war in Ukraine

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 04:21PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Ukraine is a sovereign state, Florida is a state of a sovereign state. Big difference.

I wasn't talking about Ukraine. I was talking about Crimea. Culturally, ethnically and historically Crimea is as much part of Russia as Florida is part of the USA.

Even a US-backed coup is not sufficient justification for Russian annexation of neighbouring territory. As bad and stupid as the former may be, it pales in comparison to the illegality of the latter.

I never claimed it as justification for anything. I merely used it as an example of how great powers operate in their spheres of influence and the hypocrisy of the USA's stance on the entire affair. I do not believe Russia annexed the Crimea in the aggressive, expansionist sense. I believe she re-asserted herself over territory that was rightfully hers.

Ask yourself, why was the "annexation" not resisted? Why wasn't a shot fired? I believe it was because the Ukrainian military there, like almost everyone else involved, knew that the Crimea was rightfully Russian. It certainly wasn't down to cowardice. The Ukrainians are fighting like dogs elsewhere.

This round of Russian annexation isn't even a new phenomenon, as Putin appears to glorify the old days of the Soviet Union, fantasising about its return on the world stage.

Again, I see no aggressive annexation. Reasserting rightful ownership over Crimea, a core Russian territory, hardly compares with past, genuine Soviet aggression such as the invasions of Finland or Afghanistan.

Funny how an assertive attitude and refusal to kowtow to NATO is inflated into some kind of sinister Soviet revival. Pure propaganda there.

The leftists always reach a new low by doing everything in their power to justify the actions of this backward thug.

I don't know if the leftist comment was aimed at me but many who've dealt with me here would probably spill craft beer all over their skinny jeans to hear me described as a "leftist".

Certainly a lot of thug in Putin (you don't gain power in a country like Russia without being ruthless) but "backward" he isn't. He was the only world leader speaking sense and, ultimately, the truth on the Syria question, for example.

He continually out maneuvers his opponents at home and abroad.

If there were broad popular support in Cork to merge with the UK, would you support the UK holding a referendum there and annexing the territory?

If Cork was a core, home territory of Britain for centuries up until a drunken mistake a few decades ago, the vast majority of people in Cork were ethnically British, wished to rejoin Britain and voted in a referendum to do so, if Cork were strategically and prestigiously essential to Britain and the British people and was in danger of becoming a base for an organisation openly hostile toward Britain unless she acted than maybe the Crimea situation and your emotive hypothetical situation would be comparable.

It isn't and they're not.

pablomakaveli · 25-01-2015 04:48PM

DeadHand wrote: »

If Cork was a core, home territory of Britain for centuries up until a drunken mistake a few decades ago, the vast majority of people in Cork were ethnically British, wished to rejoin Britain and voted in a referendum to do so, if Cork were strategically and prestigiously essential to Britain and the British people and was in danger of becoming a base for an organisation openly hostile toward Britain unless she acted than maybe the Crimea situation and your emotive hypothetical situation would be comparable.

It isn't and they're not.

Northern Ireland is considered a core part of Ireland with ethnic and cultural Irish living in it.

Would it be right for Ireland to do to NI what Russia did to Crimea?(Hypothetically if that was possible)

robindch · 25-01-2015 04:51PM

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

In all fairness, as somebody said above, the Russian army has been there from the very start. Here's a GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) agent named Igor Girkin, aka Strelkov, who was the guy who organized the initial takeover in East Ukraine:

http://zavtra.ru/content/view/kto-tyi-strelok/

(needs translation, but google's good enough).

robindch · 25-01-2015 04:54PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Those militias are probbably Russian troops in different colours.

Not really - they don't even bother hiding any more. There are hundreds of photos from East Ukraine, with new ones added every day, of just regular Russian troops in regular Russian army vehicles, with Russian military numberplates, towing around heavy Russian military hardware.

Putin moved months ago from "plausible deniability" to "implausible deniability".

Nodin · 25-01-2015 04:57PM

wendell borton wrote: »

The trouble in Ukraine is looking like a Russian invasion rather than internal dissent.

It's been looking like that for a good long time.

