Ukraine 14: Nipple beams and tiger fights for all!

[Mr Fixit]

I see no reason to continue this discussion with Ellison. You are constantly being snide and rude. Please do continue by yourself, since that's obviously what you intend.

Though, for your benefit, I would advise being a little bit more amenable to honest exchange of ideas, in the interest of friendly forum discussions, if nothing else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

My board rep has caught up with me I'm ever the "mean" one.

[Mr Fixit]

Mr. Fixit,

My board rep has caught up with me I'm ever the "mean" one.

I don't know what your board rep is nor do I care. There are people who put effort in contributing and try not to insult anyone, even when fundamentally disagreeing. All I see from certain other posters is twisting others' words, moving the goalposts, and general rudeness.

I have no interest in such a discussion. And yes, before anyone wishes me luck, I'll find the exit myself and try not to let the door hit me on the way out.

[Horza]

Didn't you quit in a huff a few months back? It's hard to keep track.

[Shryke]

Mr. Fixit,

My board rep has caught up with me I'm ever the "mean" one.

Truly Scot, you are the boards largest dickhole. It's totally your reputation.

[snake]

Truly Scot, you are the boards largest dickhole. It's totally your reputation.

:agree: When it comes to this topic he most certainly is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Why, because I refuse to concede the actions of the Russian State were justified or because I refuse to concede Nuland (and her dred cookies) caused the Maiden?

[snake]

Snake,

Why, because I refuse to concede the actions of the Russian State were justified or because I refuse to concede Nuland (and her dred cookies) caused the Maiden?

Scott,

Of all the years you have been posting here I haven't seen you act with such disdain for differing POV's. It's a stark contrast to how you usually post.

That being said, I shouldn't have mentioned you personally. For that I apologize and I won't do it again. Next time I will PM you if I have something to say directly to you that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

It's cool. I get hot about this topic. Putin and his actions via the Russian State piss me off.

[snake]

Scott,

Fair enough.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

The other thing that gets under my skin are the efforts by some to justify Russian actions by compairing those actions to actions by the US. It is not that US actions are justified while Russia's are not it's that they are both bad and to my mind the comparisions come across as an attempt to divert attention from the Russian actions.

[StepStark]

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.

They idolize Hitler so they're more Nazis than Fascists and there's no need for quotation marks because they themselves are very open about their ideology. But yes, the presence of such elements in a government can't be ignored and Russians especially have legitimate reasons to confront such a government in any way they can. After WWII Russia would be foolish to let any Nazism flourish in it's neighborhood. America would never allow a pro-Al Qaeda elements in Canadian government and this in Ukraine is way worse than that considering the death toll of Russian experience with Nazism. Also events like Odessa massacre only proved how right Russians were to be concerned.

Your assumption about my assumption is dead wrong because I never expressed any remark about your knowledge of history. I only replied to your post about succession and you've chosen to see some assumption that actually wasn't there. Because of that your cynicism was both uncalled for and ill-mannered but I don't expect you to acknowledge it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

StepStark,

I'm coming across as jaded and cynical because we've been arguing about this in detail ever since Yanukovich fled Kiev and Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. The issues you are raising are not novel here. We've seen them all before.

In what universe could Ukraine, a nation-state that has no nuclear weapons because it surrendered them to Russia in exchage for Russian "gurantees" of Ukraine's then existing borders, ever be a threat to Russia? They could elect the "Satan/Baby Killers" party to power in Kiev and they still wouldn't be a threat to Russia because Russia has its hand on the spigot to the Gas flow too Ukraine plus several thousand nuclear warheads to fall back on in the event Ukraine was suicidal enough to attempt to invade Russia.

Therefore, while I appreciate Russian fears about the nasty right-wing elements in the Ukrainian Government, forgive me if I think Russian fears are just a tad irrational.

[StepStark]

Why would Russia cease to care for Russians in Ukraine? Why would Russia surrender them to the hands of neo-Nazis? Why would Russians from Ukraine accept neo-Nazi government that has no shred of legality or legitimacy? Because Victoria Nuland says so?! Why would Russia respect a deal with a country which in the meantime turned itself toward neo-Nazism? What contract grants you the right to threaten and humiliate ethnic Russians after you just thrown the entire country into the state of chaos by completing a violent coup? And yes it was a coup because a president doesn't loose his power just because he left the capital suddenly. Just think about what would happen if Al-Qaeda fanatics took the power in Canada and how America would feel, then multiply it by million and that's how Russia and Russians feel about the new regime in Ukraine.

[Shryke]

Why would Russia cease to care for Russians in Ukraine?

