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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jackson,

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

What now universally reviled German leader offered precisely the same historic and demographic arguments to justify German expansionism?

Do you mean like the Russian language bill in the Ukrainian Parliment that never became law?

[Dicer]

Dicer,

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?

You were able to make out that I was excited from those sentences? What gave it away?

The Turks are not going to do anything. No one is going to do anything but make some noises about sanctions. The west bungled in Ukraine just like they bungled it up in Georgia.

Not surprising considering that plans to expand NATO into eastern europe was written up by people like Zbigniew Brzezinski who even now argues

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/03/nato-revived-not-so-fast/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30038.html

This guy was also involved in the creation of the Taliban

When the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur interviewed Brzezinski in 1998, he admitted that the equipping of Bin Laden’s anti-Soviet troops was before the Russian invasion and was aimed at provoking its reaction:

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director, Robert Gates, says in his memoirs: the American secret services assisted Afghan mujahedeen six months before the Soviet invasion. By that time, you were President Carter’s adviser and you played a key role on this. Do you confirm it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of the story, the CIA began to assist mujahedeen in the year 1980, that is, after the invasion of the Soviet army against Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth that remained secret until today is quite different: it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed his first order on the secret assistance to Kabul’s pro-Soviet regime opponents. That day I wrote a memorandum to the President in which I told him that that assistance would cause the Soviet intervention (...) we did not force the Russian intervention, we just, conscientiously, increase the intervention possibilities.

NO: When the Soviets justified their intervention by affirming they were fighting against a secret American interference nobody believed them, though they were telling the truth. Don’t you regret it?

Z. Brz.: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its objective was to lead the Russian to the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it? The very same day the Soviets crossed the Afghan border I wrote the following to President Carter: «This is our chance to give Russia its Viet Nam» (...).

N.O.: Aren’t you sorry either for favoring Islamic fundamentalism and providing weapons and consultancies to future terrorists?

ZBrz.: What is the most important thing when you look at world history, the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? Some excited Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? [4]

Those excited islamists caused 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of deaths in India and Pakistan.

Brzezinski also supports the Chechyen rebels in their fight against the Russians. I wonder what he had to say about the Chechyen bombers who blew up runners in Boston. Apparently he did not learn his lesson from 9/11.

More on Brzezinski and Russia:

He also developed a “plan for Europe” that included NATO’s expansion to the Baltic republics, a dream that came true when three of them joined NATO in 2002. During the 90s he was the special envoy of the American President to promote the most important oil infrastructure project of the world: the Baku-Tbilissi-Ceyhan pipeline which was his best opportunity to prevent the resurgence of Russia.

He has also been, since 1999, the president of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, whose headquarters are located at the Freedom House facility. This position allows him to intervene in peace negotiations between the Russian government and independence fighters led by Mashkadov. However, the truth behind these good will “democratic” activities is to assist independence followers to maintain a war in the area, like the Afghan one, to weaken Russian and to keep it away from the gains of the Caspian Sea.

Brzezinski’s doctrine («The power ruling Eurasia will control two of the most economically advanced and productive areas of the world») is related to NATO’s expansion to the East, something the Clinton’s Administration actively worked on. But, how could they sell NATO to Europeans? «The European region located in the Western border of Eurasia and next to Africa is much more exposed to the risks of the increasing global disorder than a more politically united, military powerful and geographically isolated America (...).

It's not so much about Ukraine as it is about Putler threatening the future stability and peace in the Western world.

But you are okay if this happens in other parts of the world? Like the invasion of Iraq in the middle east for example? Or CIA invasions of Cuba and Guatamala in South America? Chinese invasion of Tibet in Asia?

Happens all the time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dicer,

Brzezinski also supports the Chechyen rebels in their fight against the Russians. I wonder what he had to say about the Chechyen bombers who blew up runners in Boston. Apparently he did not learn his lesson from 9/11.

I'm shocked that you don't given that you are so hipped on self-determination based upon ethnic identity.

Out of curiosity would it give you giggle fits if Russia did push into the Baltic republics or invaded Poland in an effort to reassemble the Warsaw pact and reestablish the prior Russian friendly governments in those States?

[Miodrag]

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.

That is not what he said. He's alluding to the ICoJ's verdict/opinion from 2010 you keep ignoring. ICoJ stated that a unilateral declaration of independence is not a violation of international law. As numerous legal experts noticed, it doesn't state that every declaration of independence is legitimate, nor that any particular declaration of independence is legitimate. They were asked specifically about Kosovo situation, and they dodged the issue with an ambiguous wording of their conclusion. What Putin's saying is a direct result of that. He doesn't go into details, so one can miss what exactly he refers to, but if you remember actual Crimean declaration, which cited ICoJ's conclusion, you'll see what Putin means.

