Ukraine 14: Nipple beams and tiger fights for all!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We're over 400 in the last Ukraine thread.

Continue.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

Indeed. As I said multiple times already with regards to Ukraine and Crimea. What are we then arguing about?

I'm glad you think Russia acted wrongly. Why is an equal condemnation of all US and EU aggression necessary before crticizing Russia?

[Ser Reptitious]

Mr. Fixit,

I'm glad you think Russia acted wrongly. Why is an equal condemnation of all US and EU aggression necessary before criticizing Russia?

Indeed! It seems that virtually every poster defending Russia's actions in this thread is using the old "but the U.S./NATO did it too" defense. But whatever happened to the adage that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

One of the more interesting observations is how the Serbian government is trying to deal with this situation. It generally wants to support Russia, but if NATO's intervention in Kosovo was wrong, then how on earth could Russia's action in the Crimea be right? Quite the dilemma, and a perfect example of where Big Brother Russia's behaviour is not helping Serbia at all, but rather making things a lot worse by reinforcing the notion that might makes right.

[Mr Fixit]

Mr. Fixit,

I'm glad you think Russia acted wrongly. Why is an equal condemnation of all US and EU aggression necessary before crticizing Russia?

Because I want both sides to accept their responsibility. Russia did annex Crimea in violation of international law. Russia also did support separatism in eastern Ukraine.

However, and just as important, the West did support the coup in Kiev, hours after Yanukovich, the opposition leaders, and the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Poland had signed a document in which the regime acceded to practically all demands: early elections, withdrawing police, etc. But no, someone was impatient, and stormed the government buildings the moment police left. The West tore the paper they had barely finished signing.

It takes two to tango. But I don't see the other partner accept even the tiniest bit of responsibility.

[StepStark]

Indeed! It seems that virtually every poster defending Russia's actions in this thread is using the old "but the U.S./NATO did it too" defense. But whatever happened to the adage that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

One of the more interesting observations is how the Serbian government is trying to deal with this situation. It generally wants to support Russia, but if NATO's intervention in Kosovo was wrong, then how on earth could Russia's action in the Crimea be right? Quite the dilemma, and a perfect example of where Big Brother Russia's behaviour is not helping Serbia at all, but rather making things a lot worse by reinforcing the notion that might makes right.

Your comparison would make sense only if the crisis in Kosovo was initiated by Russia orchestrating a coup in Serbia's capital Belgrade. That way, one could say that NATO bombing of Serbia and storming in Kosovo was just a reaction to Russia's actions, which would mirror the crisis in Ukraine. But there was no coup in Belgrade prior to NATO's attack. Therefore NATO attacked a country whose government's legality it was recognizing at the time. And for that NATO stated reasons that they still can't prove. With Crimea it's a very different case, because Russia wasn't recognizing the legality of Kiev's new regime at the time when they sent their troops to Ukraine and started helping the rebels. In fact it is USA that acts by double standards, because in one case it champions the right to self-determination and in another case it champions the integrity of state. It is not Russia or Serbia that should be answering the question why do they treat Kosovo and Crimea differently, but USA.

[Mr Fixit]

Your comparison would make sense only if the crisis in Kosovo was initiated by Russia orchestrating a coup in Serbia's capital Belgrade. That way, one could say that NATO bombing of Serbia and storming in Kosovo was just a reaction to Russia's actions, which would mirror the crisis in Ukraine. But there was no coup in Belgrade prior to NATO's attack. Therefore NATO attacked a country whose government's legality it was recognizing at the time. And for that NATO stated reasons that they still can't prove. With Crimea it's a very different case, because Russia wasn't recognizing the legality of Kiev's new regime at the time when they sent their troops to Ukraine and started helping the rebels. In fact it is USA that acts by double standards, because in one case it champions the right to self-determination and in another case it champions the integrity of state. It is not Russia or Serbia that should be answering the question why do they treat Kosovo and Crimea differently, but USA.

This is actually very pertinent to the question of Ukraine and the Middle East as well. People critical of US post-Cold War policies often point to the Iraq War of 2003, or the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001--though in the latter case it could be argued that the US behaviour had some merit--as the point where the modern American "adventurism" started.

But, in truth, it was Kosovo War of 1999 that got the ball rolling. That was the first time NATO attacked a sovereign country in violation of its own charter. It was the blueprint for all the later "humanitarian interventions" that took place in the following years, primarily in the Middle East. And it was also one of the decisive moments that set Russia and the US on the path to the new Cold War, the most important being NATO expansion eastward right to the Russia's borders, breaking the promise given to Gorbachev some years earlier in exchange for Russians agreeing to German reunification.

[The Fallen]

I dont have a problem with people bringing up the past. It says something about an argument though when you have to resort to actions that happened a century or more ago. Has the U.S. done some fucked up shit? Yes. But the U.S.has also given us today's Germany (I'm looking at you Arakan), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.

[Shryke]

Because I want both sides to accept their responsibility. Russia did annex Crimea in violation of international law. Russia also did support separatism in eastern Ukraine.

However, and just as important, the West did support the coup in Kiev, hours after Yanukovich, the opposition leaders, and the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Poland had signed a document in which the regime acceded to practically all demands: early elections, withdrawing police, etc. But no, someone was impatient, and stormed the government buildings the moment police left. The West tore the paper they had barely finished signing.

It takes two to tango. But I don't see the other partner accept even the tiniest bit of responsibility.

Uh, no, the Yanukovich fled the country.

You don't want both sides to accept their responsibility, you want to try and deflect blame onto Western leaders because ... who knows. It's never been clear why people want to do this. Some desperately silly commitment to "a pox on both houses"?

