Ukraine Crisis - Page 422

On April 15 2014 18:49 myminerals wrote:

I have a strong feeling that if Russia didn't take Crimea it would have lost it to current Ukrainian government which most certainly would give it to NATO troops or anything of this sort. But it is all very debatable of course And yet Putin didn't want to take chances in this regard.

Needless to say Crimea has always been a Russian territory with a strong Russian support. So whatever the legal regulations are if people speak Russian and say they are Russians -- they are. It was an invasion only in legal terms, in terms of national sovereignty it was a historical reconciliation.

So whether you ask me if this Russian invasion was legal, I would say no. If you ask if it was the right thing to do, I'd say it was.

On April 15 2014 17:43 Ghanburighan wrote:


I don't think most people prefer Russia. All surveys done before the invasion showed single digit support for joining Russia. (The latest was posted in the thread.)

***
Ouch, now I know for certain that this is not the PR Germany wants.

On April 15 2014 18:49 myminerals wrote:

I have a strong feeling that if Russia didn't take Crimea it would have lost it to current Ukrainian government which most certainly would give it to NATO troops or anything of this sort. But it is all very debatable of course And yet Putin didn't want to take chances in this regard.

Needless to say Crimea has always been a Russian territory with a strong Russian support. So whatever the legal regulations are if people speak Russian and say they are Russians -- they are. It was an invasion only in legal terms, in terms of national sovereignty it was a historical reconciliation.

So whether you ask me if this Russian invasion was legal, I would say no. If you ask if it was the right thing to do, I'd say it was.

On April 15 2014 19:17 Ramong wrote:

But not all the people in Crimea was russian, that is the problem.
Some was, but there was also tartars and Ukrainians living there.
Because of the rigged elections we can never know how big a part of the population on Crimea was russian or russian minded.

It might not even be the majority, but Putin made sure we will never know

On April 15 2014 20:14 Simberto wrote:


You can not lose something that is not yours. Crimea is Ukrainian. How can Russia lose Crimea to the Ukrainian Government? That does not make any sense. You do not have any right to the sovereign territory of another nation just because you would like to have it. That is the only way to deal with things that makes sense, because if you really accept historical considerations and claims as a reason to try to slice peaces of a sovereign country, then pretty much everyone has a reason to get something from every neighboring nation. In multiple hundreds of years of tumultous history, everything on a border of countries has changed sides multiple times.

As for the referendum, as a general rule of thumb, if you get a result> 90% on a referendum, it is rigged pretty harshly. Because if you really had more than 90% support on any issue, you wouldn't need to hold a referendum because there would be noone against it. And if you accept that the referendum was utterly unrelated to reality, you suddenly no longer have any claim that the Crimean people want to join russia. People in Alsace-Lorraine or Austria speak german. Some people in parts of the swiss speak kind of german. Still they don't want to join Germany, and you very surely don't have armed german troops without emblems in those areas taking control and trying to hold a "referendum".

Basically, what this comes down to is medieval thinking. A world in which nations have the right to take other countries sovereign territory based on a combination of historical claims (which you can always produce on anything neighboring you) and the fact that you are bigger and can take what you want. That is not a good principle to base international relations on, and should be opposed at all cost. This principle has lead to a history of constant wars for basically all of recorded history. Now compare this to a principle where sovereign nations just KEEP the borders they have, right now.

How anyone can not agree with the fact that that is just a BETTER way of doing things is beyond me.

On April 15 2014 20:43 myminerals wrote:

I think it is a big mistake to treat Eastern Europe as a territory that would ever comply with international laws, on paper -- yes, in reality -- no.

On April 15 2014 21:46 Cheerio wrote:
Lavrov has been outraged by the idea that UN peacekeepers could be used in the Eastern Ukraine. Clearly separatists can not use their tactics of shooting on sight against peacekeepers or even Russia would have to recognize that they are terrorists. And once they don't control the towns, a few tens of thousands of angry pro-russian activists can't really demand to change the Constitution of a 45 million country. Russia would veto the decision. But the peacekeeping operation still might happen.

