Ukraine VI: Crimea in the Center (AKA Putin's) pocket

[Free Northman Reborn]

I still don't see what everyone is getting so worked up about.

If the majority of posters on this thread have some connection to Ukraine, then I understand completely. But for the rest? Why so irate?

It's not like Russia is aiming to commit human rights abuses on a grand scale in these territories. At the very worst, should Russia emerge victorious in this conflict, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine will end up having their bosses sitting in Moscow rather than Kiev. Either way, life will not suddenly become unbearable.

Russia actually wants these territories to demonstrate to the rest of Ukraine how much better life is under Russian control than under EU control. Hence, they are likely to treat the vast majority of people as well as possible in these territories.

Really, why are so many people in the West experiencing this sense of personal outrage at the "violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity?"

Most of you will never even see the place in real life.

[Dicer]

Really, why are so many people in the West experiencing this sense of personal outrage at the "violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity?"

Most of you will never even see the place in real life.

Because it's Russia and Russia is always evil or something.

I have noticed it quite often in the comments. The comment starts with " I am not a US apologist but Russia is far worse" when history has shown that American atrocities on the rest of the world far outweigh those of the Russians.

It's not like Russia is aiming to commit human rights abuses on a grand scale in these territories. At the very worst, should Russia emerge victorious in this conflict, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine will end up having their bosses sitting in Moscow rather than Kiev. Either way, life will not suddenly become unbearable.

Russia actually wants these territories to demonstrate to the rest of Ukraine how much better life is under Russian control than under EU control. Hence, they are likely to treat the vast majority of people as well as possible in these territories.

Crimea/Eastern Ukraine will get cheap gas while Western Ukraine will get the IMF with their structural adjustment polices that " cut spending on education and health; eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies; devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper; privatize national assets; and freeze wages"

[TheKitttenGuard]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/03/putins-crimean-history-lesson.html

Putin:

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons—may God judge them—added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic makeup of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer the Crimean region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a city of union subordination. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his—a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the nineteen-thirties in Ukraine—is for historians to figure out …

Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why, all of a sudden, Crimea became part of Ukraine. But, on the whole—and we must state this clearly, we all know it—this decision was treated as a formality of sorts, because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states…. Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The U.S.S.R. fell apart.

It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realized that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

The action Putin describing was related to some idea that their was going to be break down of ethnicities. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the cancellation of this project. So, you have the Soviet Union not thinking of Russia's ethnic, and geographical interest, Crimea.

Better or worse it is a solid argument that not wanting to squabble over reconfiguration of borders that weren't since the late 18th century. So, you have a strategic Peninsula that means dominate position in Black Sea due to it having a warm weather port that will be in a foreign country. Security agreements are good and all but when do not have full control and it will always be perilous position.

Now, Russia sees that an action was taken that threaten this critical Russian interest and they decided to act to secure control and remove an uncertainty for Russia.

What I find most intriguing is that their never seem to have the hard establishment of borders for Russia. What was agree to include an of area of Russia that had a long historical standingand is completely vital to Russia secure position in the Black Sea. To what extent should Russia continue to gamble their position based on what the Soviet Union did when it was a decision that was not centered on Russia's Interest?

As much you want to point out the doublethink Ukraine could of saved them a major headache in needing to deal with Russia's Interest in Crimea by not taking it. However, it is very strategic peninsula that can dominate the Black Sea with a warm weather port. Why would you want to give it up?

[Lummel]

But Russia giving up Sevastopol was never a realistic issue. Russia had/has a lease on Sevastopol until 2042, this agreed after years of dispute with Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR in which the legal status of the bases and the black sea fleet was uncertain and contested.

The agreement between Russia and the Ukraine allowed for a large Russian troop establishment in the Crimea, including a naval brigade. Given the relative strength of the two countries and the Ukraine's need for Russian oil and gas it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Russia could have been forced out of the Crimea even assuming that for some bizarre reason the Ukraine might have wanted to do so.

What is the value of militarily dominating the Black Sea in the 21st century anyway, particularly given that Russia already has significant economic and political clout in the region as it is? Are Genoese traders threatening to descend on Kaffa? Do Neo-Byzantines want to reclaim Theodosia? Has the Zaporozhian Sech or the Ottoman Empire sprung back into life over night?

