Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Aloysius

Ukraine: Who is on the right side?

Recommended Posts

It was bound to happen, I also read today that the official line is: "Moscow does not command the troops without national insignia which have taken control of Crimea, besieging Ukrainian forces, and hence cannot order them back to bases." That is insulting :/

http://www.smh.com.au/world/crimea-votes-to-join-russia-as-us-moves-to-freeze-assets-20140306-hvggh.html#ixzz2vEb8FNUr

 

If I remember correctly, under international law, it doesn't matter if if they are wearing national insignia or not: effective command is the relevant test (although, the wearing of national insignia is strong evidence in favour of that test being satisfied). In other words, a pretty piss weak argument from Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It helps that the US effectively has control of the rest of Europe and that China couldn't distancing themselves more if they were on Mars.

 

EDIT: The Duma just "welcomed" Crimea into Russia, and dismissed US and EU sanctions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

This is where I call it: Welcome to Cold War 2.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a cold war in the sense that we want to keep them from trying to nuke us. If nukes are off the table (and I don't think they are, but who knows), we would steamroll Russia handily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the United States rhetoric (even as an American) repulsive. There is nothing more hypocritical than criticizing Russia for occupying the Crimea without the authorization of the Ukraine, when the United States will occupy anybody without their consent. Afghanistan and Iraq are the two obvious ones that come to mind. Did Russia threaten the US when it amassed troops in Saudi Arabia, not to this extent. I believe that the United States is making this a problem by how they are reacting. If the people of the Crimea want to become a part of Russia, what kind of democracy would the United States be if they did not support the will of the Crimean people? Many have compared this to appeasement, but the difference here is that the people from what we know want to be part of Russia. The right continue to attack Obama about his indecisiveness on the topic, when in fact he is doing too MUCH if anything. Just because Republicans get hard every time tensions flare, doesn't mean we need to hit the big red button without thinking things through. We are America, we need to focus on America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the United States rhetoric (even as an American) repulsive. There is nothing more hypocritical than criticizing Russia for occupying the Crimea without the authorization of the Ukraine, when the United States will occupy anybody without their consent. Afghanistan and Iraq are the two obvious ones that come to mind. Did Russia threaten the US when it amassed troops in Saudi Arabia, not to this extent. I believe that the United States is making this a problem by how they are reacting. If the people of the Crimea want to become a part of Russia, what kind of democracy would the United States be if they did not support the will of the Crimean people? Many have compared this to appeasement, but the difference here is that the people from what we know want to be part of Russia. The right continue to attack Obama about his indecisiveness on the topic, when in fact he is doing too MUCH if anything. Just because Republicans get hard every time tensions flare, doesn't mean we need to hit the big red button without thinking things through. We are America, we need to focus on America. 

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were different. We definitely had a valid casus belli in Afghanistan. Iraq is more debatable, but at least we had the courtesy to actually declare war on Iraq. In addition, both wars were the consequence of the 9/11 attacks, not Bush's desire to regain a region historically controlled by the US. Russia did not declare war when it invaded Crimea, and had no valid casus belli. They won't even acknowledge that it's their troops in Crimea.

 

Our troops are not in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi government's will, so that's a pointless comparison.

 

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Federal Republic that uses semi-democratic elections to choose two branches of its government. In addition, we now have rules about how an area of a country can split off and form its own country- look at South Sudan. The problem in Crimea about democracy is that there is currently no democratically elected government in Crimea. The Parliament was installed by pro-russian gunmen that stormed the parliament building. The referendum that's happening is happening impossibly quickly, so the results will not be anywhere near accurate. There is no "democracy" in Crimea right now, only the appearance of it. On top of that, being democratically elected is not the only thing that gives governments legitimacy. Legitimacy also comes from a respect of the rule of law, both within your country and internationally. The governments of Crimea and Russia are demonstrating that they couldn't care less about international law by doing this.

 

This IS appeasement. It's exactly the same, except that we're actually protesting when Russia expands. Their given reason for expanding into Crimea is EXACTLY the same as the one Germany used when it expanded: protecting members of their ethnicity. The people in Crimea are about 60% Russian anyways- the rest are Ukrainian and Tatar, who are vehemently opposed to leaving Ukraine. The fact is, we have no idea what percentage of the population of Crimea wants to stay in Ukraine and what percentage wants to rejoin Russia. We(the public) don't know much, if anything, about what the WHOLE population of Crimea wants.

 

To your last, very isolationist point, I say this: We are America, the world's last superpower. We hold the power to shape the world and make it a better place. We have a responsibility to wield that power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the previous post, its more than just America opposing what Russia is doing, and how it is doing it. I don't know of a single western power not seriously against what is going on. Armed troops have even been preventing UN inspectors from entering the region, Ukrainian TV stations are being pushed out by Russian state broadcasts.

