Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

recedite · 27-03-2014 9:23pm

I'm not against military invasions per se. It depends on whether people in the invaded region treat the invaders as liberators or occupiers. In this case, most people in Crimea see the Russians more as liberators, and most people in Kiev and Western Europe see them as occupiers. As Crimea is the invaded land, I give more weight to what people in Crimea think.
IMO law becomes irrelevant after a situation is militarised. War and law are like apples and oranges, two different things. It is possible for military action to be justified, but it will always be illegal from somebody's point of view.

In WWII, the Nazi regime came to an end when the Russians invaded Berlin. The Vichy regime in France ended when Allies invaded Normandy. Mussolini was strung up by Italians when the allies invaded Italy. If the people welcome the invaders by cheering them in the streets, and use the opportunity to rid themselves of a despot, I see nothing wrong with an invasion. Using these examples, and the earlier example of Kosovo, is not "whataboutery".
Whataboutery would be if I said, "yes invasion is wrong, but what about kosovo; Nato are just as bad". Whereas I am saying military action was justified in both Crimea and Kosovo, because both regions wanted independence from a larger entity that refused to allow it. Comparing the modus operandi of the two operations, the Russians did it much more cleanly and with almost no loss of life compared to Kosovo. Crimea was of course easier than any of the recent Nato operations, but that is because the Russians were welcomed, whereas Nato often go where they are not welcome. Trying to say Kosovo was legal, but Crimea is illegal is hypocrisy though.

marienbad · 27-03-2014 9:53pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm not against military invasions per se. It depends on whether people in the invaded region treat the invaders as liberators or occupiers. In this case, most people in Crimea see the Russians more as liberators, and most people in Kiev and Western Europe see them as occupiers. As Crimea is the invaded land, I give more weight to what people in Crimea think.
IMO law becomes irrelevant after a situation is militarised. War and law are like apples and oranges, two different things. It is possible for military action to be justified, but it will always be illegal from somebody's point of view.

In WWII, the Nazi regime came to an end when the Russians invaded Berlin. The Vichy regime in France ended when Allies invaded Normandy. Mussolini was strung up by Italians when the allies invaded Italy. If the people welcome the invaders by cheering them in the streets, and use the opportunity to rid themselves of a despot, I see nothing wrong with an invasion. Using these examples, and the earlier example of Kosovo, is not "whataboutery".
Whataboutery would be if I said, "yes invasion is wrong, but what about kosovo; Nato are just as bad". Whereas I am saying military action was justified in both Crimea and Kosovo, because both regions wanted independence from a larger entity that refused to allow it. Comparing the modus operandi of the two operations, the Russians did it much more cleanly and with almost no loss of life compared to Kosovo. Crimea was of course easier than any of the recent Nato operations, but that is because the Russians were welcomed, whereas Nato often go where they are not welcome. Trying to say Kosovo was legal, but Crimea is illegal is hypocrisy though.

This just getting bizarre at this stage , So would you be ok with London seceding from the UK following a plebiscite ?

And this time can you just give an answer instead of another load of whataboutery

recedite · 27-03-2014 10:40pm

The smallest sustainable independent unit is about the size of a province. A city needs its hinterland. The ancient Greeks had independent city-states, and we may see more of them in the future, emerging from within larger countries.
I am OK with N. Ireland, Scotland, Crimea, and Catalonia having the right to self-determination.

marienbad · 27-03-2014 11:23pm

recedite wrote: »

The smallest sustainable independent unit is about the size of a province. A city needs its hinterland. The ancient Greeks had independent city-states, and we may see more of them in the future, emerging from within larger countries.
I am OK with N. Ireland, Scotland, Crimea, and Catalonia having the right to self-determination.

Again more deflection , what about Andorra, Monaco, Singapore? But lets rephrase the question .

Are you Ok with London and the south east of England having a vote and decide to secede ? Or Leinster ?

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 12:32am

Whoa! - so that’s what it feels like to read whole thread.
I know this will get me in trouble with Robin (must have a pint soon btw!) but I can't really agree with the mainline opinion here for a number of reasons. Before I start a little confession - my wife is Russian and I’ve been there many times (although probably not as many times as Robin) my wife’s parents (her mother was a history teacher, now retired, her Father a Russian Language teacher (who was born in the Ukraine) visited recently so this subject has been truly been exhausted here which is why I was delighted to see a thread on boards about it!
Firstly, lest it be horribly misconstrued through this post, Putin is an evil bastard and modern Russia is pretty twisted place - of that there can be little doubt. Secondly Russia’s “invasion” is no doubt illegal under international law.
Thirdly the Referendum was questionable in many ways and its outcome, although similar to 1991 vote

Results
Choice Votes %
For 1,343,825 94.30
Against 81,254 5.70
Invalid/blank votes 15,910 –
Total 1,441,019 100
Registered voters/turnout 1,770,841 81.37
Source: KIA News

seems to have been, at the very least, exaggerated.

