Ukraine III: appropriate handling required

[SkaggCannibal]

Putin says, "Yanukovych was not properly impeached." On the one side, he ran away. On the other side, he might have been murdered if he stayed.

NATO should say, "So if we guarantee his safety for in-person impeachment procedures, than you will withdraw from Crimea?"

If he says yes, than you can defuse the situation. If he says no, than you move onto his next argument.

If we agree to an independence referendum, than we say:

"An independence referendum for Crimea must pass with a 2/3 majority and also with the presence of international peacekeepers."

That is with both Russian and NATO presence. I think the Turks might volunteer in order to protect the Crimean Tatars.

Putin will try to skirt around international laws and norms, but he will not go directly against it. Russia gains too much influence through its security council seat for it to do that.

It's seems as if you're under the impression the USA holds the the higher moral ground here. 2/3 majority is something new and out of thin air. Yanukovich safety was not the reason for meddling in the Crimea. And if you're gonna mention "skirting around international laws and norms", I think the USA just lost the argument. But you do win an hypocrisy-award.

[Miodrag]

It's seems as if you're under the impression the USA holds the the higher moral ground here. 2/3 majority is something new and out of thin air. Yanukovich safety was not the reason for meddling in the Crimea. And if you're gonna mention "skirting around international laws and norms", I think the USA just lost the argument. But you do win an hypocrisy-award.

Perfectly said. Just to mention, in the Balkans region, where USA and the West had a field-day for playing all the hunger games they pleased to organize for the last 25 years, there was one secession after another, and in none of those 2/3 majority was ever brought up as a condition. I believe we here are the historical champions of secessions, both violent and peaceful ones - for example, this is my fourth country now, even though I've lived in Belgrade all my life - and yet, 2/3 majority was never so much as brought up with any significance whatsoever, even as an idea.

[Disturber of Peace]

I can think of two superpowers who should use these demo-tatctics to populate millions of their peeps in neighbouring countries and do some serious "Drang Nach Norden".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Skagg,

In Realpolitik does hypocrisy matter?

[polishgenius]

And, technically, no rulers of Russia colonized other Slavic nations in the period. Rulers of SU did. but following that logic, they colonized Russia, too.

Let's not follow that logic, because that logic is fucking stupid. The Soviet Union was clearly a vehicle for Russian imperialism in disguise. Arguing otherwise is just delusional.

All of which is to say that, personally, I think majority of Slavic nations would be wiser to choose someone backed by Moscow over someone backed by USA&Germany.

Fuck that.

[Miodrag]

Let's not follow that logic, because that logic is fucking stupid. The Soviet Union was clearly a vehicle for Russian imperialism in disguise. Arguing otherwise is just delusional.

Which is why the first victims of the Soviet revolution were the members of the Russian imperial family and everybody who supported an Empire, I guess? Quite a disguise!

Fuck that.

Fuck what? My personal opinion, based on the stuff I'm experiencing myself for my 40 years on this planet?

You know, it's telling that for two days I'm debating this delicate and emotional and passionate matter with many posters that strongly disagree with me, but your post is the first one that used some sort of petty insult and foul language.

[David Selig]

As for Serbs, after WW2 we became Tito's colony, and he was a close ally of USA after 1948, when he split with Stalin. And let me tell you, since I was born into Tito's era and I remember his rule: that was no joke, by no means. Immediately after the war, he executed hundreds of thousands of wealthy Serbs, cause he feared they'd revolt against him (and it didn't hurt that their wealth ended up in his hands once he killed them).

Wasn't Tito still an ally of the SU and anti US immediately after the war? Anyway, the exact same thing, even on a bigger scale, happened in each country the Red Army "liberated".

If you think that's worse than what some Soviet colonies suffered over the same period, maybe you're wrong. All of which is to say that, personally, I think majority of Slavic nations would be wiser to choose someone backed by Moscow over someone backed by USA&Germany.

The Russian/Soviet rule, whether directly or through regimes "backed" by them, has been disastrous practically everywhere and every time. Why would anyone, Slavic or not, want that? Not that the USA are angels, far from it, but their track is way better.