 

What of the non-russian residents of Crimea, even if they are not the majority, they still have the right to be heard. I mean, it would be like having US citizens move into Nova Scotia to make a majority and then the US army rolling in to annex the place? Its just incredulous that this is happening in today's world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were different. We definitely had a valid casus belli in Afghanistan. Iraq is more debatable, but at least we had the courtesy to actually declare war on Iraq. In addition, both wars were the consequence of the 9/11 attacks, not Bush's desire to regain a region historically controlled by the US. Russia did not declare war when it invaded Crimea, and had no valid casus belli. They won't even acknowledge that it's their troops in Crimea.

 

 

 

We never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan, we still invaded. There are associates of al-Qaeda and the Taliban throughout the world, certainly in more countries than just Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't have a casus belli do invade France for instance if we locate an operative there. I would also like to point out Bush might not have gone to the region to control these areas physically, but we all know it was for the oil. 

 

Our troops are not in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi government's will, so that's a pointless comparison.

 

They were in 1990 when the US was about to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War and needed a place to stockpile and gather troops. We occupied a sovereign country for our own advancement. 

 

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Federal Republic that uses semi-democratic elections to choose two branches of its government. In addition, we now have rules about how an area of a country can split off and form its own country- look at South Sudan. The problem in Crimea about democracy is that there is currently no democratically elected government in Crimea. The Parliament was installed by pro-russian gunmen that stormed the parliament building. The referendum that's happening is happening impossibly quickly, so the results will not be anywhere near accurate. There is no "democracy" in Crimea right now, only the appearance of it. On top of that, being democratically elected is not the only thing that gives governments legitimacy. Legitimacy also comes from a respect of the rule of law, both within your country and internationally. The governments of Crimea and Russia are demonstrating that they couldn't care less about international law by doing this.

 
You are blinded by patriotism. The United States doesn't care for international law either, making it hypocritical to call Russia out on it. Furthermore, the people of the Crimea have the right to vote. If the voting is rigged, which is most likely not going to be the case since the majority of people favor the Russian- Leaning government. In the last election cycle the Crimea vote over 90% to the Pro-Russian candidate. . 

 

 
This IS appeasement. It's exactly the same, except that we're actually protesting when Russia expands. Their given reason for expanding into Crimea is EXACTLY the same as the one Germany used when it expanded: protecting members of their ethnicity. The people in Crimea are about 60% Russian anyways- the rest are Ukrainian and Tatar, who are vehemently opposed to leaving Ukraine. The fact is, we have no idea what percentage of the population of Crimea wants to stay in Ukraine and what percentage wants to rejoin Russia. We(the public) don't know much, if anything, about what the WHOLE population of Crimea wants.

 

That is a senseless point. Nobody ever gets what they totally want. So if Crimea become part of Russia, some of the people might not get their wish, what happens when the roles are reversed, some of the people still don't get their wish. Also, this is not appeasement. Obama is moving warships into the area, he is working with NATO and the UN to reach a resolution. As I said above the US doesn't need to get hard and bone the nuclear war button any time there are troop movements. Unlike after WW2, Obama is condemning the actions of Russia, and making small movements to show Putin. Any big response could cause a catastrophe. 

 

To your last, very isolationist point, I say this: We are America, the world's last superpower. We hold the power to shape the world and make it a better place. We have a responsibility to wield that power.

Every time the US tries to make the world a better place the only people that are in a better place are the defense contractors back home. The people of the United States don't benefit. Foreign countries don't benefit. Look at Iraq, we went there to help them get free from their dictator Sadam Hussein, and what happens?  Before our invasion Iraq had NEVER (yes I said NEVER) had a suicide bombing. Since our invasion 12,000 CIVILIANS have been killed by suicide bombings, and this doesn't include US troops. Every action has a reaction. Every time we tinker in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and more, there is only negative effects. Ask the Afghan citizens that have had family members killed in US drones strikes (all 3000+ of them) if it was worth it. Ask the Syrian people how the "help" they received from the United States saved them from being gassed by their own ruler. Ask the families of fallen US soldiers in the middle east about the guns that the CIA supplied the people who killed their sons and daughters in order to fight a proxy war against the USSR. Every action has a reaction, what reaction will occur when the US tries to police the Ukraine as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last official poll in Crimea had only 41% of the population voting to join Russia.

 

And I would be more inclined to agree with you about US hypocrisy if literally everyone that isn't Russia wasn't demanding that Russia stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree chunky, but everybody is hypocritical. They all let the US get away with all these human rights violations and invade sovereign nations with no repercussions. Its sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and we did all those things in the name of a legitimate cause: fighting terrorism. Russia's only goal in invading Crimea is annexing it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To your last, very isolationist point, I say this: We are America, the world's last superpower. We hold the power to shape the world and make it a better place. We have a responsibility to wield that power.