However (here it comes, watch out) it’s not exactly clear-cut from either side. I haven’t seen it mentioned (apologies if I have missed it) here that Crimea used to be a part of Russia only 50 years ago; there may be good reason for this – perhaps the debaters here find it irrelevant now, and that it may well be, nonetheless it remains one of the factors that I believe adds complication to this whole process. Some still question Khrushchev’s (having been strongly linked to Ukraine his whole life from Birth - some even consider him Ukrainian) right to give Crimea away. He claimed technically it was so that Ukraine would manage Crimea administratively and that it made more sense geographically.

Secondly Crimea is made up of about 60% Russian people with Russian as their main language (something threatened by recent Ukrainian laws). So this invasion differs drastically to the classic invasion scenario we may well be used to; Americans in Iraq for example. These caveats make the situation vastly more complex – something I think poor Recedite has gone to great pains to establish and rather unsuccessfully too it appears.

Thirdly, the intellectually lazy objection as highlighted by the professor Neil Robinson – just because America and the UK have committed similar breaches of international law doesn't mean that Vlad is off the hook. Well, I don’t think anyone’s is so lazy as to actually infer that this objection is an excuse for Putin to do what he does; I think this objection has been purposefully misconstrued so that commentators firmly perched on the Western side of things don’t have to strain their collective consciences too hard. The point of the objection is that America and Europe are using an international body (NATO) as a platform to threaten Russia with sanctions when both of these nations have committed, are presently committing, acts in violation of international law; Guantanamo bay, use of drones, invasion of Iraq etc. Yes these points are painfully relevant here because international law is the law we are using to judge Russia. It goes beyond hypocrisy to hold others accountable to laws that we ourselves ignore and because most people are ignorant of the history American and European media, suffering from further short term memory loss, are getting a free pass at fish in a barrel type propaganda against Russia.

The history of the region, the complexity of its relationship with Ukraine and Ukraine’s current political upheaval have all conspired to make the situation endlessly complex. I’m not sure all contributors here fully appreciate that - particularly if they can only see one side. The speculation of US involvement in the Ukrainian revolution may not be crazy either.

Putin has overplayed his position in retaliation for losing with Yankukovych. Obviously though Russia aren’t afraid of US and European backlash that would’ve been predicted and analysed in advance of landing troops in Crimea.
By the way it’s just come over the wireless the IMF want to give Ukraine a bailout as Tymoshneko (now decriminalized under recent Ukrainian constitutional overhauls – makes the illegal referendum look less dodgy that:)) So yeah, further US involvement here – although a bailout was always on the cards through joining with Europe. It’s certainly not an open and shut case of Russia bad, West less so. More a recurrence of the recent problem of Russia too bold, West not happy.

marienbad · 28-03-2014 12:41am

Did Russia along with the USA and others guarantee by treaty Ukraine's borders as a condition of them giving up their nukes ?

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 12:56am

marienbad wrote: »

Did Russia along with the USA and others guarantee by treaty Ukraine's borders as a condition of them giving up their nukes ?

They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.

marienbad · 28-03-2014 1:16am

stevejazzx wrote: »

They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.

There is no such danger. The invasion of Iraq Afghanistan were also wrong ,but that is also irrelevant - just because I give Bob a punch in the face doesn't mean you can give Jack a kick in the nuts .

Why is that so hard to understand ?

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 1:25am

marienbad wrote: »

There is no such danger. The invasion of Iraq Afghanistan were also wrong ,but that is also irrelevant - just because I give Bob a punch in the face doesn't mean you can give Jack a kick in the nuts .

Why is that so hard to understand ?

I covered this point in detail above
One doesn't justify the other - absolutely not, of course not; that's a given. No one here has argued this. The repetition of this painfully obvious strawman strikes me as somewhat desperate.
Its when you forget about punching Bob and start criticising me over kicking Jack in the nuts and not only that you're now telling the whole neighbourhood that I'm the violent one when this whole silly metaphor was your idea to begin with:). Hope you see the distinction.

marienbad · 28-03-2014 1:30am

stevejazzx wrote: »

I covered this point in detail above
One doesn't justify the other - absolutely not, of course not; that's a given. No one here has argued this. The repetition of this painfully obvious strawman strikes me as somewhat desperate.
Its when you forget about punching Bob and start criticising me over kicking Jack in the nuts and not only that you're now telling the whole neighbourhood that I'm the violent one when this whole silly metaphor was your idea to begin with:). Hope you see the distinction.

No I don't sorry.

This invasion taken was wrong . Do you agree with that ?

The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 1:38am

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't sorry.

This invasion taken was wrong . Do you agree with that ?

The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.

