Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Snake,Gosh, Russia sends troops into a former Soviet republic when a segment of that nation suggests it doesn't want to be part of that former Soviet republic anymore to wide condemnation from the West. Yeah, that's nothing like this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rane Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 You can choose to see this as a "principle" thing. However,the fact is there are many reasons why the Crimea is a unique situation.Not least of which is its majority Russian population.There is simply no credible way to link this as a precedent for a Russian takeover of all of Eastern Europe. There´s nothing unique about it. There are parts of Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova (Transnistria) where there's significant ethnic Russian presence and even outright majority. That does not make it OK for Russia to invade and annex these places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Snake,Gosh, Russia sends troops into a former Soviet republic when a segment of that nation suggests it doesn't want to be part of that former Soviet republic anymore to wide condemnation from the West. Yeah, that's nothing like this situation. South Ossetia fought a war with Georgia at the break up of the SU for it's independence and a peace was brokered. Georgia then attacked Russian troops stationed there as peace keepers and then got their asses kicked. So no, the situations are not the same at all, other than Russia is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Because Russia would listen if Western nations had more moral authority?I doubt it, but if they weren't so horrendously hypocritical Putin may (that's a big may) be more inclined to listen to them.I don't even understand where this argument is going.Yeah neither do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If Russia invaded Estonia and started carving it up, yes. The North Atlantic Treaty is pretty clear on this point: a military attack on any one member start is essentially a declaration of war on all of them, and the attacked country can call upon assistance from the other states. This is how the USA was able to involve NATO in Afghanistan. And the other states may decide that paper, schmaper, agreement, schmagreement, it's just not worth it. Intervention in Afghanistan is one thing, global war with a nuclear superpower is quite another - and where's Estonia, anyway? To paraphrase the classic, the world will not end if Putin has Estonia. And Lithuania and Latvia. And Ukraine. And Poland. Maybe that would be the end of his ambitions. Is it really worth dying for? I have no doubt, this question will be asked, if - when - Russia continues extending "brotherly help" to its neighbors. And I'm not sure the answer will be positive. NATO's Article Five notwithstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Snake,That is certainly the Russian version of events. I'm equally sure a similar story will evolve about Crimea within a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 And the other states may decide that paper, schmaper, agreement, schmagreement, it's just not worth it. Intervention in Afghanistan is one thing, global war with a nuclear superpower is quite another - and where's Estonia, anyway? To paraphrase the classic, the world will not end if Putin has Estonia. And Lithuania and Latvia. And Ukraine. And Poland. Maybe that would be the end of his ambitions. Is it really worth dying for? I have no doubt, this question will be asked, if - when - Russia continues extending "brotherly help" to its neighbors. And I'm not sure the answer will be positive. NATO's Article Five notwithstanding. Estonia matters almost none to American interests. However, maintaining NATO matters a great deal. The idea that the US and Western Europe couldn't be bothered to defend the central defense agreement of the past seventy years is either uninformed or willfully naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I doubt it, but if they weren't so horrendously hypocritical Putin may (that's a big may) be more inclined to listen to them. I think there is an approximately zero chance that Putin would listen if the Western powers were less hypocritical. So again, you are advancing a totally useless argument. Yeah neither do I. This much is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Estonia matters almost none to American interests. However, maintaining NATO matters a great deal. The idea that the US and Western Europe couldn't be bothered to defend the central defense agreement of the past seventy years is either uninformed or willfully naive. If the only alternative is a war with Russia - yes, I can absolutely see NATO going down the crapper, and I see you as the naive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I think there is an approximately zero chance that Putin would listen if the Western powers were less hypocritical. So again, you are advancing a totally useless argument. This much is clear.I'm not even trying to argue anything, unless "people shouldn't be so unbelievably hypocritical" counts as an argument in this situation. You can't expect others to behave themselves if you're even more badly behaved than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 SENP,How much does hypocrisy matter in Realpolitik equations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 SENP,How much does hypocrisy matter in Realpolitik equations?Only when it comes to manipulating the populace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I'm not even trying to argue anything, unless "people shouldn't be so unbelievably hypocritical" counts as an argument in this situation. You can't expect others to behave themselves if you're even more badly behaved than they are. You were pretty clearly trying to argue that hypocrisy over Iraq should prevent the US from telling Putin to back off here. "People shouldn't be so unbelievably hypocritical" is fine, it's just cute that you think degree of hypocrisy or moral authority matters a damn in this situation to any of the state actors involved. So again, you're advancing an argument from self-righteousness that is completely irrelevant to what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Castel,It is a nice distraction for internal Russian consumption and justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If the only alternative is a war with Russia - yes, I can absolutely see NATO going down the crapper, and I see you as the naive one. A war that Russia is guaranteed to lose? Power Politics isn't dead in America or Western Europe. The dissolution of NATO would make all of the member countries significantly weaker and more vulnerable. And they are going to just accept this...why exactly? If Russia were to invade Estonia, they would be able to take it for a time. Then we'd see a repeat of Desert Shield/Desert Storm but on a larger and more tense scale, with a huge air war, followed by a limited ground campaign. So long as both sides make clear that this is not a war of annihilation, the nukes stay where they are. Russian forces take 5X the casualties of the West before Putin throws in the towel. But it would never come to that. Putin knows better than to start a war he can't possibly win. He's always been a pretty pragmatic and cautious guy. He knows that he can get away with taking Crimea, so that's what he's doing. Likewise this will make his influence in Ukraine that much stronger, since their military obviously cannot protect them and the West has already demonstrated that they are not coming to their aid. But Crimea is not Estonia. The situations are nothing alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Maithanet,And if Russia throws their nuclear umbrella over the captured territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Maithanet,And if Russia throws their nuclear umbrella over the captured territory?Then the Cold War is back. EDITBut I feel like that isn't a terribly useful hypothetical. I mean, any nuclear power can make any totally unreasonable demand, and all other nations are forced to make the decision of how to respond. Unless we assume that Russia is a completely irrational actor (and nothing they have done indicates this), then they know that a nuclear war with the West is suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Maithanet,You think the freeze hasn't already started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Maithanet,You think the freeze hasn't already started?It's chilly, but it's got a long way to go before we are at Cold War levels. I mean, Putin pulled a slightly less brazen stunt like this with Georgia, and yet just a few weeks ago the US was at the olympics on Russian soil, helping Putin with his $50 billion dollar show. PS Did you see my edit of the last post? I never know whether to just edit or DP in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Snake,That is certainly the Russian version of events. I'm equally sure a similar story will evolve about Crimea within a few years. An independent report commissioned by the EU showed that Georgia started the conflict with it's attack on South Ossetia and that Russia had a right to defend it's peacekeepers. It also said Russia went to far when it pushed into Georgia temporarily. And it is a fact that South Ossetia and Abkhazia both fought for independence from Georgia when the SU broke up.Nothing similar to that has happened in Crimea. Get your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.acd2fc79c362673fd25c55ce6452b882.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.