that South Ossetian leaders did do "whatever they wanted" there, and the Russians condoned and helped them, contrary to what you're alluding to above.
      - yokisan 10y ago
        Crimea used to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea A poor argument, we can agree.
        seppin 10y ago
        Hong Kong used to be a Chinese fishing village. I can't believe people use this argument with a straight face.
      - krakensden 10y ago
        Yes, but it's not ethnically Georgian, which was sort of the problem. That wikipedia article toes the Georgian line, which is sort of disappointing, but they do cite the EU report (via the 'world socialist news', which I don't really want to cite) that the pretext was manufactured. The Russian point of view is that they were stopping an ethnic cleansing right on their border, before it could get too far. It's not a crazy point of view, the Georgians were shelling a mostly non-Georgian city. The US is also not a super neutral observer, we were selling them tons of weapons, and the Georgians were pandering pretty hard to us. It looks like the full EU report is mirrored by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_report.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_...
        geoka9 10y ago
        > The Russian point of view is that they were stopping an ethnic cleansing right on their border, before it could get too far. It's not a crazy point of view No, it's not crazy, it's just pure propaganda. 25% of Georgian Ossetians lived (and continue to live) outside of South Ossetia[1]. Not to mention that the Russians were happy to allow the _real_ ethnic cleansing of Georgians to happen after their invasion[2]. And the Ossetian militia had been shelling Georgian villages before it all happened[3] (most probably, with weapons provided by Russia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_... http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_...
        seppin 10y ago
        > Yes, but it's not ethnically Georgian, which was sort of the problem. This is the Russian argument, if a sovereign country has a majority of ethnic Russians, it's ok to invade that country on their behalf. As a neutral, do you actually agree with this? It seems crazy.
        rhino369 10y ago
        There isn't a good solution to this problem. And it's a problem Americans often have a very hard time understanding due to cultural differences.[1] But the world does step in occasionally to stop one ethnicity from beating up another even within the same country. NATO did so in Yugoslavia. But it's also used as an excuse for expansionism. The build up to WW2 was Germany doing this exact thing. But post WWII European history also has a lot of ethnic regrouping. All Germans were put back inside Germany. Borders are drawn to group people. Mixed ethnic nations broke apart into single ethnic countries. This question is at the heart of the blood bath in twenty century Europe. [1]- Americans treat ethnicity very differently than most cultures since we have such diverse ethnicities with no little to no cultural heritage leftover. America entirely decouples ethnicity and nationality. So it seems strange that it's such an important force in other countries.
    - geoka9 10y ago
      South Ossetia is Georgia. Which even the Russians claimed at the time.
  - barry-cotter 10y ago
    Georgia has not had control over South Ossetia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. While it's still part of Georgia under international law it's never been under the control of the modern Georgian state. Said state invaded South Ossetia because they thought NATO (the USA) would back them up and the Russians crushed them.
- maze-le 10y ago
  Its never as easy as that. First of all, if anything the conflict was primarily between Geogria and South Ossetia, Russia only intervened on behalf of South Ossetia. And before the war started, both South Ossetian seperatists and Geogian backed militiamen were accused of ethnic clensing. Georgian villages in South Ossetia were shelled by artillery, while in the northern central parts of Geogria, South Ossetian families were eveicted from their homes and driven out of the country. It is notable that both war crimes were not comitted by regular forces but by militiamen, where it is not always clear under wich control they stood, or if the state/army has actually given orders.
monkmartinez 10y ago
Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  You are defending the Russians to a slight extent by bringing up the misdeeds of the US. Two wrongs do not make a right. American here.