[Shryke]

It's seems as if you're under the impression the USA holds the the higher moral ground here. 2/3 majority is something new and out of thin air. Yanukovich safety was not the reason for meddling in the Crimea. And if you're gonna mention "skirting around international laws and norms", I think the USA just lost the argument. But you do win an hypocrisy-award.

Why does any of what you say here actually matter? What does moral highground have to do with anything?

[Shryke]

Perfectly said. Just to mention, in the Balkans region, where USA and the West had a field-day for playing all the hunger games they pleased to organize for the last 25 years, there was one secession after another, and in none of those 2/3 majority was ever brought up as a condition. I believe we here are the historical champions of secessions, both violent and peaceful ones - for example, this is my fourth country now, even though I've lived in Belgrade all my life - and yet, 2/3 majority was never so much as brought up with any significance whatsoever, even as an idea.

Yes, but what was brought up were things like "ethnic and culture based oppression by the former government".

[Shryke]

Anyway, in real news Putin gave us some talking today:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26433309

It's in the live feed here around 10:30ish:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26428296

10:40: President Putin tells a news conference that events in Kiev amount to an anti-constitutional coup and armed seizure of power, but Russia will only use force as a last resort.
10:40: On 21 February, [deposed President] Yanukovych agreed to everything the opposition demanded, effectively surrendering power, but he stood no chance of re-election - President Putin says (BBC Monitoring).
10:42: I understand people in Kiev's Maidan (Independence Square) who demand radical change - President Putin says (BBC Monitoring).
10:44: President Putin: the Ukrainian people wanted change but "illegal change" cannot be encouraged (Reuters)
10:46: President Putin: Ukraine's parliament "partially legitimate", but not other government agencies and particularly not acting President Turchynov. Even though [former President] Yanukovych has no power, he is still the legitimate president from the legal point of view, because he has never been impeached (BBC Monitoring).
10:47: President Putin: No need to send in troops to Ukraine now, but the possibility of this remains (BBC Monitoring).
10:48: President Putin: Deployment of Russian armed forces is the last resort (BBC Monitoring).
10:50: President Putin: Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are rampant in Ukraine and particularly in Kiev, people in eastern Russia are worried, and "we reserve the right to use all means available" to defend them if they ask us, but this is "an extreme measure" (BBC Monitoring).
10:53: President Putin: Russia reserves the right to use all means to protect Russians in Ukraine (AP).
10:55: President Putin: Markets in Russia were "nervous" before the events in Ukraine because of the policy pursued by the US Federal Reserve, so latest market instability not directly related to Ukraine (BBC Monitoring).
10:59: President Putin: "Our actions are often described by the West as not legitimate, but look at US operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. "Our actions are legitimate from the point of view of international law, because Ukraine's legitimate president asked us for help. "Defending these people is in our interests, this is a humanitarian mission, we do not want to 'enslave' anyone." (BBC Monitoring).

Or basically, a repeat of the standard government and government media rhetoric coming out of Russia. All the protesters are evil, Russia must protect ethnic russians in another country because. You can't condemn us for invading another country because isn't the US bad, so when we do bad things it's also ok because oh look a squirrel. Also, it's not really an invasion, I swear those aren't our troops. No I don't think you're that gullible but we gotta keep up appearances.

[SkaggCannibal]

Skagg,

In Realpolitik does hypocrisy matter?

No of course not, but it matters if one would want my sympathy. I just dislike how the media in my country is reporting on the whole situation. Putin is the new Hitler, Crimean people wanting to belong to Russia is never mentioned, nor that Crimea asked for this help in the first place. Death toll of police forces during the uprising is only touched on and never compared to civilian deaths. I know it's terrible, but in Crimea there hasn't even been one injury, while the misery from the uprising against the president they elected themselves is skyhigh. Yet the new government is good, and the old one bad.

And then I haven't even touched upon the asskissing of America that is being done by all my politicians. Obama was quoted in the official stand of my government. I would like if my media would point on the hypocrisy on both sides, instead of, in my opinion, still looking at it from a Cold War perspective. But that's just my opinion.

[Miodrag]

Wasn't Tito still an ally of the SU and anti US immediately after the war? Anyway, the exact same thing, even on a bigger scale, happened in each country the Red Army "liberated".