Iwasfrozen · 25-01-2015 05:01PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Ukraine. I was talking about Crimea. Culturally, ethnically and historically Crimea is as much part of Russia as Florida is part of the USA.

Except it's not. Crimea hasn't been part of Russia for fifty years.

The Novorossiya region had been part of Russia until Lenin handed over to Ukraine. Should Putin invade the historical region of Novorossiya too?

Irish Praetorian · 25-01-2015 05:08PM

Egginacup wrote: »

It damn well is when that western orchestrated coup results in the installation of a neo-nazi junta hell bent on genocide against the ethnic Russian population of the country..

I'm sorry, but are you supposed to be a parody of some deluded Putin apologist or are you being serious?

Because if its the latter case, I must question how the hell a neo-Nazi Junta is supposed to have come to power in a government which subsequently saw an election and the utter collapse of the far-right vote? I would also like to know where the genocide has been going on, because notwithstanding a few incidents elsewhere, the only significant civilian deaths have been in those parts of the country occupied by pro-Russian militias (and Russian troops).

Its all well and good to make criticisms of a nations foreign policy, but your narrative is just an absurd caricature of Russian (and Russian apologist) tropes which anyone looking at the situation from outside should be above.

Vandango · 25-01-2015 05:48PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Couldn't be, Putin says there aren't any Russian troops in Ukraine. I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

Kay Burley from Sky News.........is that you?

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think we can trust the president of Russia!!

Compared to the warmonger Obama and his love of death by drone. Putin is probably the lesser of two evils.

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 06:07PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Northern Ireland is considered a core part of Ireland with ethnic and cultural Irish living in it.

Would it be right for Ireland to do to NI what Russia did to Crimea?(Hypothetically if that was possible)

Since the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain as part of Britain, of course not.

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 06:26PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it's not. Crimea hasn't been part of Russia for fifty years.

The Novorossiya region had been part of Russia until Lenin handed over to Ukraine. Should Putin invade the historical region of Novorossiya too?

Except it was for 170 years before that. It's majority is ethnic Russian, Russian speaking and want to be part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically it's as Russian as Novosibirsk.

Much of Novorossiya is now in revolt against the violently installed, ultra right wing backed Kiev government. That says much about the identity of that region's population and their tolerance for perceived fascists and extreme Ukrainian Nationalists.

There are long memories in that part of the world and a primal, deep seated bitterness toward those two groups who were so sterling in their efforts to aid the Nazis in their genocide of the Russian people.

Not saying that makes it right, or that Russia never caused untold, unjust suffering to the Ukrainian people (they did) but it may go someway to explaining why the rebellion broke out in the first place and the hatred in much of the Ukraine toward the current regime.

wretcheddomain · 25-01-2015 06:40PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I do not believe Russia annexed the Crimea in the aggressive, expansionist sense. I believe she re-asserted herself over territory that was rightfully hers.

Again, I see no aggressive annexation. Reasserting rightful ownership over Crimea, a core Russian territory, hardly compares with past, genuine Soviet aggression such as the invasions of Finland or Afghanistan.

Whether you like it or not, or continue to deny it, the Crimea was part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine. This is an undeniable legal fact.

This fact is true irrespective of how many Russian speakers live there, when Crimea merged with Ukraine or what cultural links they happened to have. The sovereign integrity of Ukraine involved Crimea - it was not "pseudo-Russian" territory wallowing in some sort of political limbo as you would have us believe.

To take advantage of the unrest in the Ukraine to absorb Crimea back into a state which does not exist today (Soviet Union) is, to me at least, an act of aggression. It violates the territorial integrity of the Ukraine without any legal basis whatsoever, or without consultation with any government official - irrespective of who is, or was, in power at the time.

The fact you can't see this is what's actually shocking about this discussion.

Iwasfrozen · 25-01-2015 06:52PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Except it was for 170 years before that. It's majority is ethnic Russian, Russian speaking and want to be part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically it's as Russian as Novosibirsk.

Much of Novorossiya is now in revolt against the violently installed, ultra right wing backed Kiev government. That says much about the identity of that region's population and their tolerance for perceived fascists and extreme Ukrainian Nationalists.