Yes of course I agree it is illegal - with opinions as highlighted above.
Of course other invasions are relevant when those trying to mitigate and referee are themselves involved in similar breaches of international law. An invasion by one country into another is not an easy affair to isolate; politically, morally, historically etc etc. You need to understand this or else accept a double standard.

marienbad · 28-03-2014 1:43am

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes of course I agree it is illegal - with opinions as highlighted above.
Of course other invasions are relevant when those trying mitigate and referee are involved. An invasion by one country into another is not an easy affair to isolate; politically, morally, historically etc etc. You need to understand this or else accept a double standard.

Why do I need to understand anything ? This is just more whataboutery.

Russia guaranteed by Treaty Ukraine's borders a couple of decades ago. It makes no difference what the population percentages are, If Russia wants to renegotiate that treaty , then do so.

recedite · 28-03-2014 11:26am

marienbad wrote: »

The fact that other invasions were wrong is irrelevant to that fact.

The relevance is that Obama and Cameron are the ones shouting loudest about the "illegality" of this invasion.
You can argue that both Kosovo and Crimea were wrong, or that both were right, but it is inconsistent to argue one was right and one was wrong.

marienbad · 28-03-2014 12:40pm

recedite wrote: »

The relevance is that Obama and Cameron are the ones shouting loudest about the "illegality" of this invasion.
You can argue that both Kosovo and Crimea were wrong, or that both were right, but it is inconsistent to argue one was right and one was wrong.

Is there no end to your whataboutery. !! I have never mentioned Obama Cameron .

The invasion of Crimea was wrong - do you accept that ? yes or no ?

It was wrong in and of itself, no mitigating factors elsewhere.

If others say it was wrong while having done the same themselves that doesn't make it right,it makes them hypocrites .That's how it works.

Brian Shanahan · 28-03-2014 2:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

This just getting bizarre at this stage , So would you be ok with London seceding from the UK following a plebiscite ?

Just to go off topic within a thread which was created because of off-topic musings, under UK law the City of London is essentially a state within a state, allowing it to ignore most of the legislation coming out of Westminster, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of being within the UK. So why would London ever try to secede, without the UK government first killing off the anomolies which allow it to be the worlds premier offshore tax haven.

Brian Shanahan · 28-03-2014 2:46pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

They did and I see your point I think - the danger for any pro Russian commentators may be in not seeing Crimea as a necessarily exclusive Ukrainian land. it is, at least it was. There is also a danger in not not knowing the history the geography of the region and to think of Crimea as an exclusively historical Ukrainian land; such is the complexity of this situation.
There is also a danger in forgetting about UN resolutions and invasions into other countries by Russia's main critic here.

Given that the current dictatorship* in Crimea is wanting to carry out a mass eviction of the Crimean Tartars and repossession of all their land in the province, I cannot see how Russia can legitimately play the "but the land was ours first" card. The Crimean Tartars in that case would have a claim far more valid than Russia's.

*Well what else do you call a "government" imposed at the point of a Kalashnikov, literally?

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 4:55pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Given that the current dictatorship* in Crimea is wanting to carry out a mass eviction of the Crimean Tartars and repossession of all their land in the province, I cannot see how Russia can legitimately play the "but the land was ours first" card. The Crimean Tartars in that case would have a claim far more valid than Russia's.

*Well what else do you call a "government" imposed at the point of a Kalashnikov, literally?

Hi Brian,

I think the paragraph above suffers from a lack of context.

article with link below wrote:

The Tatars make up 12% of Crimea.
Many Crimean Tatars have taken over unclaimed land as squatters by building houses, farms and mosques. Ukrainian authorities have in the past failed to settle the land disputes.

LINK

They are not being asked to vacate all their land - only part and are being offered land elsewhere. Leaders from Tatarstan met recently with Tatar leaders in Crimea

article with link below wrote:

Earlier this week, Rustam Minnikhanov, President of Russia’s Republic Tatarstan and emissary of the Kremlin, arrived in Crimea to meet with Tatar leaders, likely reiterating restraint following recent clashes with the local Russian population over Russian intervention in Ukraine. The visit culminated in the signing of a cooperation agreement with the recently installed, pro-Russian Prime Minister of Crimea, Sergei Aksionov. Both leaders promised to pursue closer economic and cultural ties between the two autonomous republics in the coming weeks.

Significantly, Minnikhanov declared that the new partnership not only aims to promote increased collaboration on investment, tourism, sports, education, and health care but also moral support, “The Crimean Tatars are our brothers. They lived through a great tragedy; we cannot be indifferent to their fate. Most important today is to ensure calm, interethnic and interreligious harmony in Crimea. This is the problem that now confronts us all.”

LINK

The above may just be platitudes admittedly but the situation is a far cry from what the propagandists are claiming - lets see what happens in the coming months.