Tito was never anti-US. He was closest with the British, who helped him crucially in his rise to power (their shift toward him and away from Yugoslav Royal Army in the middle of the war served as an inspiration to Orwell for his "1984", as revealed in his introduction that was kept a secret until some three years ago, I believe). Americans were reluctant toward Tito at first, but after Roosevelt died I think Tito had no problem with USA. In regards to scale, care to list some examples? Like, how many people were killed in Soviet colonies? I don't want to start comparing death tolls, I'm genuinely curious, cause, while Soviet rule was hard on those nations from what I can tell, I don't believe I ever heard of that many deaths as in Serbia.

The Russian/Soviet rule, whether directly or through regimes "backed" by them, has been disastrous practically everywhere and every time. Why would anyone, Slavic or not, want that? Not that the USA are angels, far from it, but their track is way better.

First, it wasn't Russian/Soviet rule, because Russians suffered not a bit less than the other nations. And Crimea may be the prime example. What kind of Russian nationalistic/imperial/whatever rule would take Crimea from Russia and handed it over to Ukraine?! Second, the impression that that American track is "way better" tends to lose it's credibility once you count Latin America in. And third, I didn't say one has to want that. I just said that between Russia and USA, I would choose the former.

[Miodrag]

Yes, but what was brought up were things like "ethnic and culture based oppression by the former government".

Really? I wasn't aware of that. What exactly do you mean by this? (If it's too big a derail, you can PM me, of course.)

[polishgenius]

Which is why the first victims of the Soviet revolution were the members of the Russian imperial family and everybody who supported an Empire, I guess? Quite a disguise!

That's generally what happens in violent revolution. It doesn't make the next regime any less the same country, even if they do change their name. And hey, it's even not entirely out of the question that the initial revolutionaries had no interest in totalitarian imperial rule, but that didn't last very long.

And yes, Russians also suffered under the Soviet era, because the whole concept was untenable and managed by a bunch of people who were either insane or incompetent for much of its time. However try telling anyone forced to learn Russian in school and suppress their own cultural heritage in favour of what the soviet colonial rulers told them to that it wasn't a Russian Empire.

Fuck what? My personal opinion, based on the stuff I'm experiencing myself for my 40 years on this planet?

Yes. Fuck that. The US are no angels, I'm a frequent critic of the country on here and elsewhere. They are, as a nation, thoughtless, self-centric and often act without heed for the long-term consequences. In a lot of ways they're a toddler with a gun. And they've undoubtedly put their weight behind some people who turned out to be despicable in their quest to control the world and contain communism.

But as I said before: pretending that they're as bad as Russia, then and now, is just misinformed. US protection might be a fickle thing, but Russian protection is a mob racket.

You know, it's telling that for two days I'm debating this delicate and emotional and passionate matter with many posters that strongly disagree with me, but your post is the first one that used some sort of petty insult and foul language.

If you don't like bad language, you're on the wrong forum. It's got nothing to do with my disagreement with you, though.

As for the insult: well, yeah. It's telling of the fact that I'm the child of a family who fought the communists in Poland and then had to leave and were essentially exiled till the wall fell and given refuge by the West.

[Mexal]

In case anyone is wondering, the Ukraine invasion was allowed to happen because of Benghazi. At least, that's what Lindsey Graham's twitter account says. His position is if Obama was strong during the Benghazi / Syria incidents, then none of this would ever happen. How is it that our government is governed by these people? The world really doesn't revolve around American action or inaction.

[Shryke]

In case anyone is wondering, the Ukraine invasion was allowed to happen because of Benghazi. At least, that's what Lindsey Graham's twitter account says. His position is if Obama was strong during the Benghazi / Syria incidents, then none of this would ever happen. How is it that our government is governed by these people? The world really doesn't revolve around American action or inaction.

Wait, the Americo-centrism is what bothers you here and not the bullshit strongman ideology?

[Mexal]

Wait, the Americo-centrism is what bothers you here and not the bullshit strongman ideology?

Oh that bothers me too.

[Dinsdale!]

SkaggCannibal, on 04 Mar 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

It's seems as if you're under the impression the USA holds the the higher moral ground here. 2/3 majority is something new and out of thin air. Yanukovich safety was not the reason for meddling in the Crimea. And if you're gonna mention "skirting around international laws and norms", I think the USA just lost the argument. But you do win an hypocrisy-award.