There are long memories in that part of the world and a primal, deep seated bitterness toward those two groups who were so sterling in their efforts to aid the Nazis in their genocide of the Russian people.

Not saying that makes it right, or that Russia never caused untold, unjust suffering to the Ukrainian people (they did) but it may go someway to explaining why the rebellion broke out in the first place and the hatred in much of the Ukraine toward the current regime.

The majority of people in Crimea are Russian but that doesn't translate into acquiescence of joining the Russian Federation, I don't believe those referendum results were fair.

Much of Novorossiya is not in revolt. A tiny portion of Novorossiya, namely portions of the regions Lugansk and Donetsk are in revolt. To claim that much of Novorossiya is in revolt is not true.

With that in mind I'll ask you again, considering you support (or at least don't condemn) the illegal annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the territory was formerly Russian are you subsequently in favor of a theoretical annexation of the historical Novorossiya region on the same grounds?

And just to be clear here's a picture of Novorossiya.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png/300px-New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 07:03PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, or continue to deny it, the Crimea was part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine. This is an undeniable legal fact

Whos law?

Why wasn't this "annexation" resisted if Crimea was such an integral part of Ukraine? Why did the Ukrainian navy and military leave without firing a shot when they've since displayed admirable tenacity?

It's Russian territory. It's transference to Ukraine was a drunken blunder, a token, throw away gesture.

All was well anyway while the Ukrainian government was friendly to Russia and Sevastopol (which is really what the Crimea question is really all about) could be rented.

This new, unelected, pro NATO government would, in Russian eyes, have seen NATO assume control over Sevastopol. That would be a national humiliation and strategic weakening that Russia could not bear or afford.

I'm not arguing that Russia is some benevolent force for good in the world, they're not, they're as cynical and morally bankrupt as any other world power, I'm merely arguing in favour of my belief that Russia had a right to occupy Crimea and trying to explain some of the reasons, as I see them, for the Ukrainian conflict.

Whether I'm doing a good job or not I know for a fact that the reasons and motivations of all factions are more nuanced than the "big evil Russia, plucky little Ukraine" narrative we are being fed by most of the Western press and often see cropping up here.

Iranoutofideas · 25-01-2015 07:08PM

That's a funny Ukrainian accent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1JdOXdJkU

WakeUp · 25-01-2015 07:10PM

It looks like the Russians and the Americans/West are prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian over Ukraine be it by proxy or direct involvement. somebody needs to finish this soon before something much bigger kicks off. so this is Mariupol just after the attack that both sides are blaming each other for. are US troops already on the ground inside Ukraine or where do you think this guy is from the question that is put to him is tell me what happened here. this is a high stakes game wonder do people realise just how serious this is and unfortunately for the Ukrainians they are mere pawns in it.

wretcheddomain · 25-01-2015 07:12PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Whos law?
This new, unelected, pro NATO government would, in Russian eyes, have seen NATO assume control over Sevastopol. That would be a national humiliation and strategic weakening that Russia could not bear or afford.

I'm not arguing that Russia is some benevolent force for good in the world, they're not, they're as cynical and morally bankrupt as any other world power, I'm merely arguing in favour of my belief that Russia had a right to occupy Crimea and trying to explain some of the reasons, as I see them, for the Ukrainian conflict.

Yes - in Russian eyes. This still does not justify Russia absorbing the territory out of some airy-fairy national pride.

To suggest that countries have a right to occupy and annex territory merely because they fear another world power is outrageous.

This is no better than those who defend the United States when it comes to the Iraq War - it's at that depth of moral depravity.

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 07:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The majority of people in Crimea are Russian but that doesn't translate into acquiescence of joining the Russian Federation, I don't believe those referendum results were fair.

Much of Novorossiya is not in revolt. A tiny portion of Novorossiya, namely portions of the regions Lugansk and Donetsk are in revolt. To claim that much of Novorossiya is in revolt is not true.

With that in mind I'll ask you again, considering you support (or at least don't condemn) the illegal annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the territory was formerly Russian are you subsequently in favor of a theoretical annexation of the historical Novorossiya region on the same grounds?