[Free Northman Reborn]

But Russia giving up Sevastopol was never a realistic issue. Russia had/has a lease on Sevastopol until 2042, this agreed after years of dispute with Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR in which the legal status of the bases and the black sea fleet was uncertain and contested.

The agreement between Russia and the Ukraine allowed for a large Russian troop establishment in the Crimea, including a naval brigade. Given the relative strength of the two countries and the Ukraine's need for Russian oil and gas it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Russia could have been forced out of the Crimea even assuming that for some bizarre reason the Ukraine might have wanted to do so.

What is the value of militarily dominating the Black Sea in the 21st century anyway, particularly given that Russia already has significant economic and political clout in the region as it is? Are Genoese traders threatening to descend on Kaffa? Do Neo-Byzantines want to reclaim Theodosia? Has the Zaporozhian Sech or the Ottoman Empire sprung back into life over night?

I was watching an interview on CNN with Putin's biographer yesterday and it was quite illuminating.

He says in the last 100 years Russia has not had a leader that taps into the "soul" of the Russian nation as much as Putin does. He has a sense of Russia as an historic entity, and much of what he is doing is out of the wish to recapture some of Russia's greatness.

And that's why so many Russians support him. His approval rating is at 72% compared to Obama's 40%, Cameron's 39% and Hollande's 19%.

It is the opinion of this biographer that what Western Nations are secretly craving, are similar leaders who understand and care about the history of their nations and want to make people proud of their national identity.

Now, personally, I fully understand how the very notion of national pride utterly appalls your average liberal, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I kind of agree with the chap.

[arya_underfoot]

Lets see how the far right Svoboda party with members in the new government is doing in Ukraine:

How is this relevant? Every country has its ultra-nationalist nuts.

You do realize there is a reason they started at that level with the sanctions correct?

No, please enlighten me.

[jurble]

Now, personally, I fully understand how the very notion of national pride utterly appalls your average liberal, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I kind of agree with the chap.

I'll restore American national pride! Manifest Destiny! First things first, British Columbia! 54°40′ or Fight!

[Dicer]

The agreement between Russia and the Ukraine allowed for a large Russian troop establishment in the Crimea, including a naval brigade. Given the relative strength of the two countries and the Ukraine's need for Russian oil and gas it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Russia could have been forced out of the Crimea even assuming that for some bizarre reason the Ukraine might have wanted to do so.

What if Ukraine becomes a member of NATO? Would the agreements still hold in 2042? Or would the Russians have to greet 'lads' from NATO in the black sea?

What is the value of militarily dominating the Black Sea in the 21st century anyway, particularly given that Russia already has significant economic and political clout in the region as it is? Are Genoese traders threatening to descend on Kaffa? Do Neo-Byzantines want to reclaim Theodosia? Has the Zaporozhian Sech or the Ottoman Empire sprung back into life over night?

I think the value of holding it would be to not have the enemy in your backyard.

If the Russians were to set up base in Cuba (Cuban missile crisis/bay of pigs) or Venezuela, I don't think the Americans would accept that either.

[Borque]

"In a situation absolutely the same as the one in Crimea they recognized Kosovos secession from Serbia legitimate while arguing that no permission from a countrys central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary," Putin reminded, adding that the UN International Court of Justice agreed to those arguments.

"Thats what they wrote, that what they trumpeted all over the world, coerced everyone into it and now they are complaining. Why is that?" he asked.

Putin dismissed the argument that Kosovo was unique due to the large number of victims during the Balkan wars and the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

"Its beyond double standards," Putin said. "Its a kind of baffling, primitive and blatant cynicism. One cant just twist things to fit his interests, to call something white on one day and black on the next one."

Has it struck anyone else that with these words, Putin establishes quite firmly, that in his mind, the secession of Kosovo is exactly as legitimate as the secession of Crimea, which he of course considers to be totally legit.

I eagerly await Moscow's official recognition of the Republic of Kosovo.

[Lummel]

What if Ukraine becomes a member of NATO? Would the agreements still hold in 2042? Or would the Russians have to greet 'lads' from NATO in the black sea?

I think the value of holding it would be to not have the enemy in your backyard.

If the Russians were to set up base in Cuba (Cuban missile crisis/bay of pigs) or Venezuela, I don't think the Americans would accept that either.