Regarding the land itself - it's very difficult accept a standard idea of occupation when significantly most of Crimea favor reunification with Russia with Crimea itself being made up of 60% of essentially ethnic Russians.
Russia's excuse for relocating the Crimean Tatars was their cooperation with Nazis in world war two - something which has its own complexities depending on what you believe. Crimean Tatar accounts of the mass deportation that resulted after the war are indeed horrendous. If Russia handles this new episode just as badly the whole world will be watching and I genuinely hope that Russia and Putin suffer as result if that is the case.

In 1991 94% of Crimeans, including roughly 40% Tatars voted to reestablish themselves as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. No real dispute of the land existed prior to Kruschevs handing over of the land to the Ukraine - then very much under the rule of Moscow - so to claim Crimea as Tatar land is a little disingenuous.

By the way here is another article of recent land grabs for even greater context.

Brian Shanahan · 28-03-2014 6:23pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hi Brian,

I think the paragraph above suffers from a lack of context.

So because the Tartars are a minority the Kremlin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen now ok?

Oh, no wait, it wasn't ok back in the original Nazi conception of the plan when they were clearing Jewish minorities off the land.

Seriously, how can you condone genocide?

wretcheddomain · 28-03-2014 6:31pm

As someone who has spent the time to navigate through the arguments of the last 120 posts, and who hitherto had a very vague idea of what exactly was going on in the Crimea, I can clearly see a trend amongst the posters.

There is the factual and objective (relatively speaking) side who put forth facts and coherent arguments (most prominently from Robin) and then there is the RT echochamber who will do anything to condone, or water down, Putin's behaviour.

The latter group, almost verbatim, quote RT and its presenters (particularly the grotesque Peter Lavelle and his diabolical talk show) and come up with excuses or possibilities to justify Russian aggression in the Crimea.

Another consistent theme also reared its ugly head, and regularly this theme appears: comparing Russian foreign policy with that of the US. These irrelevant red herrings, at maximum, expose the US as hypocritical. However, exposing the US as hypocritical does in no way whitewash the actions of the Putinites. A more extreme version I regularly encounter with Putinites is when you criticise Russian foreign policy and get accused of being a "Zionist". These red herrings serve no function in the merits or otherwise of Russian policy.

As somebody who came into this discussion slightly ambivalent about the situation, it's absolutely crystal clear how the full weight of condemnation falls hard onto the shoulders of Vladimir Putin. Any other version is skewed by RT propaganda or some other such nonsense.

stevejazzx · 28-03-2014 6:35pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So because the Tartars are a minority the Kremlin's policy of Lebensraum nach Westen now ok?

Oh, no wait, it wasn't ok back in the original Nazi conception of the plan when they were clearing Jewish minorities off the land.

Seriously, how can you condone genocide?

Condone genocide?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Truly amazed, if a little disturbed.

Steve

robindch · 28-03-2014 7:05pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] We are at the verge of having another Hitler on our hands right at this very moment, and the Ukraine is the Czecho-Slovakia of the early 21st century.

While certain parts of the comparison are arguable, there are too many unhappy connotations to make it palatable overall. So, no need to descend either to godwinning the thread, or to the level of the Russian, and pro-Russian Crimean, political systems which are still describing the (generally legitimate) government in Kiev as Nazis.

Thanking you.

recedite · 28-03-2014 8:09pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Given that the current dictatorship* in Crimea is wanting to carry out a mass eviction of the Crimean Tartars and repossession of all their land in the province, I cannot see how Russia can legitimately play the "but the land was ours first" card. The Crimean Tartars in that case would have a claim far more valid than Russia's.

*Well what else do you call a "government" imposed at the point of a Kalashnikov, literally?

The Russians are not saying it was theirs first, they are there because the vast majority of Crimeans want to re-join the Russian Federation. That is the basis for their claim.

But long ago, well before it was Russian territory, it was ruled by the Ottoman Turks. Those were "the good old days" for the Tatars.
So, given that the Turkish claim is older than that of Ukraine, and given that Istanbul is as close as Kiev, why are you not insisting that Turkey is the rightful sovereign?

I notice you are no longer claiming that the Tartars are being expelled from Crimea, which is some progress at least.
IMO any individual Tartar who was dispossessed by Stalin, and then returned to his original house or patch of land in Crimea should get it back, plus compensation for the pain and suffering.
Any other chancers who just showed up from other regions and squatted on random public land should get the same treatment we give to the "travellers" here; move them on and provide them with alternative basic accomodation or a halting site in a designated area.