Morale high ground? My friend, I never claimed that for myself and certainly do not claim that for the USA. I'm sure that there are people in this thread for whom the primary motivating factor is right and wrong. I am not that person.

And thank you for the hypocrisy award! I am a mere internet-message-board-pundit who pretends to understanding of RealPolitik. Those who use the law to enact their will aim only to win hypocrisy awards. The nature of law is enforcement of rules; the aspect of right and wrong arises only later and is always secondary. Because I am an internet-message-board-pundit rather than a US diplomat, I don't have to pretend otherwise.

But I do have an agenda:

1. Long-term peace in the Ukraine, Europe and Black Sea region. I believe that Russia's moves are setting it in line for eventual conflict with Turkey and Poland.

2. Increase in American influence within the Ukraine.

3. Increasing adoption of an international law for dispute management.

I believe that the Ukraine should exist as a buffer state.

In terms of international law, there is no time like the present to start. I think the idea that we should not start acting more legalistically, because we have not in the past is silly. If we accounted all things morally, what nation, people or culture would possibly be found not guilty. We make laws because we are greedy bastards and the world is so the prisoner's dilemma writ large. Forget aiming for the morale, let's just aim for the Pareto optimal.

As a long dead American would put it, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

[Dinsdale!]

I was just looking through the old lecture notes for my undergraduate class, "The Causes and Prevention of War."

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/political-science/17-42-causes-and-prevention-of-war-spring-2009/

Found this prescient note from Professor Van Evera.

Russia uses force to recover the Russian diaspora in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia and Estonia. Consider also a more likely variant: Russia responds to U.S. efforts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO by starting civil wars in both states, with the goal of detaching Ukraine's Russian-majority areas in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and non-Georgian areas of Georgia, and perhaps attaching these areas to Russia. Russia views Crimea as essentially Russian, won't let NATO control it. Much killing could ensue if NATO tries.

It was in the context of discussing likely future wars. This was an evitable conflict.

[Miodrag]

That's generally what happens in violent revolution. It doesn't make the next regime any less the same country, even if they do change their name. And hey, it's even not entirely out of the question that the initial revolutionaries had no interest in totalitarian imperial rule, but that didn't last very long.

And yes, Russians also suffered under the Soviet era, because the whole concept was untenable and managed by a bunch of people who were either insane or incompetent for much of its time. However try telling anyone forced to learn Russian in school and suppress their own cultural heritage in favour of what the soviet colonial rulers told them to that it wasn't a Russian Empire.

What generally doesn't happen, however, is calling the country that emerged out of the bloody revolution exactly the same as he country before the revolution, which is what you did. You claim that Imperial Russia continued to live through the regime that violently overthrown Russian imperial authority, changed the name, changed the borders, and changed the political and social system of the country. Everything was changed radically, but Russian imperialism somehow managed not only to survive, but to become the dominant factor once again - is that what you're saying? If yes, then sorry to say, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, nor is it in agreement with historical facts, like the one with Crimea: once again, what kind of Russian imperialists would take Crimea away from Russia and give it to Ukraine?!

Honestly, it more looks like that, any country with Russia in it, you're going to declare it a "vehicle for Russian imperialism".

But as I said before: pretending that they're as bad as Russia, then and now, is just misinformed. US protection might be a fickle thing, but Russian protection is a mob racket.

Again, you're confusing Soviet Union for Russia. As far as I know, Russia wasn't 'racketeering' anyone since becoming an independent state. Certainly not the way you're describing, and not nearly the way The West keeps racketeering any number of countries around the globe.

If it's easier for your hate to be aimed at something that exists, so therefore Russia now poses for Soviet Union that doesn't exist any more, your stance would make more sense then, probably.

If you don't like bad language, you're on the wrong forum. It's got nothing to do with my disagreement with you, though.

As for the insult: well, yeah. It's telling of the fact that I'm the child of a family who fought the communists in Poland and then had to leave and were essentially exiled till the wall fell and given refuge by the West.

It's not about me disliking a bad language. It's that I don't see what reward one may expect from a discussion like this, if one tries to ruin it?