On April 15 2014 16:44 Ghanburighan wrote:
People bring up Russian aggression for two reasons. a) Historically, there are still plenty of people alive who remember Russia invading in the first place in 1941. They remember the years of oppression and abusive, they have family members killed and deported by Russia. b) Russia has been aggressive against its neighbours in the last 20 years as well. Besides obvious acts of aggression such as Crimea and Georgia (not the actual war, mind you, but what became before and after), gas wars, spying, trade sanctions in case its neighbours have policies they dislike, cyber wars, etc. Let's face it, Japan was right in its rhetoric, Russia has fallen back on its modus operandi of being an expansionist aggressor.

Secondly, people believe that Russia is a violent totalitarian regime because of the numerous reports of restrictions of freedom inside Russia itself. It ranks extremely low in media freedom with constant (and recently much worse) violence against journalists, bogus charges against opinions contradicting the Kremlin, laws enacted to restrict freedom of speech beyond anything known in the west, restrictions of internet freedom inside the country, taking over independent media, centrally governed and funded propaganda channels existing, etc. There's also no freedom of assembly with protests against the Kremlin dispersed by the police and political leaders arrested. It's telling that the best known opposition figures were either in prison or in voluntary exile.

There are also other signs that it's a totalitarian regime such as lack of rule of law and massive corruption. Putin has somehow stolen 28 billion dollars of personal wealth, making him richer than the bloody sultan of Brunei, or the oil sheikhs of Arabia. But any index, any source you ask reports the same. Russia is not a country built on stable institutions and the rule of law. Hell, every Russian you ask will agree.

Regarding Eastern European countries being puppets no matter what, that's blatantly false. There were a number of countries in the region which were historically Russian territories but which resisted the Warsaw Pact and retained their independence. Finland is the best example. The people are extremely similar to Estonia, the latter being slightly wealthier and more developed before the first world war. But as Finland won the Talvisota against Russia (or at least only lost some territories), they retained their independence and are currently a neutral country that isn't allied with NATO. The lesson to be learned is that the people in the region can and should retain their independence, and Russia should keep their corrupt and greedy hands off so people can actually prosper.

On April 15 2014 21:58 Gorsameth wrote:

It cant happen as a UN mission if Russia veto's. And they will.

Now country's can probably decide to do it on there own but again they wont because no one wants to risk WW3.

On April 15 2014 22:14 Salazarz wrote:



You're conveniently missing the part where Russian invasion in 1941 was the only thing that stopped Hitler from rolling over the very same countries. While the abuse and atrocities committed by all sides in the second world war were horrible, it is simply retarded to pin it on 'Russian aggression' - there is absolutely no arguing that under Hitler's rule, the countries that lament the Russian invasion would be even worse off; and it is a historical fact that they would indeed fall under Hitler's rule if not for the Soviet intervention. Heck, even with the impending defeat of the Nazi Germany, German scientists were literally MONTHS away from developing functioning nuclear bombs in 1945. Pretty scary thing to think about, don't you think?

The 'past 20 years of aggression from Russia' is just bullshit. Crimea aside, there hadn't been a single case of unprovoked Russian armed intervention anywhere; Georgia is far and wide accepted as an incident completely caused by Georgia, not Russia; the bullshit about 'trade sanctions' and 'gas wars' is something literally every country in the world does to achieve its interests.

In regards to restrictions of freedom inside Russia itself, there are a lot of issues no doubt - but you also have to consider that it's very much a developing country in many regards. That doesn't make whatever dirty goings any better of course, but at the end of the day, those are internal affairs that shouldn't concern whether other countries around it should be 'worried about possibilities of invasion' or whatever. And it's not like they are the only country with similar issues, in the past or the present.

The stuff about corruption, lack of rule of law etc... a lot of it is true but it's completely irrelevant to the cries for expansion of NATO to 'protect us' from Russia or demands for intervention, sanctions etc against it. Those are the problems that Russia needs to solve on their own - just like other countries in turbulent times had to; look at Thatcher's UK, the great depression in the US, literally all of China's history, post-war Korea or Japan, heck, the very anti-Russian countries of Lithuania and Latvia have had all the same problems with corruption and lack of free media that they love to scold Russia about.