This is 2014, not 2042. It is a little curious to preempt a situation which might be possible in 2042 but could be avoided by maintaining reasonably friendly diplomatic relations by dramatic means now, unless the entire purpose of the exercise was to have the drama. What if Ukraine were to become a member of NATO? I wonder what kind of international event might prompt it to seek NATO membership? Perhaps a foreign power moving into its territory and hosting a referendum for that territory to join the foreign power?

What enemy in Russia's backyard? Now that there is a threat to the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is an unfriendly government in Kiev more or less likely do you think? Is any new government in Ukraine going to be more relaxed about Russian interests or will it be keener to improve defences and look to other countries for potential support against Russia?

And who cares. The enemy is in Russia's backyard, if one wants to take that kind of view of it. Has been for a long time. Russia actually shares a common border with Norway, Estonia and Latvia all NATO members. And it is still formally at war with Japan with whom it has an unresolved territorial dispute, an ally of the USA. The degree of threat and terror must be either overwhelming, or alternatively it is a normal situation and doesn't impinge on Russia or prevent it from pursuing its interests.

[Lummel]

I was watching an interview on CNN with Putin's biographer yesterday and it was quite illuminating.

He says in the last 100 years Russia has not had a leader that taps into the "soul" of the Russian nation as much as Putin does. He has a sense of Russia as an historic entity, and much of what he is doing is out of the wish to recapture some of Russia's greatness.

And that's why so many Russians support him. His approval rating is at 72% compared to Obama's 40%, Cameron's 39% and Hollande's 19%.

...

Now, personally, I fully understand how the very notion of national pride utterly appalls your average liberal, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I kind of agree with the chap.

Yes, and precisely that is the concern, because it means that we are in the realm of politics conducted to shore up a sense of national prestige, and who knows were that will lead Russia, its neighbours, the various regions bordering on Russia? Since plainly normal prestige events like hosting major sporting events are not sufficient for policy needs.

Purely on a cost basis it looks like a policy that will have serious implications in Russia:

The West is threatening further sanctions should Russia proceed with the formal annexation of Crimea. There is no need. The crisis has already cost Russia $187bn so far and almost certainly wrecked any chance of economic growth this year. And the impact of the crisis could do roughly $440bn worth of damage over the whole year – and that is before the West inflicts a single cent's worth of sanctions, according to bne's (very rough) estimates.

So great, more banking collapses on the horizon? Just want the world economy needs.

[Dicer]

I am not sure why anyone is surprised at Russian hegemony in it's backyard similar to American hegemony in their backyard. When the American government led invasions into Cuba and Guatemala, it did so because it was not happy with the pro-soviet socialist governments in those places. The Russians are doing the same. It's all rather simple really. Hell, Putin himself has come out and said that he does not want NATO in his backyard:

“We stand against having a military organization meddling in our backyard, next to our homeland or in the territories that are historically ours. I just cannot imagine visiting NATO sailors in Sevastopol,” he stressed. “Most of them are fine lads, by the way. But rather let them visit us in Sevastopol than the other way around.”

Putin and the Russians certainly know about the geopolitics of that region more than me for certain. So when they think that NATO in Ukraine is a threat , then I take that claim seriously. Considering how much the Americans have meddled in Ukraine, I would be leery as well.

I was just looking online for information about American involvement in South America. And it's amazing how much trouble they have caused there over the last 50 years. Most of their reasons for invading countries or overthrowing governments was because of their being pro-soviet or following socialist policies.

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

So great, more banking collapses on the horizon? Just want the world economy needs.

I think the German stock market also hit lows. It's tied rather closely to Russian oil. Merkel will be careful about sanctions unless they want to freeze.

[Clueless Northman]

I really hope so. If Turkey does bockade Russian shipping what is to stop Russia from claiming this is NATO aggression and hiting back against the Baltic States?

That would be a terribly bad idea from Turkey. Wars have been fought over this in past centuries.

Only if you believe Russia will cross that line and NATO won't respond. And if you don't believe that then Russia's feelings you are saying they have don't make sense.

NATO expansion in the east blunts Russian aggression. That's why they don't like it. It's also exactly why it's a good thing. Cause what it stops is exactly what's happening right now.

Except Russian aggression is a thing of the 2000s, while NATO expansionism is a thing of the 1990s. One could make the case that Putin's belligerence is the reaction to this expansion, because he clearly feels he's being targetted and surrounded by NATO, and tries to keep a buffer between NATO and Russia proper.