Well, we disagree on the validity of the referendum then. What is for sure is the EU are total hypocrites for criticising it knowing as we do some of their antics around referenda.

Terminology issues there, fair enough you're right. Since Donetsk is, as far as I know, the largest city in the region we can safely say a significant chunk of Novorossiya is in open revolt. "Much" was probably taking it a bit far I will admit.

Of course I wouldn't support such an annexation since, unlike in Crimea, the majority in Novorossiya do not wish to rejoin Russia.

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 07:21PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes - in Russian eyes

Those fears were not unfounded or irrational.

To suggest that countries have a right to occupy and annex territory merely because they fear another world power is outrageous.

That was one reason, not the crucial or only one. I provided many others.

This is no better than those who defend the United States when it comes to the Iraq War - it's at that depth of moral depravity.

Iraq was never a core territory of the USA. The majority of Iraqis weren't ethnic Americans. The majority of Iraqis never wanted to join the USA. Iraq is 7,000 miles from the USA while Crimea is Russia.

The situations are incomparable.

wretcheddomain · 25-01-2015 07:27PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Iraq was never a core territory of the USA. The majority of Iraqis weren't ethnic Americans. The majority of Iraqis never wanted to join the USA. Iraq is 7,000 miles from the USA while Crimea is Russia.

The situations are incomparable.

I'm not making a direct comparison, of course not.

I'm comparing to those who have a moral conviction that the Iraq War was the right thing to do - even in full knowledge of the tower of lies that led to its inception.

With the osmotic transfer of Crimea into Russia we see a similar conviction - both of which are unfounded.

Iwasfrozen · 25-01-2015 07:27PM

DeadHand wrote: »

Well, we disagree on the validity of the referendum then. What is for sure is the EU are total hypocrites for criticising it knowing as we do some of their antics around referenda.

Terminology issues there, fair enough you're right. Since Donetsk is, as far as I know, the largest city in the region we can safely say a significant chunk of Novorossiya is in open revolt. "Much" was probably taking it a bit far I will admit.

Of course I wouldn't support such an annexation since, unlike in Crimea, the majority in Novorossiya do not wish to rejoin Russia.

Don't be so naive. There are three reasons the referendum was illegitimate.

The options: There was no "keep the status quo" option a referendum with no option to defeat the movement is by definition an undemocratic referendum since it is forcing change on the population regardless of their views.
The conditions: The referendum was carried out during occupation by a foreign country. Crimean citizens have reported to western media that they felt under duress to vote how Putin wanted them to.
The result: Putin won 97% of the vote. 97% of voters voting one way in any referendum is utterly unrealistic.

Until a an internationally organized and monitored referendum can take place you have no right to say the majority of people favor unification as that is an unfounded and groundless statement.

Gatling · 25-01-2015 07:37PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Once Ukraine was destabilized by the US-backed coup attempt, and a civil war began for control of the country, a Russian invasion (covert or overt) - as illegal and reprehensible as that is - was kind of inevitable, given how massive a thread a NATO-controlled Ukraine would be to Russia (right on Russia's doorstep, with by far the longest stretch of border shared with Russia, of any European nation).

Destabilizing Ukraine was an utterly stupid decision by the US - great way to trigger a new Cold War, and general breakdown of relations between multiple nuclear powers.

BS

Iranoutofideas · 25-01-2015 07:43PM

Gatling wrote: »

BS

How so?

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 07:45PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't be so naive. There are three reasons the referendum was illegitimate.
The options: There was no "keep the status quo" option a referendum with no option to defeat the movement is by definition an undemocratic referendum since it is forcing change on the population regardless of their views.

The conditions: The referendum was carried out during occupation by a foreign country. Crimean citizens have reported to western media that they felt under duress to vote how Putin wanted them to.

The result: Putin won 97% of the vote. 97% of voters voting one way in any referendum is utterly unrealistic.

Until a an internationally organized and monitored referendum can take place you have no right to say the majority of people favor unification as that is an unfounded and groundless statement.

I'm still of the firm belief that given the region's history and the make up of it's population a referendum held anytime, under any circumstances would render the same result.