Do you mean actual Russians or Ukrainians who speak Russian?

Cause I see little reason why Ukrainian citiizens who speak Russian are Russia's concern in that way.

Why would Russia surrender them to the hands of neo-Nazis? Why would Russians from Ukraine accept neo-Nazi government that has no shred of legality or legitimacy? Because Victoria Nuland says so?! Why would Russia respect a deal with a country which in the meantime turned itself toward neo-Nazism? What contract grants you the right to threaten and humiliate ethnic Russians after you just thrown the entire country into the state of chaos by completing a violent coup? And yes it was a coup because a president doesn't loose his power just because he left the capital suddenly. Just think about what would happen if Al-Qaeda fanatics took the power in Canada and how America would feel, then multiply it by million and that's how Russia and Russians feel about the new regime in Ukraine.

Actually fleeing the country is generally considered the point where you abdicate.

But really, your entire framing of this issue is over-the-top silly. You'd think Nuland backed a neo-Nazi coup that immediately began setting up death camps for people who liked Yakov Smirnoff rather then a populist coup that included but is not primarily composed of elements of the far right that took power after the President fled the country basically mid-negotiations.

[Prosesskrift]

It is unfortunate how many people read RT for anything other than comedic value

[Shryke]

Some interesting articles here on how slowdowns in Europe and China and shale oil extraction in the US are pushing crude oil prices down and hammering the Russian economy on top of sanctions:

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-oil-russia-iran-20141014-story.html

To go with that, some are spinning the (rather crazy) theory that it's deliberate:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29651742

[The Fallen]

Should we call bullshit on some of the "facts" stated by pro-Russian posters?

- A Nazi government? How does a small percentage of lawfully elected idiots in a democracy morph into a Nazi regime?

- What actions has this supposed Nazi regime taking to inflict damage on eastern Ukrainians?

[Celestial]

They idolize Hitler so they're more Nazis than Fascists and there's no need for quotation marks because they themselves are very open about their ideology. But yes, the presence of such elements in a government can't be ignored and Russians especially have legitimate reasons to confront such a government in any way they can. After WWII Russia would be foolish to let any Nazism flourish in it's neighborhood. America would never allow a pro-Al Qaeda elements in Canadian government and this in Ukraine is way worse than that considering the death toll of Russian experience with Nazism. Also events like Odessa massacre only proved how right Russians were to be concerned.

Your assumption about my assumption is dead wrong because I never expressed any remark about your knowledge of history. I only replied to your post about succession and you've chosen to see some assumption that actually wasn't there. Because of that your cynicism was both uncalled for and ill-mannered but I don't expect you to acknowledge it.

Reading some of the arguments here, it really sounds as if some employees of Russia Today made their way into this thread.

Let's adress some of the points though.

America would never allow a pro-Al Qaeda elements in Canadian government

What exactly means "never allow"? You are seriously delusional if you think that America would even consider instigating a rebellion in Canada and back it up with troops and arms if some Al-Qaeda sympathizers were appointed into the government.

We do not need to even discuss this hypothetically because it has happened in other circumstances, so we know how America would react.

When Cuba went communist 1959 (and Castro's government was even more illegitimate than the current one in Kiev), US did try to back up discontented elements to overthrow Castro, in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But it was far less brazen in that attempt than Russia is today, nor did it send the US military when the rebel invasion failed and it actually gave up the attempt when it became clear it did not have enough popular support. In other words, America did allow a pro-Soviet government 90 miles from its shore, despite that the respective government was willing to host Soviet forces at a time when war between US and USSR was a real possibility.

For all the "think how America would react if..."-type of whining, America never went as far as Russia and in a far more dangerous context.

They idolize Hitler so they're more Nazis than Fascists and there's no need for quotation marks because they themselves are very open about their ideology.

They can idolize who the hell they want and it's only theirs and their constituency's business. Not Russia's. The idea that Russia should have the right to attack another country just because some members of the government like an evil tyrant from 70 years ago is downright outrageous.

Why would Russia respect a deal with a country which in the meantime turned itself toward neo-Nazism?

Because that deal had no provisions specifying that it becomes void if Ukraine gets a government which Russia does not like. It was supposed to be valid regardless of who was in power in Kiev. Basically Russia cheated.

Now, let's make it clear for you and the other Putin fans around. What Russia did was worse than what US did. For 2 reasons:

1. With the annexation of Crimea, Russia is destroying probably the most fundamental principle of international law in the post WW2 era, one of the very few, if not the only one, which proved, until now, succesfull: the illegality of acquiring territory by force. This is very important, because, after WW2, all major power, with the other countries following in their steps, agreed to that, in order to eliminate the prime motivation for war in the pre-WW2 era. Until now, it worked - and Russia is bringing it down.