Like Roose said, NATO should've been expanded enough to include Russia herself or should've been disbanded in the 1990s.

If might is right works then others would have done the same anyway. They just have a nice propaganda tool to derail the discussion with now.

This is an ongoing process. International order doesn't implode in a few seconds, it's usually a long process that only becomes obvious after years and several cases - just like in the 1930s, though far slower now, I'd say.

The moment some major power breaches the order for its own benefit, it's just a matter of time. US broke the system years ago, Russia is doing it now (by pushing it slightly further with downright annexation), others will follow and could go as far as Russia. And one day, someone will go even farther, and then everyone will know the past/current international system is over.

All in all, I expect catastrophic results in the long term, but I'm not sure how you can stop the process. Not sure it's too late, but it would require big efforts from the main offenders.

Has it struck anyone else that with these words, Putin establishes quite firmly, that in his mind, the secession of Kosovo is exactly as legitimate as the secession of Crimea, which he of course considers to be totally legit.

I eagerly await Moscow's official recognition of the Republic of Kosovo.

Indeed. The West should aski him just that. Would be a good test.

[snake]

Apparently, the first Ukranian base in Crimea has been taken, without a shot being fired. Not news the government in Kiev will be happy to hear but at least there is no bloodshed. Let us hope the rest of the bases eventually do the same.

Story.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dicer,

And I agree Western Ukraine thought they could depend on the West. But like Georgia, the west really can't do much at the moment. The west meddled as usual and now Ukraine is going to split because of all that.

You sound excited by the prospect of Eastern Ukraine being gobbled up by Russia too. What happens if the Turks make good on their threat to close the Bosphorus to Russian shipping over their actions in Crimea?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

Now, personally, I fully understand how the very notion of national pride utterly appalls your average liberal, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I kind of agree with the chap.

Yes, 100 years ago in August we saw just what wonderful results could be fosted upon the world with actions taken in the name of "National Pride".

CN,

This is an ongoing process. International order doesn't implode in a few seconds, it's usually a long process that only becomes obvious after years and several cases - just like in the 1930s, though far slower now, I'd say.

If you really should read The Guns of August to see just how quickly established order can and will collapse as nations push aggressive expansionist agendas. However, this time around we have the added funtime bonus of thermonuclear weapons in the quiver. Doesn't that just make life so much more interesting?

[Jackson5tributeband]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/03/putins-crimean-history-lesson.html

Putin:

The action Putin describing was related to some idea that their was going to be break down of ethnicities. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the cancellation of this project. So, you have the Soviet Union not thinking of Russia's ethnic, and geographical interest, Crimea.

Better or worse it is a solid argument that not wanting to squabble over reconfiguration of borders that weren't since the late 18th century. So, you have a strategic Peninsula that means dominate position in Black Sea due to it having a warm weather port that will be in a foreign country. Security agreements are good and all but when do not have full control and it will always be perilous position.

Now, Russia sees that an action was taken that threaten this critical Russian interest and they decided to act to secure control and remove an uncertainty for Russia.

What I find most intriguing is that their never seem to have the hard establishment of borders for Russia. What was agree to include an of area of Russia that had a long historical standingand is completely vital to Russia secure position in the Black Sea. To what extent should Russia continue to gamble their position based on what the Soviet Union did when it was a decision that was not centered on Russia's Interest?

As much you want to point out the doublethink Ukraine could of saved them a major headache in needing to deal with Russia's Interest in Crimea by not taking it. However, it is very strategic peninsula that can dominate the Black Sea with a warm weather port. Why would you want to give it up?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/03/putins-crimean-history-lesson.html

Putin:

The action Putin describing was related to some idea that their was going to be break down of ethnicities. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the cancellation of this project. So, you have the Soviet Union not thinking of Russia's ethnic, and geographical interest, Crimea.

Better or worse it is a solid argument that not wanting to squabble over reconfiguration of borders that weren't since the late 18th century. So, you have a strategic Peninsula that means dominate position in Black Sea due to it having a warm weather port that will be in a foreign country. Security agreements are good and all but when do not have full control and it will always be perilous position.

Now, Russia sees that an action was taken that threaten this critical Russian interest and they decided to act to secure control and remove an uncertainty for Russia.