You say the govt. is a dictatorship, but are they not the same deputies who were elected to the Parliament before the invasion? They simply elected to replace the previous prime minister, who ironically was a stooge of the previous (Russian backed) prime minister of Ukraine, Yanukovych. In other words, Kiev would have wanted to replace him sooner or later anyway, but obviously with someone other than the guy the Crimeans chose for themselves.

wretcheddomain · 28-03-2014 9:09pm

recedite wrote: »

You say the govt. is a dictatorship, but are they not the same deputies who were elected to the Parliament before the invasion? They simply elected to replace the previous prime minister, who ironically was a stooge of the previous (Russian backed) prime minister of Ukraine, Yanukovych. In other words, Kiev would have wanted to replace him sooner or later anyway, but obviously with someone other than the guy the Crimeans chose for themselves.

...as opposed to the pro-Russian stooge they've instated instead?

Hotblack Desiato · 28-03-2014 9:35pm

recedite wrote: »

but that is because the Russians were welcomed, whereas Nato often go where they are not welcome.

You are either confusing the actions of certain NATO member countries with NATO as an organisation, or being completely disingenuous.

Brian Shanahan · 29-03-2014 6:01pm

robindch wrote: »

While certain parts of the comparison are arguable, there are too many unhappy connotations to make it palatable overall. So, no need to descend either to godwinning the thread, or to the level of the Russian, and pro-Russian Crimean, political systems which are still describing the (generally legitimate) government in Kiev as Nazis.

Thanking you.

I'm honestly not happy about it myself, but an almost exact parallel is still an almost exact parallel, even when it is unpalaltable.

robindch · 31-03-2014 2:43pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm honestly not happy about it myself, but an almost exact parallel is still an almost exact parallel, even when it is unpalaltable.

I think the comparison with Hitler is invidious and inflammatory, as any comparison with Hitler is. There's probably a greater and more useful parallel with the breakup of Yugoslavia and the wars of secession that accompanied it. Though I think that most people have mercifully forgotten most of the details of that especially nasty conflict.

BTW, allowing for some journalistic tally-ho, here's Nigel Farage explaining that he admires Putin and allows himself to excuse Putin's pre-emptive "reaction":

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/farage-i-admire-putin

recedite · 31-03-2014 3:50pm

You'd need to be specific about what part of Czechoslovakia you mean.

Its widely considered that the punitive terms of the Versailles treaty at the end of WWI sowed the seeds of WW11. Apart from being billed for the war reparations, the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Prussia also left large numbers (millions) of ethnic Germans in new countries, mainly Slavic ones. A good chunk of Austria went to the Czechs, a good chunk of Hungary went to Slovakia, Prussia mostly ended up in Poland, and France got Alsace-Loraine. What was left of Austria was forbidden from joining with Germany.

It was pretty much inevitable that these bits of Germany would gradually try to re-unite, like some unstable chemical elements re-forming themselves into a stable chemical compound. The problem was that the nazis went way beyond that, annexing much wider areas where they were definitely not wanted.

So when people talk about the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, as a precursor to WWII, you have to realise that these actions did not cause WWII. In the opinion of the British and the French at the time, these annexations, which were generally supported by the local population, would in fact help to de-fuse the situation, which was an entirely reasonable opinion to take.

Unfortunately Hitler was not a reasonable man, and his subsequent actions in taking over the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland were unreasonable and unjustified. Those were the actions that set off WWII.

Brian Shanahan · 31-03-2014 4:02pm

robindch wrote: »

I think the comparison with Hitler is invidious and inflammatory, as any comparison with Hitler is.

And I think that Hitler is not a unique evil, and that his evil has been replicated many times since. To use your Yugoslavia example, what's the sole difference between the SS Totenkopf brigades and Arkan's Tigers?

Simply that the latter didn't have the access to the equiment and materials to set up gas chambers when they went about their mission of causing the genocide of Bosnian Muslims and Croats, instead sticking to the Totenkopfs' early tactic (immediately after the invasion of Poland) of digging mass graves, lining up their victims in front and machine-gunning them into the graves.

The parallels are striking and horrific when you care to look, but not looking just allows the evil to more easily flourish.

stevejazzx · 31-03-2014 10:36pm

It is of no surprise to find an [alleged] racist and homophobe like Farage supporting Putin. It is somewhat surprising however - and perhaps a little ironic, to find Putin's Russia being likened to Nazi Germany though; the current administration in Moscow only a couple of generations away from the Russians that defeated Hitler and who lost 20+ million Russians in the process.
Admittedly with Russia's intervention in Georgia and now this recent land grab in the black sea they certainly aren't doing themselves any favours but I find the Nazi comparison a little troubling and rather unsubstantiated. There is news in the wind (from an extremely unreliable source it must be said) that Putin wishes to regain Finland (I thought he'd be too busy invading Ukraine but there you go). If any of this were to happen (it won't!) then we'd perhaps have a comparison.