2. Russia attacked Ukraine without any provocation whatsoever. Russia has no legitimate casus belli in this. None. Zilch. The fact that even Russia Today needs to cling to nonsense about the "Neo-Nazies in Kiev" (which, even if true, still does not provide a valid case for war, not even close) clearly shows how empty the Russian argument is.

There were repeated finger pointing here "but what about US", etc. Which is totally unsubstantiated, because US had far more serious cases for war than Russia has against Ukraine. It's not even comparable. Let's take all US war over the last 20 years one by one:

1. Kosovo: In Kosovo there was real repression against the albanian community by the Serbian authorities. When NATO started the negotiations at Rambouillet, it had reached a point where there was open warfare between serbs and albanian. Very important, the discontent of the albanians was real and was not instigated by someone else. Moreso, NATO negotiated with Milosevic for half a year, trying to make him budge before it started the bombing. In Ukraine, for instance, there were no secessionist movements worth considering (let alone rebellions) until Russia created them.

2. Afghanistan - the talibans were providing aid and shelter to AQ. Enough said.

3. Iraq - this is the "main charge", so to speak, of Russia and its friends. There were no WMDs in Iraq, indeed, but it came to this argument about WMD only because of Russia's obstructionism, who, apparently, reserves for itself the right to invade a country if there are some "nazies" in its government, but, on the other hand, screams bloody murder if someone wants to take out a dictator whose record, compared with the "fascists" which Russia is so concerned about, is beaten only by Hitler's himself (but Saddab, on the other hand, was Russia's friend, so perhaps it did not count).

Really, I would like to know why some cabinet members "idolizing Hitler" is ground for war, but a bloodthirsty maniac holding the highest office isn't. Anyone care to explain?

4. Lybia - US acted in order to prevent the full-scale massacre of an entire city by another maniac.

Also, in each case, US made serious efforts to gain legitimacy for its military efforts, went to the UN, built coalitions and also sent terms to the other party before the attack occurred. Russia did not bother with any of this.

[StepStark]

Reading some of the arguments here, it really sounds as if some employees of Russia Today made their way into this thread.

Let's adress some of the points though.

What exactly means "never allow"? You are seriously delusional if you think that America would even consider instigating a rebellion in Canada and back it up with troops and arms if some Al-Qaeda sympathizers were appointed into the government.

We do not need to even discuss this hypothetically because it has happened in other circumstances, so we know how America would react.

When Cuba went communist 1959 (and Castro's government was even more illegitimate than the current one in Kiev), US did try to back up discontented elements to overthrow Castro, in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But it was far less brazen in that attempt than Russia is today, nor did it send the US military when the rebel invasion failed and it actually gave up the attempt when it became clear it did not have enough popular support. In other words, America did allow a pro-Soviet government 90 miles from its shore, despite that the respective government was willing to host Soviet forces at a time when war between US and USSR was a real possibility.

For all the "think how America would react if..."-type of whining, America never went as far as Russia and in a far more dangerous context.

They can idolize who the hell they want and it's only theirs and their constituency's business. Not Russia's. The idea that Russia should have the right to attack another country just because some members of the government like an evil tyrant from 70 years ago is downright outrageous.

Because that deal had no provisions specifying that it becomes void if Ukraine gets a government which Russia does not like. It was supposed to be valid regardless of who was in power in Kiev. Basically Russia cheated.

Now, let's make it clear for you and the other Putin fans around. What Russia did was worse than what US did. For 2 reasons:

1. With the annexation of Crimea, Russia is destroying probably the most fundamental principle of international law in the post WW2 era, one of the very few, if not the only one, which proved, until now, succesfull: the illegality of acquiring territory by force. This is very important, because, after WW2, all major power, with the other countries following in their steps, agreed to that, in order to eliminate the prime motivation for war in the pre-WW2 era. Until now, it worked - and Russia is bringing it down.

2. Russia attacked Ukraine without any provocation whatsoever. Russia has no legitimate casus belli in this. None. Zilch. The fact that even Russia Today needs to cling to nonsense about the "Neo-Nazies in Kiev" (which, even if true, still does not provide a valid case for war, not even close) clearly shows how empty the Russian argument is.