  - konstmonst 10y ago
    I don't see sanctions against US. So this is very hypocritical of wetern nations.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Not sure if it's still going on, but Russia banned food imports from the US, EU, and friends last year.
  - VLM 10y ago
    With all due respect you're confusing diplomacy with morality. The question isn't if Socrates would find the behavior pleasingly moral, but if pragmatically at least one country has been invading random 3rd world countries on the other side of the planet for decades without the world collapsing into WW3 then what is the likely outcome of a much more minor ... international misbehavior. Therefore a country "invading" direct neighbors who historically have always been part of the empire is extremely unlikely in a pragmatic analysis to cause geopolitical instability or WW3 or whatever warhark ridiculousness. Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual. The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians. As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.
droopyEyelids 10y ago
First off, I think Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy. But think about it for just one second. Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. For the whole country. A country that spans two continents. Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. America has dozens of warm water ports on both oceans, and it overthrew countries a thousand miles away to secure shipping convenience. It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port. And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'. And this isn't even going into the peninsula's tumultuous past. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-you-should-know-about-putins-incursion-into-crimea/#236939a01143 http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-y...
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. Bad, but not relevant. Our misdeeds do not make Russia's misdeeds any better. > It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port Allowed? You sound like countries have a divine right to warm-water ports, which Russia graciously waived for an extended period. And what did Russia get? A warm-water port to which they do not have land access. Well, you know what's next. They're going to decide they have a divine right to land access to that port. > And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'. It's bad (immoral/illegal) behavior. It's also behavior that, yes, large nations (including our own) have "justified" in the past. That doesn't make it right; it only makes it somewhat unsurprising.
- PerfectDlite 10y ago
  > Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. Stop repeating Russian propaganda. Before Crimea Russia already had warm water port - Novorossiysk.
vondur 10y ago
Well, we pushed NATO onto the borders of Russia. I can't imagine the US would be too happy with Russian military bases on our borders.
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  Also you have to remember Ukraine only became a country in 1991. Before that is was USSR. For someone like Putin, Ukraine is still a rouge state to be brought back in the fold. Like Taiwan/China. I feel the world has moved on from USSR boarders but I also understand how someone who lived longer may see things differently. Its not that long ago.
- DamnYuppie 10y ago
  100% correct! Does the Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells??
- klibertp 10y ago
  Actually, we should try our hardest to bring Russia into NATO. Won't happen anytime soon for many reasons, but that would be the most rational way forward, I think.
- rebolek 10y ago
  What a nonsense. No one pushed NATO onto borders of Russia. Russian neighbors joined NATO because they have bad experience with Russia, that's all.
  - vondur 10y ago
    Apparently, we assured the Russians that NATO would not expand east. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-ex...
    - PerfectDlite 10y ago
      Apparently, we are not - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/russia-nato-expansion-memory-grievances https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/russia...
Gustomaximus 10y ago
I'm Australian. We tend to understate things as our way of expression. If you nit pick on words, you miss the theme. I find this is a good chuck of the internets problem in exploring a high emotion topic. The old cant see the forest for the trees.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