I don't believe anyone in this thread actually supports any of the corrupt policies of the current Russian administration or indeed its head puppet Putin but I do find some of the opinions here a little and unbalanced and inconsiderate; I mean at least acknowledge the US they have been trying very hard.

robindch · 31-03-2014 11:08pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

It is of no surprise to find an [alleged] racist and homophobe like Farage supporting Putin. It is somewhat surprising however - and perhaps a little ironic, to find Putin's Russia being likened to Nazi Germany though; the current administration in Moscow only a couple of generations away from the Russians that defeated Hitler and who lost 20+ million Russians in the process.

It's not ironic, it's just inappropriate, as any comparison to Hitler is.

The Russians certainly did lose millions during WWII, but one could spend a very long time indeed arguing about how many of those died owing to the suicidal military, domestic and economic policies of Stalin, and how many were actually killed by the German military and their secret police.

But whether the comparison is appropriate or not, there certainly are unhappy parallels - Hitler invaded the Sudetenland while claiming he was "protecting" the "rights" of ethnic Germans in the region while the West looked on and washed their collective hands of it. Putin invaded Crimea for a very similar reason and was greeted with a similar response. The parallels end there and they are unrelated to the generational difference between the current occupants of the Kremlin and their predecessors who managed, at an eye-watering human cost, to defeat Hitler in the east.

Putin is a far too cold, vindictive, aggressive and dangerous a man to run as febrile and politically naive as Russia, but he certainly made the correct political judgement in seeing that Crimea was his for the taking. So he took it and the Russian population, by and large, greeted his theft-at-gunpoint with unlimited amounts of flag-waving and the kind of overt, howling nationalism that may well prove difficult to contain internally, and more worryingly, externally.

stevejazzx · 01-04-2014 12:07am

robindch wrote: »

It's not ironic, it's just inappropriate, as any comparison to Hitler is.

The Russians certainly did lose millions during WWII, but one could spend a very long time indeed arguing about how many of those died owing to the suicidal military, domestic and economic policies of Stalin, and how many were actually killed by the German military and their secret police.

But whether the comparison is appropriate or not, there certainly are unhappy parallels - Hitler invaded the Sudetenland while claiming he was "protecting" the "rights" of ethnic Germans in the region while the West looked on and washed their collective hands of it. Putin invaded Crimea for a very similar reason and was greeted with a similar response. The parallels end there and they are unrelated to the generational difference between the current occupants of the Kremlin and their predecessors who managed, at an eye-watering human cost, to defeat Hitler in the east.

Putin is a far too cold, vindictive, aggressive and dangerous a man to run as febrile and politically naive as Russia, but he certainly made the correct political judgement in seeing that Crimea was his for the taking. So he took it and the Russian population, by and large, greeted his theft-at-gunpoint with unlimited amounts of flag-waving and the kind of overt, howling nationalism that may well prove difficult to contain internally, and more worryingly, externally.

In general agreement with much of the above but again having to note some provisions. The Sudeten crisis, although having certain similarities was vastly different and was clearly exploited by Hitler as a pretext for war. Does anyone actually believe that Russia wants to go war with Ukraine, Poland or Finland? I can't see a motive for that or even a will as it would be political and economic suicide for them.
And even with the first-hand exposure to the modern Russian zealots that I've had, I can say they are far from being a stupid people and very far removed from the single mindedness of the Soviet era; now very much a world weary people aware and critical of their own leadership.
Saying that I do completely agree about internal Russian flag waving; it had unhappy parallels to Iraq and Afghanistan for me - thankfully however, there have been very few casualties in this conflict so far. Long may that continue and here's to hoping the Putin puts his &**& back in his trousers.

recedite · 01-04-2014 4:48pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

... The Sudeten crisis, although having certain similarities was vastly different and was clearly exploited by Hitler as a pretext for war.

I don't agree with that at all, because the Sudeten situation did not lead to war. Hitler was probably disappointed that the British and French agreed to let him have Sudetenland, because he actually lost the pretext for war then. The invasion of other (Slavic) parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland subsequently led to war.

In many ways the Crimean and Sudeten situations were similar to the way GDR East Germany peacefully seceded from the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and within a year had been "annexed" by popular vote into Germany, ie re-drawing borders is not in itself necessarily harmful.

Meanwhile Nato makes the next move.
The US will now push to have those missile bases built in former eastern Bloc countries. If the people can be scared enough, they will acquiesce.

stevejazzx · 03-04-2014 11:01pm

recedite wrote: »

I don't agree with that at all, because the Sudeten situation did not lead to war. Hitler was probably disappointed that the British and French agreed to let him have Sudetenland, because he actually lost the pretext for war then. The invasion of other (Slavic) parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland subsequently led to war.

In many ways the Crimean and Sudeten situations were similar to the way GDR East Germany peacefully seceded from the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and within a year had been "annexed" by popular vote into Germany, ie re-drawing borders is not in itself necessarily harmful.