 

 

No.  We may be the last super power but not for long ? You know why ? because of exactly what has been happening for the last 10 years.  WE are in almost 20tril in debt.  WE are borrowing and cannot solve our own problems.  We shouldn't involve ourselves in everyone's business only involve ourselves in matters that will directly affect us.  Fix all the problems at home first. 

 

Yes, and we did all those things in the name of a legitimate cause: fighting terrorism. Russia's only goal in invading Crimea is annexing it. You're comparing apples to

 

oranges.

Iraq wasn't legitimate.  It was a waste of lives and money.  

The people of Crimea have legitimate concerns, they are worried about what is happening in their country.  Sure all the problems could be solved without Russia invading it but at the same time what if all the people in Crimea want to be part of Russia? that's a democracy.   I think the Russian invasion is wrong and the problems could be easily solved in a different way,  the new gov in Kiev should listen to the citizens in Crimea and address their concerns, possibly giving them more autonomy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the people in Crimea want to be part of Russia, then Russia should have no problem leaving and waiting for a real vote by a regional government that was elected by it's people instead of one appointed by armed gunmen. Since they aren't doing that, clearly they know that won't happen, and now that they have done what they have done, they have no choice but to annex Crimea or lose Sevastopol as a port, since there is no way the Ukraine lets them use it after this. The reason we (the US) need to be on alert is so we can get involved if Russia tries to take more than just the Ukraine, as every other country that borders the Ukraine is part of NATO, and we are treaty bound to defend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of Crimea have legitimate concerns, they are worried about what is happening in their country.  Sure all the problems could be solved without Russia invading it but at the same time what if all the people in Crimea want to be part of Russia? that's a democracy.

 

Much of Texas is fairly dissatisfied with the present way Washington is working, yet they're not trying to secede. Know why? Because they know they can wait until the next election to address their issues. In any democracy, there is no excuse for armed revolt of any kind- you can always vote out the people you don't like and vote in one that represent you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and we did all those things in the name of a legitimate cause: fighting terrorism. Russia's only goal in invading Crimea is annexing it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

"Fighting Terrorism" also known as setting up puppet governments to gain the advantage in the race for oil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, and we did all those things in the name of a legitimate cause: fighting terrorism. Russia's only goal in invading Crimea is annexing it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

"Fighting Terrorism" also known as setting up puppet governments to gain the advantage in the race for oil. 

 

DW, y u so narrow minded? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, and we did all those things in the name of a legitimate cause: fighting terrorism. Russia's only goal in invading Crimea is annexing it. You're comparing apples to oranges.

"Fighting Terrorism" also known as setting up puppet governments to gain the advantage in the race for oil. 

 

DW, y u so narrow minded? :P

 

I would argue I'm the open minded one in this discussion. Everybody is latching onto what the mainstream media is feeding them. There is always an ulterior motive. We were in Iraq before 9/11, we disregarded Bin Laden when he told us to stay out of the Middle East and that he could handle Hussein, what do we do? We invade. Then we wonder why anybody could ever attack the great savoir the United States. Every time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would counter that argument, and say that you've got to be joking to say that the USA went to war for the sole purpose of securing its oil supply. I'm not for a second suggesting it would not have played a role, but to credit it a the sole, or even most important, factor is narrow, in my view.

 

Regardless, there is little similarity between that war and what is happening in Crimea. In Iraq you had a dictator who was not only responsible for crimes against humanity, his children got in on the action too.

 

In the Ukraine you have a country in the midst of a fight to bring reform, which deposed its Russian puppet leader, only to then have Russia waltz in, install a new parliament and call for a referendum in one of its territories. Anyone who honestly believes that the current Crimean parliament, and the upcoming referendum, are in any way democratic, you're delusional.

 

Something of particular interest to me is the welfare of the Crimean Tartars. Expelled from their ancestral lands by Stalin, and having slowly returned over the years since, shouldn't their voice be heard above that of Russian immigrants who moved there to retire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would counter that argument, and say that you've got to be joking to say that the USA went to war for the sole purpose of securing its oil supply. I'm not for a second suggesting it would not have played a role, but to credit it a the sole, or even most important, factor is narrow, in my view.

 

Regardless, there is little similarity between that war and what is happening in Crimea. In Iraq you had a dictator who was not only responsible for crimes against humanity, his children got in on the action too.