All of which means that Russia doesn't think Crimea situation is identical to Kosovo situation. Otherwise, they'd recognize Kosovo. Which they won't. Unless Belgrade does it. That is their stance over Kosovo from the very beginning, and they showed no sign of changing it. And that is what makes all the difference in the world. There was a legal government in Belgrade when Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, and Russia isn't going to recognize Kosovo as long legal government in Belgrade doesn't. On the other hand, there was no legal government in Kiev when Crimea unilaterally declared independence.

Therefore, it might be more interesting to 'eagerly await' US/EU official recognition of Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

You're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! HYPOCRITE!

:loud explosions in the background:

Are we all missing the bigger picture while we debate who's a hypocrite (myself included)

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

But you are okay if this happens in other parts of the world? Like the invasion of Iraq in the middle east for example? Or CIA invasions of Cuba and Guatamala in South America? Chinese invasion of Tibet in Asia?

Happens all the time.

No, but it's worse if it happens in a part of the world that has throughout recent history been peaceful. Iraq was a mess long before USA invaded, and so was Cuba and several other South American countries.

[The Marquis de Leech]

. ICoJ stated that a unilateral declaration of independence is not a violation of international law.

The sheer logical contortions the ICJ went through on that case are a sight to behold. The standard law is featured in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec

[E-Ro]

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.

Here you go again with the same nonsense. America never murdered millions of our own people. Nor have we ever committed mass executions of POWs.(google the nkvd prisoner massacres) at this point I'm pretty sure your purposefully being a clown for the sake of it.

Your post about how people are saying "Russia is always evil" is pretty much the same thing you are doing only it's "America is always evil."

I love how often he points out western hypocrisy. It's weird when Putin makes more sense to me than the hypocritical blather that comes out of Obama's mouth. Putin is right in that the west have no right to dicatate terms to anyone considering the amount of times they have broken international law and invaded other countries.

I love it. "Hruuuuur duuuur Putin pwns Obama, Putin wrastles bears and Obama wears mom jeans."

Obama has never ordered the invasion of another country in his time as president. So calling him a hypocrite on this is bullshit.

[Rara Avis]

Do people need better source on beatings by Svoboda? Because Yatsenuk had already spoken out against this act, so did ukrainian journalists, so it's official and not russian propaganda. Besides, they made videos and posted them, so there is no doubt whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1c6eYId4fPE

[DanteGabriel]

Dicer, did you not get your "Bwaaaaah Western hypocrisy!" jollies in the last Ukraine thread? Or is it just that a Ukraine thread isn't complete without someone breathlessly deploring Western meddling while applauding Putin's meddling and then crowing about Western hypocrisy?

[Castel]

You're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! HYPOCRITE!

:loud explosions in the background:

But don't forget: we don't actually believe in hypocrisy because nations run based on amoral self-interest and anyone who thinks otherwise is a wide-eyed idealist.

[Free Northman Reborn]

But don't forget: we don't actually believe in hypocrisy because nations run based on amoral self-interest and anyone who thinks otherwise is a wide-eyed idealist.

This is a weird argument.

The hypocrisy is pointed out, because many in the West believe that their governments ARE actually morally superior to that of Russia.

The hypocrisy is indeed pointed out to reveal that in fact, all governments pursue self interest, and to bring them all down to the same level.

Once this is acknowledged, then the hypocrisy becomes a non-issue.

Now, YOU may be in the group that are well aware of this truth, but I think the hypocrisy is continually thrown in the face not of those in your group, but rather in the face of those who are STILL trying to proclaim that the West has the moral high ground on this issue.

To conclude, the hypocrisy accusation is not meant to make the West look worse than Russia. It is to bring everyone down to the same level, so we can discuss the real issues here, which are geopolitical in nature, rather than nebulous issues of international law or the right of territorial integrity of this or that nation.

[Jackson5tributeband]

But don't forget: we don't actually believe in hypocrisy because nations run based on amoral self-interest and anyone who thinks otherwise is a wide-eyed idealist.

No the point is that almost all the 'international norms' that make up various treaty obligations through the UN and multilaterally were thought up, enacted and ultimately enforced by the United States. The problem is this, the US has routinely ignored the very laws that it has imposed on the rest of us whenever and however it suits them. When the biggest guy in the room uses law as a club to beat up on his opponents these rules cease to be laws but rather a charade to enable a bully to get what he wants. That's the point, and it's what most of the rest of the planet thinks of the United States.

Putin's actions are against international law, but so what? If the US can ignore these laws whenever it feels like in truth there are no laws to break.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

So, if the UK were to land marines in France and retake Calais that would be normal "Geopolitics"?

[Dicer]

No, but it's worse if it happens in a part of the world that has throughout recent history been peaceful. Iraq was a mess long before USA invaded, and so was Cuba and several other South American countries.