There were repeated finger pointing here "but what about US", etc. Which is totally unsubstantiated, because US had far more serious cases for war than Russia has against Ukraine. It's not even comparable. Let's take all US war over the last 20 years one by one:

1. Kosovo: In Kosovo there was real repression against the albanian community by the Serbian authorities. When NATO started the negotiations at Rambouillet, it had reached a point where there was open warfare between serbs and albanian. Very important, the discontent of the albanians was real and was not instigated by someone else. Moreso, NATO negotiated with Milosevic for half a year, trying to make him budge before it started the bombing. In Ukraine, for instance, there were no secessionist movements worth considering (let alone rebellions) until Russia created them.

2. Afghanistan - the talibans were providing aid and shelter to AQ. Enough said.

3. Iraq - this is the "main charge", so to speak, of Russia and its friends. There were no WMDs in Iraq, indeed, but it came to this argument about WMD only because of Russia's obstructionism, who, apparently, reserves for itself the right to invade a country if there are some "nazies" in its government, but, on the other hand, screams bloody murder if someone wants to take out a dictator whose record, compared with the "fascists" which Russia is so concerned about, is beaten only by Hitler's himself (but Saddab, on the other hand, was Russia's friend, so perhaps it did not count).

Really, I would like to know why some cabinet members "idolizing Hitler" is ground for war, but a bloodthirsty maniac holding the highest office isn't. Anyone care to explain?

4. Lybia - US acted in order to prevent the full-scale massacre of an entire city by another maniac.

Also, in each case, US made serious efforts to gain legitimacy for its military efforts, went to the UN, built coalitions and also sent terms to the other party before the attack occurred. Russia did not bother with any of this.

Afghanistan is the perfect example of what I'm saying and you actually confirmed it, the fact that they were providing aid and shelter to Al-Qaeda was a good enough reason for USA to invade Afghanistan and it strongly indicates that the US reaction to the similar thing in Canada would be only more drastic.

It looks like you misunderstood those "But what about USA" comparisons you hate so much. It doesn't mean that something is automatically legal and legitimate for Russia to do if USA did it first, but that the Ukraine crisis has to be analyzed in the context. And the context is that one country, USA, and it's allies, continually break other nations sovereignty for decades now. Reasons for their actions are sometimes fabricated but even when they're not they're far less legitimate than Russia's concerns over Ukraine. Serbia, Libya and Iraq were in no way endangering USA. Even Afghanistan with it's support for Al-Qaeda was a far less a threat to USA than Ukraine's new regime is to Russians in Ukraine. But the most important thing is that because of USA's unprovoked attack on other countries nations like Russia aren't going to play it nicely any more. And why should they? If you're fighting against an opponent that keeps breaking the rules, why would you respect those rules any more? Between protecting your own interests and security, and protecting the rules that are already broken by other participants, of course one is going to choose the former.

What you're saying about "fundamental principle of international law" is illogical and proved meaningless in practice. For the attacked country it makes no difference if the reason is territory or resources or political submission. It is true that in modern times countries usually don't admit they're waging wars over territories, but in effect they are because once they defeat the attacked nation they go on and occupy it with their armies and impose laws and regimes and use any resource they want. One could say it's more practical that way for the occupiers, especially if they're attacking a country on the opposite side of the world. But in any case that "fundamental principle" you refer to didn't decrease the number of wars. On the contrary, more wars were fought in the last 70 years than ever before.

Cuba was a special case because in those days Soviet Union was a match to USA and USA couldn't do whatever the hell they want. But even then they didn't allow Cuba to harbor Soviet nuclear missiles, which means that USA had a say in the Cuban internal matters. What is important to remember is that USA installed it's weapons very close to Soviet Union in Turkey, but they were OK with it until Soviets did the same thing in Cuba.

Saddam was never Russia's friend. In fact he was an ally of USA during the eighties in the Iraq-Iran war (which was a territorial dispute by the way but it didn't prevent USA to help one side against the other).

About Kosovo you're so wrong it would take too much time and space to answer it. I'll just say that there was no repression against Albanians. Some among Albanians were rebelling against Serbia and there was some heavy fighting there, but there was no general repression. Serbia's response was not nearly as strong as let's say what American authorities responded with against the riots in Ferguson this last summer. And Rambouillet talks were just a farce that was organized only after initial plan for the attack on Serbia failed. NATO planed to attack Serbia in October of 1998 and everything was prepared for a sudden and swift operation that would catch Serbia by surprise but a Serbian spy gained the information through French military diplomat and informed Serbian government. Once informed Serbian army was prepared for the attack and when NATO saw that they aborted the plan and went on with political pressure that resulted in Rambouillet talks and subsequent bombing. The French guy was heavily sentenced because of that and the entire affair was quite a big deal back in the day.