 

In the Ukraine you have a country in the midst of a fight to bring reform, which deposed its Russian puppet leader, only to then have Russia waltz in, install a new parliament and call for a referendum in one of its territories. Anyone who honestly believes that the current Crimean parliament, and the upcoming referendum, are in any way democratic, you're delusional.

 

Something of particular interest to me is the welfare of the Crimean Tartars. Expelled from their ancestral lands by Stalin, and having slowly returned over the years since, shouldn't their voice be heard above that of Russian immigrants who moved there to retire?

 

I don't think it is for the sole purpose of oil. I believe it is for a mixture between oil, cleaning up the messes we have already made, and to supply the Military Industrial Complex with a goal to work towards. Furthermore, I do believe there are parallels between Iraq and Ukraine. The US went into Iraq under false pretenses, as did Russia into Crimea (hell they won't even acknowledge that they are in Crimea). The US had motives besides what is best for the Iraqis, as does Russia in the Ukraine. The US broke international law, as did Russia. The US will not recognize that they are doing anything wrong, as with Russia. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of Russia invading Ukraine, but the US is not in the position to police them given their track record. I do agree that the Crimean people should be allowed to vote in a safe environment regarding whether or not they want to join Russia. Honestly though, none of this would have began if the EU hadn't toyed with the Ukraine about something that they were never serious about. If there is to be any authority behind the actions taken against Russia in needs to be China specifically to calm Russia down. More than anything, the sides need to talk to each other, stop the deploying fighter jets and navy ships and actually get some work done. Both sides knows the other is just playing hardball, so stop the bs and find a resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is for a mixture between oil, cleaning up the messes we have already made, and to supply the Military Industrial Complex with a goal to work towards. Furthermore, I do believe there are parallels between Iraq and Ukraine. The US went into Iraq under false pretenses, as did Russia into Crimea (hell they won't even acknowledge that they are in Crimea). The US had motives besides what is best for the Iraqis, as does Russia in the Ukraine. The US broke international law, as did Russia. The US will not recognize that they are doing anything wrong, as with Russia. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of Russia invading Ukraine, but the US is not in the position to police them given their track record. 

 
I suppose this is where we differ. I see the base motivation for the conflict in Iraq as an attempt to do good, as misguided as it may have been. On the other hand, Russia isn't trying to improve the situation in the Ukraine, its trying to capitalise on an already bad situation.
 

I do agree that the Crimean people should be allowed to vote in a safe environment regarding whether or not they want to join Russia. Honestly though, none of this would have began if the EU hadn't toyed with the Ukraine about something that they were never serious about. If there is to be any authority behind the actions taken against Russia in needs to be China specifically to calm Russia down. More than anything, the sides need to talk to each other, stop the deploying fighter jets and navy ships and actually get some work done. Both sides knows the other is just playing hardball, so stop the bs and find a resolution. 

 

At least we can agree on some things! hehe

 

But you can hardly have blamed the EU for not really wanting to get involved with the old Ukraine govt, if anything they should be commended as an agent for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe it is for a mixture between oil, cleaning up the messes we have already made, and to supply the Military Industrial Complex with a goal to work towards. Furthermore, I do believe there are parallels between Iraq and Ukraine. The US went into Iraq under false pretenses, as did Russia into Crimea (hell they won't even acknowledge that they are in Crimea). The US had motives besides what is best for the Iraqis, as does Russia in the Ukraine. The US broke international law, as did Russia. The US will not recognize that they are doing anything wrong, as with Russia. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of Russia invading Ukraine, but the US is not in the position to police them given their track record. 

 
I suppose this is where we differ. I see the base motivation for the conflict in Iraq as an attempt to do good, as misguided as it may have been. On the other hand, Russia isn't trying to improve the situation in the Ukraine, its trying to capitalise on an already bad situation.
 

I do agree that the Crimean people should be allowed to vote in a safe environment regarding whether or not they want to join Russia. Honestly though, none of this would have began if the EU hadn't toyed with the Ukraine about something that they were never serious about. If there is to be any authority behind the actions taken against Russia in needs to be China specifically to calm Russia down. More than anything, the sides need to talk to each other, stop the deploying fighter jets and navy ships and actually get some work done. Both sides knows the other is just playing hardball, so stop the bs and find a resolution. 

 

At least we can agree on some things! hehe

 

But you can hardly have blamed the EU for not really wanting to get involved with the old Ukraine govt, if anything they should be commended as an agent for change.

 

The only thing I see here is that I will hold onto the fact that this is in some ways the EU's fault. Under no circumstances is the EU expected to admit Ukraine into the agreement, but what they did was go out of their way to hint to the Ukrainian people of the wonders it could do for the economy, leading them to believe they were being offered a spot in the EU. The EU had no intention of allowing them in (justifiably so). This is when the riots began and the government overthrown. Then Russia moves in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×