[StepStark]

This is actually very pertinent to the question of Ukraine and the Middle East as well. People critical of US post-Cold War policies often point to the Iraq War of 2003, or the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001--though in the latter case it could be argued that the US behaviour had some merit--as the point where the modern American "adventurism" started.

But, in truth, it was Kosovo War of 1999 that got the ball rolling. That was the first time NATO attacked a sovereign country in violation of its own charter. It was the blueprint for all the later "humanitarian interventions" that took place in the following years, primarily in the Middle East. And it was also one of the decisive moments that set Russia and the US on the path to the new Cold War, the most important being NATO expansion eastward right to the Russia's borders, breaking the promise given to Gorbachev some years earlier in exchange for Russians agreeing to German reunification.

True. For USA-Russia relations bombing of Serbia was perhaps a crucial event, Russians themselves keep saying that the attack on Serbia was what made them realize how big a threat for international security NATO is. Though in all honesty USA committed a number of similar crimes throughout the world even before Kosovo. But after Kosovo Russians became much more cautious about possible threats toward the security of their country and other countries inside their historic or cultural sphere of influence. That's why they embraced a no-nonsense approach in almost every incident after Kosovo, be it a relatively smaller incident like the Kursk submarine or large-scale crisis like Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine nowadays. When an enemy expresses willingness to harm you in any number of ways, you have to take the gloves of too.

[Prosesskrift]

The "no nonsense" approach as you call it was the normal behaviour of Russia long before Kosovo happened.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

pk,

Without Kosovo Russia would never have crushed the Hungarian uprising of 1956 or the Prague Spring of 1968 or instructed the Polish government to declare Martial Law to attempt to crush the Solidarity labor movement (ironic, eh) in Gdansk. See, even then the Russian State knew NATO was out to get them.

[StepStark]

The "no nonsense" approach as you call it was the normal behaviour of Russia long before Kosovo happened.

Can you list examples?

[StepStark]

pk,

Without Kosovo Russia would never have crushed the Hungarian uprising of 1956 or the Prague Spring of 1968. See, even then the Russian State knew NATO was out to get them.

It was the Soviet Union, not Russia. Confusing the two is very wrong. But yes, NATO was created for the purpose of destroying the Soviet Union. Before Soviets made their own nuclear arsenal USA was seriously considering various military operations against Soviet Union. Pentagon developed many plans for occupying Soviet Union and those files are now revealed and easy to find on internet. There's even a Wikipedia page about the US plans to attack Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. And the funny thing is that in many of those plans US counted on help from the inside like Western Ukrainians which are more connected to Poles than to Russians. So the Soviet Union had a legitimate concerns about NATO.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, the Soviet Union wasn't both the successor State to Imperial Russia and the precursor State to the existing Russian State?

Those damned "western Ukrainians" wanting indepenence from a State that (at a minimum) contributed to the starvation of millions in Ukraine. Gosh... what could they have been thinking? That famine was for the greater good of the Soviet (Russian) State and those damned Kulaks needed to die.

[StepStark]

So, the Soviet Union wasn't both the successir State to Imperial Russia and the precursor State to the existing Russian State? Those damned "western Ukrainians" wanting indepenence from a State that (at a minimum) contributed to the starving of millions in Ukraine. Gosh... what could they have been thinking? That famine was for the greater good of the Soviet (Russian) State and those damned Kulaks needed to die.

But you don't sympathize with the Eastern Ukrainians that don't want to be part of the country whose illegitimate regime is actually trying to destroy them as we speak?

[StepStark]

By the way Soviet Union was the result of a bloody civil war that claimed millions of lives and in which monarchy was violently brought down. In terms of succession it was hardly a textbook case. Just like the collapse of Soviet Union was not some ordinary development that can be categorized as a typical succession. No wonder the question of the continuity of Russian statehood in 20. century is still to be resolved even by Russians themselves.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

StepStark,

Not particularly, no. They seem, to me, to be puppets of Putin's (apparent) desire to create a renewed Russian Empire. Prior to their acts of violence in seeking to secede from Ukraine and join Russia what was done to the Eastern Ukrainians to justify the Russian invasion of Crimea and, in August, of Eastern Ukraine?

The Russian revolution and following on the Russian Civil War was a bloody affairs? I had no idea. Please enlighten us with your historical accume.

[StepStark]

StepStark,

Not particularly, no. They seem, to me, to be puppets of Putin's (apparent) desire to create a renewed Russian Empire. Prior to their acts of violence in seeking to secede from Ukraine and join Russia what was done to the Eastern Ukrainians to justify the Russian invasion of Crimea and, in August, of Eastern Ukraine?

No offense but this kind of answer renders this discussion meaningless. There were neo-Nazis in the regime resulted from a violent coup in Kiev. Whose puppets those neo-Nazis are? Putin's? What about Odessa? If you have no basic respect for Russians' sentiments toward any kind of Nazism and particularly the one created and escalated in their own backyard there really is no need to continue this discussion.

[StepStark]

The Russian revolution and following on the Russian Civil War was a bloody affairs? I had no idea. Please enlighten us with your historical accume.

Would you please explain the need to address me in this cynical manner? Have I offended you somehow?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

StepStark,

So, the presence of "Fascists" in the Ukrainian government justifies any action Russia chooses to take with regard to Ukraine? Ukraine really isn't an independent State? It's just a part of Russia that Russia allows to have the illusion of sovereignty until it sees things going on that it doesn't like.

My cynicism comes from your assumption that I know nothing about the Russian Revolution and the Civil War that followed. Heck, I'm even aware that there were US troops on Russian soil in Archangel and in Vladivovstok supporting the Whites as part of the Entante effort to get rid of the Bolshivek controled government.