Meanwhile Nato makes the next move.
The US will now push to have those missile bases built in former eastern Bloc countries. If the people can be scared enough, they will acquiesce.

Ok Recedite - technically speaking - it did not lead directly to the start of WW2 but their (Germany's) continued occupation and annexations of Sudetenland leading up to 1939 can hardly be ignored and registers as a major contributing factor.
The idea of the comparison at hand here (between Putin and Hitler) is, presumably, to state that if Putin were he go to further into Ukraine, Poland or Finland that he would force NATO's hand and then we'd potentially have WW3.
It is all bit tenuous as Hitler had major racial and ideological platforms that are not fulfilled by the comparison but it does make for a nice headline

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/uk-ukraine-crisis-germany-russia-idUKBREA3213620140403

robindch · 07-04-2014 2:32pm

Latest - Pro-Russian "protesters" attack and take control of regional parliament buildings in Donetsk, Lugunsk and Kharkov.

The protesters occupying the Donetsk parliament vote for a referendum on independence for Donetsk for 11th May. The same men also call for Russia to invade to protect them from the government in Kiev. Current state is the other two cities is unclear, but it seems that Lugunsk may do something similar, while protesters appear to have been removed from the building in Kharkov.

The interim president of Ukraine claims that this is being done under the direct control of Moscow and vows to take decisive action.

*unbelievable*

marienbad · 07-04-2014 2:52pm

robindch wrote: »

Latest - Pro-Russian "protesters" attack and take control of regional parliament buildings in Donetsk, Lugunsk and Kharkov.

The protesters occupying the Donetsk parliament vote for a referendum on independence for Donetsk for 11th May. The same men also call for Russia to invade to protect them from the government in Kiev. Current state is the other two cities is unclear, but it seems that Lugunsk may do something similar, while protesters appear to have been removed from the building in Kharkov.

The interim president of Ukraine claims that this is being done under the direct control of Moscow and vows to take decisive action.

*unbelievable*

Any comment recidite ?

stevejazzx · 07-04-2014 3:49pm

marienbad wrote: »

Any comment recidite ?

They don't hang around anyway!:eek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRJ1YqjMu3s

Tanslation

stevejazzx · 07-04-2014 3:58pm

Considering they are now looking for peace keeping troops from Putin the following clip (from Yes Prime Minister) is a little painful

starts at 7.03 for reference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diuQiXt5qE4

http://youtu.be/diuQiXt5qE4

robindch · 07-04-2014 4:14pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Tanslation

From the translation:

Protesters wrote:

Territory of the republic can not be changed without the consent of its citizens.

Presumably this doesn't apply to the Republic of Ukraine.

Edit - Just read to the end of that document. There's not a single sentence which doesn't betray breathtaking delusion, cynicism and hypocrisy. Even by Russian standards, it's appalling.

stevejazzx · 07-04-2014 4:35pm

robindch wrote: »

From the translation:Presumably this doesn't apply to the Republic of Ukraine.

I'm not even sure how they think they can make the process 'work' locally!

Hotblack Desiato · 07-04-2014 9:45pm

robindch wrote: »

*unbelievable*

Not really. *slaps sarcasm detector*

Turtwig · 07-04-2014 9:50pm

What would makes things really interesting - and scary!- is if pro-Russian demonstrators took control of gov buildings in a city in another Eastern Bloc country e.g Lithuania.

recedite · 07-04-2014 10:40pm

marienbad wrote: »

Any comment recidite ?

Only what I said before;

recedite wrote: »

the Maidan crowd had their chance to unify Ukraine and they blew it with their uber-nationalistic rhetoric. They pushed Crimea (and possibly the eastern regions) into Putin's embrace....
In fairness we did the same 100 years ago, we had our chance and we blew it. John Redmond may well have had the ability to create a united Ireland in the long term, but after 1916 the attitude of the people polarized, North and South.

There is an interesting psychological flaw in peoples minds which causes moderates to back extremists when the chips are down. The fear of extremists in the opposite camp gaining control drives people much more than the desire to see moderates in their own camp gain power. .

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Russians have had a couple of divisions on standby for the last month or so, only about 30km to the east. Nato have announced their intention to bolster the Ukraine military, but that will take time. It took them about 8 years to "bolster" the Georgian military, and even then they weren't much good.
Ideally some kind of authorititive world peacekeeping body would step in and arbitrate the situation, but the world lacks such a body.

marienbad · 07-04-2014 11:26pm

recedite wrote: »

Only what I said before;

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Russians have had a couple of divisions on standby for the last month or so, only about 30km to the east. Nato have announced their intention to bolster the Ukraine military, but that will take time. It took them about 8 years to "bolster" the Georgian military, and even then they weren't much good.
Ideally some kind of authorititive world peacekeeping body would step in and arbitrate the situation, but the world lacks such a body.