What I find most intriguing is that their never seem to have the hard establishment of borders for Russia. What was agree to include an of area of Russia that had a long historical standingand is completely vital to Russia secure position in the Black Sea. To what extent should Russia continue to gamble their position based on what the Soviet Union did when it was a decision that was not centered on Russia's Interest?

As much you want to point out the doublethink Ukraine could of saved them a major headache in needing to deal with Russia's Interest in Crimea by not taking it. However, it is very strategic peninsula that can dominate the Black Sea with a warm weather port. Why would you want to give it up?

Yep there's a lot of merit to what Putin is doing, he has history and demographics on his side.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I still don't see what everyone is getting so worked up about.

If the majority of posters on this thread have some connection to Ukraine, then I understand completely. But for the rest? Why so irate?

It's not like Russia is aiming to commit human rights abuses on a grand scale in these territories. At the very worst, should Russia emerge victorious in this conflict, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine will end up having their bosses sitting in Moscow rather than Kiev. Either way, life will not suddenly become unbearable.

Russia actually wants these territories to demonstrate to the rest of Ukraine how much better life is under Russian control than under EU control. Hence, they are likely to treat the vast majority of people as well as possible in these territories.

Really, why are so many people in the West experiencing this sense of personal outrage at the "violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity?"

Most of you will never even see the place in real life.

The important thing to me isn't whether Crimea is a part of Russia or Ukraine, I think the former actually have a good claim to the region. What's worrying is that a great power in Europe has started solving disputes by casually launching military invasions rather than by diplomacy, which is something that has not been seen in Europe since the end of WWII. It's not so much about Ukraine as it is about Putler threatening the future stability and peace in the Western world.

[Jackson5tributeband]

FNR,

Yes, 100 years ago in August we saw just what wonderful results could be fosted upon the world with actions taken in the name of "National Pride".

CN,

If you really should read The Guns of August to see just how quickly established order can and will collapse as nations push aggressive expansionist agendas. However, this time around we have the added funtime bonus of thermonuclear weapons in the quiver. Doesn't that just make life so much more interesting?

Yes I can imagine your reaction if Russia had just funded the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Mexican government. Lets extrapolate a little, imagine if a previous American administration had given Mexico southern Cali on condition that the US could maintain it's most important naval base there. The new Mexican government, as a first act, bans the speaking of English in all it's provinces, including southern Cali were the majority are Anglos. I'm sure you'd be like 'yes it's the will of the Mexican people, lets do nothing about that'. The Marines would be storming the beaches of Malibu in 5 seconds flat and you know it. Like all things American, do what I say not what I do.

[Miodrag]

I get it. You don't think the West should have meddled.

Finally.

Putin did considerably more than the EU or the US did.

Because you say so?! The body count says the opposite. The international law possibly says the opposite (or, at the very least, that both The West and Russia are guilty). The International Court of Justice says the opposite, because, according to the verdict/advisory opinion they stated on July 22, 2010, it is not against international law if a group declares independence of a part of a state: the wording is ambiguous of course and it practically says that everyone can declare independence but nobody's obliged to respect it; but, that's ICoJ for you; and, guess what, US and EU were very happy about the verdict/opinion back then, even though any number of legal experts warned that ISoJ opened a can of worms.

And please tell me -- do you think Putin's obvious influence over Yanukovych and his government is less unsavory than EU meddling in the Maidan protests? Why is one exercise of soft power more palatable than another?

Of course I do! That is the whole point of what I'm saying all this time: dealing with the legal authorities of a sovereign nation is what governments do, while helping anti-government protests in a foreign country is a violation of the sovereignty of that country. It's simple, really. You may like or dislike Kremlin's political/diplomatic/economic influence over Yanukovych. I may like or dislike EU's political/diplomatic/economic influence over Yanukovych. But, they're in their rights to do so, because they're dealing with legal authority of a sovereign nation. Again, just like Kremlin dealt with Tymoshenko while she was in power. They didn't orchestrate Yanukovych's violent return to power. That shows the basic respect for other nations' sovereignty, which, according to UN Charter, is among the basic principles of international law. And it goes both ways: Russia may hate Right Sector (just like any sane person should), but they couldn't do anything about it as long as Ukraine's government (Yanukovych) deemed them legal, and he did, because Right Sector wasn't forbidden. Helping an opposition to seize power in a sovereign country is very wrong and very illegal, because it violates the will of the people in said country, the will expressed in the elections. There are exceptions to that, of course: when bringing a certain regime down is so legitimate that you stop paying attention to whatever legality the regime is hiding behind. There's no evidence Ukraine was such a case.

