4 ms·

From the word "snatched", it looks like in your opinion Ukraine was Putin's property... or was it protectorate?

toyg 13y ago
Spheres of influence are real. If Panama fell under a Russian-friendly government likely to stop US vessels going through the strait, would the US government just sit there, "respecting the democratic rights of the citizens of Panama"?
- danmaz74 13y ago
  First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?
  - toyg 13y ago
    "Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is something Russia simply cannot allow to happen, it would destroy the country. The (elected) government of Ukraine has just been deposed by street protests directed by right-wing extremists, half of the country is in shambles and the newly established government's first act was to attempt to abolish a language law aimed at favouring Russian-speaking minorities (not exactly a priority, when the economy is tanking and half your police force has been disbanded). It's reasonable to believe that gas pipelines are threatened and that a revolutionary government might choose not to respect previous agreements, since there is a fairly recent precedent (2009, iirc); also, it's fair to expect that such a ragtag of right-wing ideologues will likely make the life of Crimean-Russians very uncomfortable very quickly. I personally don't see Putin's actions as "baseless" or irrational -- he's defending Russian interests that are clearly threatened. It's very simple and quite unsophisticated, but I don't see the moral scandal.
    - danmaz74 13y ago
      Baseless accusations = nothing was happening in Crimea. You yourself said that the new government "might", that "it's fair to expect", etc. For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine. And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. Otherwise, every war would be justified.
      - toyg 13y ago
        >For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine. Nuland's call clearly shows that the US administration has actively supported the overthrowing of an elected government. This comes after $5bn of investments to "democratise" (i.e. de-russify) Ukraine in the last 10 years. Is that "respecting previous agreements"? >And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. I admire your "black & white" thinking, but history is not that clear cut. Was Reagan justified in invading Grenada? Was Bush I justified in invading Panama? Big countries must look after their interests, or they wouldn't be big countries. Crimea is a majority-russian enclave, on which Russia maintains historical dibs, and which is irreplaceable from a strategic point of view. Ukraine as a whole is almost not a "foreign nation" in many ways (it has holy cities for the Russian Orthodox and a long history shared with Russia that only sort-of ended 20 years ago). There is no way a Russian government will ever leave Crimea to NATO or the EU, end of; as I said elsewhere, it would be like Panama being left to the Chinese or the Russians. A sane US/EU strategy would have worked to peacefully de-federate Crimea from West Ukraine first, before bidding for Kiev. That's the realistic, win-win approach. Trying to get that peninsula out of Russian control is an overreach that Putin will not accept. The '90s are long gone, Putin is not Eltsin, if we want to keep weakening the old bear we have to play smarter than this.
        scarmig 13y ago
        This entire frame is insane. The USA and EU certainly have their own interests in Ukraine, but by the sounds of it you think the protests were part of a US/EU strategy to engineer an artificial coup. And your critiques are incoherent. First you claim that the protests are the works of ultra-nationalist neo-nazis, then you move to saying that all the developments of the past couple months are the work of the EU, USA, and Russia? It makes no sense. The neo-nazis you link to above are relatively fringe groups with little influence (though a propensity to violence), but they despise the EU and USA as much as they do Russia. There may be a path to reconcile these seemingly very contradictory stances, but it's very, very narrow and you don't seem to to realize they need to be reconciled.

toyg 13y ago

Spheres of influence are real. If Panama fell under a Russian-friendly government likely to stop US vessels going through the strait, would the US government just sit there, "respecting the democratic rights of the citizens of Panama"?

danmaz74 13y ago
First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?
- toyg 13y ago
  "Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is something Russia simply cannot allow to happen, it would destroy the country. The (elected) government of Ukraine has just been deposed by street protests directed by right-wing extremists, half of the country is in shambles and the newly established government's first act was to attempt to abolish a language law aimed at favouring Russian-speaking minorities (not exactly a priority, when the economy is tanking and half your police force has been disbanded). It's reasonable to believe that gas pipelines are threatened and that a revolutionary government might choose not to respect previous agreements, since there is a fairly recent precedent (2009, iirc); also, it's fair to expect that such a ragtag of right-wing ideologues will likely make the life of Crimean-Russians very uncomfortable very quickly. I personally don't see Putin's actions as "baseless" or irrational -- he's defending Russian interests that are clearly threatened. It's very simple and quite unsophisticated, but I don't see the moral scandal.
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    Baseless accusations = nothing was happening in Crimea. You yourself said that the new government "might", that "it's fair to expect", etc. For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine. And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. Otherwise, every war would be justified.
    - toyg 13y ago
      >For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine. Nuland's call clearly shows that the US administration has actively supported the overthrowing of an elected government. This comes after $5bn of investments to "democratise" (i.e. de-russify) Ukraine in the last 10 years. Is that "respecting previous agreements"? >And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. I admire your "black & white" thinking, but history is not that clear cut. Was Reagan justified in invading Grenada? Was Bush I justified in invading Panama? Big countries must look after their interests, or they wouldn't be big countries. Crimea is a majority-russian enclave, on which Russia maintains historical dibs, and which is irreplaceable from a strategic point of view. Ukraine as a whole is almost not a "foreign nation" in many ways (it has holy cities for the Russian Orthodox and a long history shared with Russia that only sort-of ended 20 years ago). There is no way a Russian government will ever leave Crimea to NATO or the EU, end of; as I said elsewhere, it would be like Panama being left to the Chinese or the Russians. A sane US/EU strategy would have worked to peacefully de-federate Crimea from West Ukraine first, before bidding for Kiev. That's the realistic, win-win approach. Trying to get that peninsula out of Russian control is an overreach that Putin will not accept. The '90s are long gone, Putin is not Eltsin, if we want to keep weakening the old bear we have to play smarter than this.
      - scarmig 13y ago
        This entire frame is insane. The USA and EU certainly have their own interests in Ukraine, but by the sounds of it you think the protests were part of a US/EU strategy to engineer an artificial coup. And your critiques are incoherent. First you claim that the protests are the works of ultra-nationalist neo-nazis, then you move to saying that all the developments of the past couple months are the work of the EU, USA, and Russia? It makes no sense. The neo-nazis you link to above are relatively fringe groups with little influence (though a propensity to violence), but they despise the EU and USA as much as they do Russia. There may be a path to reconcile these seemingly very contradictory stances, but it's very, very narrow and you don't seem to to realize they need to be reconciled.