So your only comment is we need to 'arbitrate the situation' !

For fcuk sake where are your principles or even a sense of right and wrong ?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-04-2014 12:26am

Jernal wrote: »

What would makes things really interesting - and scary!- is if pro-Russian demonstrators took control of gov buildings in a city in another Eastern Bloc country e.g Lithuania.

NATO member state, so they wouldn't dare...

...or maybe they would. Watch the Yes Minister video. Would the UK or US really go to war for Lithuania? Who knows. Would they push the nuclear button for Lithuania? Hardly. T-90s will be on the Baltic coast before they can do anything.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2014 10:34am

marienbad wrote: »

For fcuk sake where are your principles or even a sense of right and wrong ?

Perhaps it would help if we had a definitive example of 'right' and the current international body or country that is adhering to that 'sense of right' as you call it.
Again this is not a defense in any way of Putins or policies or perhaps a better word; insanity - it is a call for clarity of the overall situation.
I'm also not, in any way whatsoever, seeking to use one wrong to dissolve another but rather establish the setting as you it. This would be useful for debate; we may even be able to stop misunderstanding one other.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2014 10:37am

ninja900 wrote: »

NATO member state, so they wouldn't dare...

...or maybe they would. Watch the Yes Minister video. Would the UK or US really go to war for Lithuania? Who knows. Would they push the nuclear button for Lithuania? Hardly. T-90s will be on the Baltic coast before they can do anything.

'Peace Keepers' on way I imagine - madness

robindch · 08-04-2014 10:39am

ninja900 wrote: »

Would the UK or US really go to war for Lithuania?

They're certainly treaty-obliged to do so. But given the US + UK have done little more than gently wave the Budapest Memorandum at Russia, one can't help but wonder whether they'd treat a more serious treaty with equal carelessness. Perhaps not.

Back on the font-line, Russia told Ukraine not to use force in Eastern Ukraine. This morning, Ukraine used force to eject armed separatists from a regional administration building in Kharkov, while informal reports from Donetsk suggest that the Republic of Donetsk, formed yesterday, might have dissolved itself (the surprised tone of the note, btw, suggests that somebody's mum rang up and read the riot act). It's hard to separate myth from reality, horror from farce.

Here's a fairly well-written article describing what's up now and what is possible to happen over the next few weeks, unless the Russians deescalate:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/04/07/putins-attack-on-ukraine-began-today-what-this-means-for-europe-and-the-us/

robindch · 08-04-2014 10:44am

stevejazzx wrote: »

Perhaps it would help if we had a definitive example of 'right' and the current international body or country that is adhering to that 'sense of right' as you call it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

The Russian government is likely sending people into Ukraine to destabilize it, and if not, it's certainly doing it's level best to destabilize it from over the border - blanket propaganda, tens of thousands of troops hanging around for no clear reason, threatening statements from the Russian foreign affairs minister, threatening laws from the Duma and threatening speeches from Putin.

By common consent, countries with peaceful, honorable intent do not do these things, especially to unstable countries.

At the very least, you can agree that this carry-on is "wrong"?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2014 11:08am

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

The Russian government is likely sending people into Ukraine to destabilize it, and if not, it's certainly doing it's level best to destabilize it from over the border - blanket propaganda, tens of thousands of troops hanging around for no clear reason, threatening statements from the Russian foreign affairs minister, threatening laws from the Duma and threatening speeches from Putin.

By common consent, countries with peaceful, honorable intent do not do these things, especially to unstable countries.

At the very least, you can agree that this carry-on is "wrong"?

Totally wrong of course -
But in the setting it takes on complexities;
Simply declaring it as wrong doesn't exactly do justice to the entire situation - and by declaring it wrong supposes there is an approximate 'right' somewhere and it was more the definition of what this 'approximate right' is that I am after. Contextually then we have a framework by which we can analyse the situation with less bias.

robindch · 08-04-2014 11:21am

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] by declaring it wrong supposes there is an approximate 'right' somewhere and it was more the definition of what this 'approximate right' is that I am after.

I'm not all that concerned about notions of right and wrong here -- these are concerns for philosophers, rather than politicians and historians -- though to answer your question, "approximate right" in the context of international relations means, for example, that you don't threaten them with invasion and war on a hastily cooked-up and entirely fictitious pretext, you don't propagandize your own population, you don't steal land from your neighbours and threaten to steal more, you don't mass your troops on your neighbour's borders and leave them sit there for weeks on end.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Contextually then we have a framework by which we can analyse the situation with less bias.

I'm not sure either here quite what you mean by this. International laws, international treaties, international memoranda and international precedent has been trampled over by a vicious nutcase who is armed with nuclear weapons.

That's the "context".

Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

Comments