Iraq and the South American countries were a mess long before the USA invaded precisely because of Western imperialistic ambitions. So it's okay for western countries to mess with countries in other parts of the world and leave behind a wreck, but western security and peace is paramount according to you? Don't those lives count for anything? Is the life of an Iraqi less than the life of a British/American/Ukrainian citizen for some reason?

Do people need better source on beatings by Svoboda? Because Yatsenuk had already spoken out against this act, so did ukrainian journalists, so it's official and not russian propaganda. Besides, they made videos and posted them, so there is no doubt whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1c6eYId4fPE

That does not matter. Because RT reported it and RT is the daily mail so blah blah blah. Anything reported by Russian media is Russian propaganda.

Dicer, did you not get your "Bwaaaaah Western hypocrisy!" jollies in the last Ukraine thread? Or is it just that a Ukraine thread isn't complete without someone breathlessly deploring Western meddling while applauding Putin's meddling and then crowing about Western hypocrisy?

I am going to keep bringing up the western hypocrisy for as long as Putin and Russia get criticized here. If you are that bothered by my bringing up incidents of American coups, invasions, breaking of international laws, support of terrorists etc, feel free to ignore my comments.

I think it is very relevant to this topic to highlight double standards of the west. As Putin himself did in his speech. Countries who have committed more atrocities around the world and have meddled in the sovereign affairs of other nations don't have the right to dictate terms about anything. That is laughably ridiculous. Which some people here fail to understand no matter how many times it is pointed out.

I will keep bringing up Iraq, where half a million people died (In the least estimate) in an invasion on a jumped up pretext and in violation of international law. Iraqis are still dying today. Just last week 30 Iraqis died in a roadside bomb. Those lives may not matter to the west (Because Iraq has always been a mess so who cares if 500,000 innocent men, women and children died right?) but it matters. The Russian army has massacred no one yet and the takeover of Crimea has been peaceful.

I will continue to criticize western meddling and involvement in what happened in Ukraine. They made this happen. If Ukraine splits, no one is more responsible than the US and EU.

Obama has never ordered the invasion of another country in his time as president. So calling him a hypocrite on this is bullshit.

Putin has also not murdered children using drones unlike Obama. So I think he is much better, yes. And he diffused the situation when Obama wanted war with Syria. Putin >>>> Obama for me. Of course if you are American or from the west, you are going to think Obama is great unlike Putin who is the devil. His actions support American hegemony around the world and continue to make the west rich. Who cares if children die in Pakistan and Yemen right? As long as America and the west is safe and secure. And apparently Putin is the number one threat to western security.

[Jackson5tributeband]

You're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! No, you're a hypocrite! HYPOCRITE!

:loud explosions in the background:

Are we all missing the bigger picture while we debate who's a hypocrite (myself included)

Tell me what sanctions did the U.S. face when it illegally (in terms of the UN conventions) invade Iraq on the pretext of made up bullshit? Oh yeah, that's right, none. There is no settled law enforced impartially, there are a bunch of arbitrarily enforced conventions that are used, for the most part, to maintain the United State's global military and economic dominance. The idea that the US would face trade and cultural sanctions, of the kind now being mooted against Russia, for getting up to shit that's way way worse is of course laughable. No one would think it possible, the question though is why not?

[Castel]

This is a weird argument.

The hypocrisy is pointed out, because many in the West believe that their governments ARE actually morally superior to that of Russia.

The hypocrisy is indeed pointed out to reveal that in fact, all governments pursue self interest, and to bring them all down to the same level.

Once this is acknowledged, then the hypocrisy becomes a non-issue.

Now, YOU may be in the group that are well aware of this truth, but I think the hypocrisy is continually thrown in the face not of those in your group, but rather in the face of those who are STILL trying to proclaim that the West has the moral high ground on this issue.

To conclude, the hypocrisy accusation is not meant to make the West look worse than Russia. It is to bring everyone down to the same level, so we can discuss the real issues here, which are geopolitical in nature, rather than nebulous issues of international law or the right of territorial integrity of this or that nation.

The problem is that you're assuming a naivete that I find hard to justify given the direction the last few threads went. The general response when this topic comes up is always:"why does this make X bad thing from Russia okay?", not a claim that America does no wrong.

It seems as if people are so eager to knock -the supposedly credulous-Americans down a peg that any American will do.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dicer,

There is a thread to discuss historic American crimes.

[Linsox]

I love it. "Hruuuuur duuuur Putin pwns Obama, Putin wrastles bears and Obama wears mom jeans."

Obama has never ordered the invasion of another country in his time as president. So calling him a hypocrite on this is bullshit.

Libya and Syria say hi. Based on your previous comment about Ukraine not involving Russia, I suggest you read http://www.dw.de/ukraine-and-russias-sibling-rivalry/a-17499961

Kiev (capital of Ukraine) is the cradle of Russian civilization...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Linsox,

Check out the last thread... that claim is debateable. Even if true the US is born of the UK and by extension London. Does that give us the right to determine UK foriegn policy?