Again, the referendum was chaotic and hasty but it did give an indication of the will of the Crimean people. The lack of resistance to Russian occupation by either regular or irregular forces is another good indicator of the will of the Crimean people.

I wouldn't believe much of what the "western media" reports on the Crimea issue, there's been a blatant anti-Russian bias in most of it from day one.

DeadHand · 25-01-2015 07:48PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm not making a direct comparison, of course not.

I'm comparing to those who have a moral conviction that the Iraq War was the right thing to do - even in full knowledge of the tower of lies that led to its inception.

With the osmotic transfer of Crimea into Russia we see a similar conviction - both of which are unfounded.

Fair enough.

I can't quite agree with you on this issue but I do understand the points you're making and respect the way you make them.

Don't want to clutter the entire thread with my own musings either (not that that ever stopped me before).

wretcheddomain · 25-01-2015 07:49PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I wouldn't believe much of what the "western media" reports on the Crimea issue, there's been a blatant anti-Russian bias in most of it from day one.

People come to their own conclusions not based on Western media, but on their own analysis of the available data to hand.

Everyone in this thread is, more or less, arguing from the same evidence. You are arguing one way, many of us are arguing another way.

To bring in the Western media as a way to tarnish our conclusions appears to be a desperate attempt to dismiss us.

Moreover, even if we did blindly take our conclusions from the Western media, this doesn't necessarily make the conclusion false. But, anyway, we don't, so that's that.

Iwasfrozen · 25-01-2015 07:55PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I'm still of the firm belief that given the region's history and the make up of it's population a referendum held anytime, under any circumstances would render the same result.

Again, the referendum was chaotic and hasty but it did give an indication of the will of the Crimean people. The lack of resistance to Russian occupation by either regular or irregular forces is another good indicator of the will of the Crimean people.

I wouldn't believe much of what the "western media" reports on the Crimea issue, there's been a blatant anti-Russian bias in most of it from day one.

It didn't give an accurate reading of the will of the Crimean people due to the reasons I've outlined. You've stated it's your belief to the contrary but that is just your belief. You can't go around preaching it like it's undeniable truth.

WakeUp · 25-01-2015 08:19PM

this is the moment those shells smacked into Mariupol. someone was looking out for the guy in this car talk about a near miss he is one lucky dude. NSFW
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-shocking-footage-shows-moment-shelling-hits-ukrainian-neighborhood/?

Egginacup · 25-01-2015 08:22PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Ukraine is a sovereign state, Florida is a state of a sovereign state. Big difference.

Even a US-backed coup is not sufficient justification for Russian annexation of neighbouring territory. As bad and stupid as the former may be, it pales in comparison to the illegality of the latter.

This round of Russian annexation isn't even a new phenomenon, as Putin appears to glorify the old days of the Soviet Union, fantasising about its return on the world stage.

The leftists always reach a new low by doing everything in their power to justify the actions of this backward thug.

If there were broad popular support in Cork to merge with the UK, would you support the UK holding a referendum there and annexing the territory?

Russia didn't ANNEX Crimea. The Soviet Union under Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. The Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to become part of Russia once again. Now you can blab, and you probably will, without a shred of evidence that it was a sham vote, purely because you don't like it. But please stop calling a decision to return to the governance of Russia an annexation.

The_Valeyard · 25-01-2015 08:25PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Russia didn't ANNEX Crimea. The Soviet Union under Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. The Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to become part of Russia once again. Now you can blab, and you probably will, without a shred of evidence that it was a sham vote, purely because you don't like it. But please stop calling a decision to return to the governance of Russia an annexation.

VOTING BOOTH OPTIONS:

Option 1) Rejoin Russia

Option 2) Torture me and my family. Also burn my house down.

Iwasfrozen · 25-01-2015 08:33PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Russia didn't ANNEX Crimea. The Soviet Union under Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. The Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to become part of Russia once again. Now you can blab, and you probably will, without a shred of evidence that it was a sham vote, purely because you don't like it. But please stop calling a decision to return to the governance of Russia an annexation.

How many times does this have to be posted? There was no "maintain status quo" option in the referendum. You seem incapable of absorbing this fact.

war in Ukraine

Comments