yokisan 10y ago

For the record: Georgia initiated their conflict with Russia.

macintux 10y ago
ish
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
geoka9 10y ago
This is not true. Unless by "initiated their conflict" you mean cessation from the USSR in 1991.
- yokisan 10y ago
  Sigh. Must we? "EU investigation says Tbilisi launched indiscriminate assault on South Ossetia..with a massive artillery attack" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attacks-unjustifiable-eu https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
  - atsaloli 10y ago
    South Ossetia used to be part of Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia
    - dagenleg 10y ago
      And Kosovo used to be part of Serbia. Just because a region is/was a part of your country does not mean you can do whatever you want in there.
      - geoka9 10y ago
        So I guess you can do shelling and ethnic cleansing of those who don't support your desire to break away? http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_...
        dagenleg 10y ago
        Both sides committed crimes in Kosovo, you know. History rarely is as black and white as you would want it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War#Kosovo_Albanian_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War#K...
        geoka9 10y ago
        My argument is that South Ossetian leaders did do "whatever they wanted" there, and the Russians condoned and helped them, contrary to what you're alluding to above.
    - yokisan 10y ago
      Crimea used to be part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea A poor argument, we can agree.
      - seppin 10y ago
        Hong Kong used to be a Chinese fishing village. I can't believe people use this argument with a straight face.
    - krakensden 10y ago
      Yes, but it's not ethnically Georgian, which was sort of the problem. That wikipedia article toes the Georgian line, which is sort of disappointing, but they do cite the EU report (via the 'world socialist news', which I don't really want to cite) that the pretext was manufactured. The Russian point of view is that they were stopping an ethnic cleansing right on their border, before it could get too far. It's not a crazy point of view, the Georgians were shelling a mostly non-Georgian city. The US is also not a super neutral observer, we were selling them tons of weapons, and the Georgians were pandering pretty hard to us. It looks like the full EU report is mirrored by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_report.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_09_09_iiffmgc_...
      - geoka9 10y ago
        > The Russian point of view is that they were stopping an ethnic cleansing right on their border, before it could get too far. It's not a crazy point of view No, it's not crazy, it's just pure propaganda. 25% of Georgian Ossetians lived (and continue to live) outside of South Ossetia[1]. Not to mention that the Russians were happy to allow the _real_ ethnic cleansing of Georgians to happen after their invasion[2]. And the Ossetian militia had been shelling Georgian villages before it all happened[3] (most probably, with weapons provided by Russia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_... http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html http://www.rferl.org/a/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_...
      - seppin 10y ago
        > Yes, but it's not ethnically Georgian, which was sort of the problem. This is the Russian argument, if a sovereign country has a majority of ethnic Russians, it's ok to invade that country on their behalf. As a neutral, do you actually agree with this? It seems crazy.
        rhino369 10y ago
        There isn't a good solution to this problem. And it's a problem Americans often have a very hard time understanding due to cultural differences.[1] But the world does step in occasionally to stop one ethnicity from beating up another even within the same country. NATO did so in Yugoslavia. But it's also used as an excuse for expansionism. The build up to WW2 was Germany doing this exact thing. But post WWII European history also has a lot of ethnic regrouping. All Germans were put back inside Germany. Borders are drawn to group people. Mixed ethnic nations broke apart into single ethnic countries. This question is at the heart of the blood bath in twenty century Europe. [1]- Americans treat ethnicity very differently than most cultures since we have such diverse ethnicities with no little to no cultural heritage leftover. America entirely decouples ethnicity and nationality. So it seems strange that it's such an important force in other countries.
  - geoka9 10y ago
    South Ossetia is Georgia. Which even the Russians claimed at the time.
- barry-cotter 10y ago
  Georgia has not had control over South Ossetia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. While it's still part of Georgia under international law it's never been under the control of the modern Georgian state. Said state invaded South Ossetia because they thought NATO (the USA) would back them up and the Russians crushed them.
maze-le 10y ago
Its never as easy as that. First of all, if anything the conflict was primarily between Geogria and South Ossetia, Russia only intervened on behalf of South Ossetia. And before the war started, both South Ossetian seperatists and Geogian backed militiamen were accused of ethnic clensing. Georgian villages in South Ossetia were shelled by artillery, while in the northern central parts of Geogria, South Ossetian families were eveicted from their homes and driven out of the country. It is notable that both war crimes were not comitted by regular forces but by militiamen, where it is not always clear under wich control they stood, or if the state/army has actually given orders.

monkmartinez 10y ago

Don't forget about US proxy invasions and the global drone program... and so on, and so on... I am not defending the Russians, but at least they have the audacity to be upfront about it.

