Ukraine Crisis - Page 144

On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles. Of course it might benefit Russia slightly (it probably would) and so they will not do any such thing. If the rest of Ukraine joins NATO, Russia would lose more than gain anyway.

It would also be a nice precedent for those who do not want to be part of Russia. Because, even though apparently I am Russian agent, I would welcome all those Russian republics that do not want to be part of Russia to leave the federation.

On March 03 2014 10:19 mcc wrote:
Such a beautiful display of hypocrisy : "and its right to choose its own future". Maybe they should offer peacekeepers to replace Russian soldiers and promise Crimea and everyone else who wants it a referendum and guarantee implementing its result. That would seem like a fair solution according to their principles.

On March 03 2014 11:20 Kamille wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26408115

How far do the Russians have to go before we can universally say it is an act of war?

On March 03 2014 11:11 TokO wrote:
Don't you guys think there is good reason for Russian occupation? Even though the revolution 'looked' as if there was many supporters, there's not actually a lot of evidence about the amount of people supporting it. And looking at the reactions to the Russian occupation, it seems like the country was split in quite a few communities. I think that Russia was a very different perspective of internal affairs as it has had a lot more issues with dissent and terrorism than western countries. If there was even the possiblity of a milder syrian-esque civil war, then pre-emptive non-violent intervention by Russia is a lot better than a violent intervention after the fact.

Judging by the events, it doesn't seem like the occupation is of malicious intent, (however, it will probably ultimately reverse the achievements of the revolution, but a dialogue is necessary to solve it peacefully), so I don't see why you couldn't just start co-operation between Ukrainian and Russian forces aimed at internal stabilisation and safety.

And the western media, holy shit, I could go full Destiny on how stupid it is, I don't understand why they would be so sensationalist in a situation like this, repeating 'declaration of war', without there being a violent conflict yet.

Obviously these actions by Russia is very bully-ish, but the response by western countries is just as bully-ish, and it doesn't help the situation.

On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:


I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is.

I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population.

The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave.

This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet.

On March 03 2014 11:29 Sub40APM wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Imagine if tomorrow some random Russian in Oslo goes on TV and says "Help me Putin, the Norwegians are preparing genocide against me!" and Putin's response is "I cant stand genocide of Russian people, anywhere!" and suddenly there are Russian troops on Norwegian Army bases demanding that Norwegian soldiers give up their arms. Is that acceptable to you?

Because that is what is happening in Crimea right now. There have been no attacks on Russians, there have been no actions by any 'fascists.' The Kiev government has announced that elections will be held in May. On the other hand, the Russian government has recently announced that Russia has the right to invade any country where ethnic Russians feel threatened, and now Russian armed forces are blockading and threatening Ukrainian Army units into submission.

On March 03 2014 12:09 TokO wrote:


I think you are painting an incomplete picture that leaves out important circumstances (but so was probably I in my initial post). If there was reasonable doubt that Norwegian security could defend the people living in its country, and there was reason to believe that there were threats towards those people,

On March 03 2014 12:09 TokO wrote:


I think you are painting an incomplete picture that leaves out important circumstances (but so was probably I in my initial post). If there was reasonable doubt that Norwegian security could defend the people living in its country, and there was reason to believe that there were threats towards those people, why shouldn't another military force intervene. I am not saying that there isn't a million better ways to do it, because there is. I am just saying that using military to harshly discourage any further violence is better than the worst case scenario where violence escalates in an unconventional fashion. I am also saying that the two armed forces principally should have the same aim, and that is to provide safety for civilians, and in that case, cooperation is better than aggressive posturing.

If Obama can use this reasoning of defending American citizens and interests to justify drone strikes, then Russia should have the same rights, shouldn't they? These military actions are also much more comprehensive and covers many more Russians than Drone Strikes helps defending US Citizens.

Unless you are saying that there is absolutely no threat of any escalation of unconventional violence (extremists, ethnic clashes etc.). Russian occupation has achieved at least as much as the status quo in that situation, and if you agree that there is any threat of the above kind, then I think Russian occupation has achieved at least a little bit. To adress the demilitarisation of Ukrainian bases in Crimea, I think that if Ukrainian armed forces take a stance of no dialogue, then Russian armed forces has to take precautions.

And given what I know and don't know, I can more easily rationalise the actions of Russia compared to Ukraine and western leaders.

On March 03 2014 12:19 Sub40APM wrote:
... an autonomous Republic where the local population has extensive political rights and all three languages of the major ethnic groups in it: Ukrainians, Russians and Tatars, are equally respected before the law.

On March 03 2014 11:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I was going to make a troll comment about how the Russian invasion was just a way to distract us from noticing how much of a disaster the Olympics were, but it's getting serious. Kicking Russia out of the G8 is pretty big.

On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:

I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU.

On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:


There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia.

BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo.

The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen.

On March 03 2014 12:09 TokO wrote:
I think you are painting an incomplete picture that leaves out important circumstances (but so was probably I in my initial post). If there was reasonable doubt that Norwegian security could defend the people living in its country, and there was reason to believe that there were threats towards those people, why shouldn't another military force intervene. I am not saying that there isn't a million better ways to do it, because there is. I am just saying that using military to harshly discourage any further violence is better than the worst case scenario where violence escalates in an unconventional fashion...

If Obama can use this reasoning of defending American citizens and interests to justify drone strikes, then Russia should have the same rights, shouldn't they? These military actions are also much more comprehensive and covers many more Russians than Drone Strikes helps defending US Citizens.

On March 03 2014 12:46 Sermokala wrote:

The G8 is really more of a rich kids club then what you're probably thinking. If anything its just strengthened putins dream of an east-west divide.

Bundesaußenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier steht dem von US-Außenminister John Kerry angedrohten Ausschluss Russlands aus der Gruppe der führenden Industrieländer (G8) ablehnend gegenüber. “Ich glaube, wir müssen sehen, dass wir zur Deeskalation in der Ukraine beitragen und jetzt nicht jedmögliche Verschärfung der Situation herbeireden”, sagte Steinmeier am Sonntagabend in der ARD. Über das Thema würden die Regierungschefs im Laufe der Woche miteinander sprechen. Er selbst sei eher bei jenen, die sagten, “das G-8-Format ist eigentlich das einzige Format, in dem wir aus dem Westen auch mit Russland unmittelbar sprechen”. Steinmeier fügte hinzu: “Sollten wir wirklich dieses einzige Format opfern?” Allerdings gebe es auch Regierungschefs, die mit dem Ausschluss Russlands ein starkes Signal senden wollten.