As far as I can tell though, I object when troops cross a sovereign border, and you object when it's the Westerners doing it, not the Russians. But you deplore all interventions, right?

No. You ignore all the ways Ukraine's sovereignty was violated by The West. In his speech that Dicer posted, Putin is very clear that Kremlin's moves are the reaction to US/EU moves. And what's actually happening is in accordance with his words. US&EU illegally meddled - in a dangerous way that eventually resulted in a bloody coup - with internal matters of a sovereign nation. They do that all the time all over the world, by the way, but this time they've done it in a country that is strategically important for Russia, which Kremlin doesn't hide nor lie about. It is both stated and obvious that Kremlin wouldn't violate Ukraine's sovereignty if US&EU weren't the first to do exactly that. And once a sovereignty was violated by someone else, you can't violate it some more. When we speak of independent nations, either there is a sovereignty, or there isn't. It has nothing to do with a 'power vacuum' inside the country. Without US/EU or any other foreign involvement, a coup in Ukraine wouldn't be a violation of sovereignty, and therefore Russia's invasion would be. The way it happened, however, a sovereignty of Ukraine was at the very least severely compromised by the coup, and probably destroyed effectively, if we factor in Neo-Nazis from Right Sector and anti-Constitutional 'impeachment' and every other flagrant example of the new regime's criminal nature. Only then Kremlin reacted with invasion. We have no reason to think Kremlin would act the same without a violent coup, especially if we consider Russia didn't do anything after The Orange Revolution in 2004, even though they probably didn't like it one bit. They respected Ukraine's sovereignty. Until someone else violated it. That is why I can't emphasize enough the importance of US/EU moves from the very beginning of Majdan protests, and why all that has nothing to do with the sheer legitimacy of the protests.

And no, I didn't say I deplore all interventions. Only interventionism. And I already explained the difference. Repeating won't make your twisting of my words any more true.

By the way, Yanukovych DID commit terrible crimes against his people, BEFORE he fled to Russia. A few dozen people killed at the hands of his security goons. Or is that more Western propaganda?

This is another crucial moment that can't help but be of the paramount importance. Legality is, or should be, a way to preserve legitimacy. No law should be above what is just, and sometimes laws - imperfect as they are - are not in accordance with what is just. Therefore, no international law should protect a regime that is killing innocent people. Not every use of force against people is illegitimate, because people - even when they have legitimate reasons to oppose their government - sometimes cross the line also. It's a delicate matter, for sure, and countries that never used force against their people are in a clear minority. But, we can probably agree that whoever shot those snipers into the Kiev protesters, should be on trial, and not in power.

Do we know who shot those snipers? Actually, we don't. Why? Because there is no investigation. And why is that? Because, as that Estonian guy said to Catherine Ashton in a telephone conversation you all heard, it looks like the new regime in Kiev is sabotaging/preventing/forbidding the investigation. And, funny enough, it looks like the Estonian was right, because there really is no investigation, even though Ashton tried to appear shocked by what he told her and reassure him that it will be investigated.

If Yanukovych was responsible for those snipers, no law should protect him. But, the same goes for Right Sector and whoever helped Right Sector, don't you think? Just like the same goes for other crimes Right Sector committed in the meantime, like those two people killed in Kharkiv the other day. It is not only hypocritical, but also very dangerous, to approve any action against Yanukovych (and his mentors from Kremlin) because of some still unproven accusations against him, while simultaneously absolve the regime that includes Right Sector and Svoboda (and the regime's mentors from The West) of all their evident crimes and simply dismiss as irrelevant all the evidence that suggest it was them behind the crimes Yanukovych's accused for.

Way to miss the point. When I said your opinions about American politics were silly, I was talking about... American politics. Like your mention of Detroit as some kind of telling data point about the federal government or Obama.

That's why I added 'for all I know' when I was speaking of Detroit. I meant it as a sign that I'm not entirely sure what is actually going on with Detroit, or who is responsible for Detroit's situation, whatever that may be. For all I know, that is what 'for all I know' is supposed to mean. Perhaps I'm wrong there.