wavefunction 10y ago
You are defending the Russians to a slight extent by bringing up the misdeeds of the US. Two wrongs do not make a right. American here.
- konstmonst 10y ago
  I don't see sanctions against US. So this is very hypocritical of wetern nations.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Not sure if it's still going on, but Russia banned food imports from the US, EU, and friends last year.
- VLM 10y ago
  With all due respect you're confusing diplomacy with morality. The question isn't if Socrates would find the behavior pleasingly moral, but if pragmatically at least one country has been invading random 3rd world countries on the other side of the planet for decades without the world collapsing into WW3 then what is the likely outcome of a much more minor ... international misbehavior. Therefore a country "invading" direct neighbors who historically have always been part of the empire is extremely unlikely in a pragmatic analysis to cause geopolitical instability or WW3 or whatever warhark ridiculousness. Don't get me wrong, it can still be morally and ethically "wrong" in an abstract sense. But most people are concerned with the fearmongering "Oh no, Russian tanks will be rolling down the boulevard in Paris next year unless we ..." is all completely ridiculous. Russia already fought and lost a COIN "Vietnam" against a majority Islamic nation of Afghanistan, once demographic replacement takes hold Russia isn't going to want a piece of France or Germany even if handed to them on a plate, oh no last thing they want is the suburbs of Paris in revolt as usual. The Russian Bear has been content to be contained in its den, as long as its not poked, for centuries. The odds of the Russians regime changing Mexico and fighting a failing counter insurgency in Mexico on our border for decades is approximately zero, like space aliens landing on the white house lawn is a more realistic concern. There are world wide geopolitical problems, none of which involve the Russians. As a land empire on the other side of the planet, with people more or less like us, following a religion more or less like ours, and a economic system vaguely similar enough, a space alien would assume the Russians should be our closest ally... and if it were not for unfortunate temporary historical anomalies they almost certainly would be. In an unperturbed system (LOL as if international diplomacy has ever been that) they would be great allies.

droopyEyelids 10y ago

First off, I think Russia is a corrupt kleptocracy. But think about it for just one second. Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. For the whole country. A country that spans two continents. Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. America has dozens of warm water ports on both oceans, and it overthrew countries a thousand miles away to secure shipping convenience. It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port. And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'. And this isn't even going into the peninsula's tumultuous past. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-you-should-know-about-putins-incursion-into-crimea/#236939a01143 http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-y...

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Look back on how America treated 'Panama'. Bad, but not relevant. Our misdeeds do not make Russia's misdeeds any better. > It's inconceivable how long Russia has allowed itself to go without a warm water port Allowed? You sound like countries have a divine right to warm-water ports, which Russia graciously waived for an extended period. And what did Russia get? A warm-water port to which they do not have land access. Well, you know what's next. They're going to decide they have a divine right to land access to that port. > And in the scale of international lawlessness, the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally justifiable 'bad behavior'. It's bad (immoral/illegal) behavior. It's also behavior that, yes, large nations (including our own) have "justified" in the past. That doesn't make it right; it only makes it somewhat unsurprising.
PerfectDlite 10y ago
> Crimea contains Russia's _only_ warm water port. Stop repeating Russian propaganda. Before Crimea Russia already had warm water port - Novorossiysk.

vondur 10y ago

Well, we pushed NATO onto the borders of Russia. I can't imagine the US would be too happy with Russian military bases on our borders.

Gustomaximus 10y ago
Also you have to remember Ukraine only became a country in 1991. Before that is was USSR. For someone like Putin, Ukraine is still a rouge state to be brought back in the fold. Like Taiwan/China. I feel the world has moved on from USSR boarders but I also understand how someone who lived longer may see things differently. Its not that long ago.
DamnYuppie 10y ago
100% correct! Does the Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells??
klibertp 10y ago
Actually, we should try our hardest to bring Russia into NATO. Won't happen anytime soon for many reasons, but that would be the most rational way forward, I think.
rebolek 10y ago
What a nonsense. No one pushed NATO onto borders of Russia. Russian neighbors joined NATO because they have bad experience with Russia, that's all.
- vondur 10y ago
  Apparently, we assured the Russians that NATO would not expand east. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-ex...
  - PerfectDlite 10y ago
    Apparently, we are not - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/russia-nato-expansion-memory-grievances https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/russia...

Gustomaximus 10y ago

I'm Australian. We tend to understate things as our way of expression. If you nit pick on words, you miss the theme. I find this is a good chuck of the internets problem in exploring a high emotion topic. The old cant see the forest for the trees.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]