The difference between Finland and Estonia is that Finland wasn't in the way of Third Reich, and also didn't have death squads of Jew hunters sanctioned by the government. Neither of those are a big deal to you, I guess, but they kind of do matter in the grand scheme of things.

Nobody is saying that people in the region don't deserve or shouldn't have their independence, that was never the question - but you seem to be forgetting that Lithuania for example had been under Polish rule for a good 200 hundred years before the Soviets came; that Ukraine was basically not a country at all until the Soviets came; that there was a kingdom of Prussia that doesn't even exist any more, etc etc. Those places had a turbulent history with a lot of invasions going back and forth, and while its easy to blame Russia for everything and just stop at that, it's not very accurate nor very fair.

On April 15 2014 23:02 m4ini wrote:


I do agree that Russia obviously would veto, but i'd still like to see their reasoning behind that veto. In the end, they only would look retarded, since the UN would do what the russians are already doing (or better, claiming to do). From a logical standpoint, russia "can't" veto except if their current reasoning is just a bunch of bullshit. We all know it, but admitting it openly is different.

Edit:

As much as i see the value behind the UN and NATO etc, one has to question russias involvement there (now). Those institutions are pretty much completely pointless, if a memberstate goes apeshit and nobody can do anything because they veto out all solutions that doesn't suit them.

Russia made it clear, that they don't want to have anything to do with "the west" - they should not be involved in "western decisionmaking" as well then.

Not that it would necessarily be a good thing, you need some form of balance, but this is just stupid.

On April 15 2014 23:30 sgtnoobkilla wrote:
A company of Ukrainian mechanised troops & some close air support are apparently (unverified) in the progress of retaking an airfield near Kramatorsk after it was overrun by "militia".
https://twitter.com/Missilito/statuses/456071652141694976

Mind you this only from one source and is still unverified from other sources so take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Looks like there's reports of eleven casualties on the ground.

On April 15 2014 23:21 Ghanburighan wrote:


Russia isn't a member of NATO, it's a partner country. They aren't even allowed to observe internal decision-making. So that doesn't matter.

As to the UN, it's meant to be a forum to all countries, not Western Countries. So I don't think anyone wants to remove Russia from it. Taking away their veto would be nice, but then many countries would just stop going to the UN, breaking down the international system as we know it.

Regarding other institutions, such as the Council of Europe, Russia is already suspended from many of them. And it does hurt them, as these organizations are currently one of main ways Russia can take part in Western decision-making at the administrative level.

On April 15 2014 23:44 m4ini wrote:


Member of UN, i meant. The NATO doesn't really offer "solutions" in this case, other than military involvement. About the "forum to all countries", while you're right there, fact of the matter is, russias involvement there is pretty much only to veto solutions that they don't like, necessary or not. Revanchism mainly being the biggest reason in hindsight.

One of the foundations of the UN is "to keep peace", if the warmongering country can veto out every single attempt, what point does the UN have?

Russia seems to be prepared and willing to go into another cold war, putins "message to the west" makes that pretty clear. They should not be allowed to interefere in the UN. Coming to think of it, how can there be no "failsafe" in the UN if one of the involved countries is in fact the agressor? Not to mention that the veto was a retarded idea in the first place, just proper voting would've been alot smarter. Now the UN sits there and can't even declare the annexiation illegal, even though even china is not on russias side.

To me, that seems pretty much pointless and laughable (one of the reasons why putin can act like a dick is in fact that the UN can't do shit, at all).

On April 15 2014 23:44 m4ini wrote:


Member of UN, i meant. The NATO doesn't really offer "solutions" in this case, other than military involvement. About the "forum to all countries", while you're right there, fact of the matter is, russias involvement there is pretty much only to veto solutions that they don't like, necessary or not. Revanchism mainly being the biggest reason in hindsight.

One of the foundations of the UN is "to keep peace", if the warmongering country can veto out every single attempt, what point does the UN have?

Russia seems to be prepared and willing to go into another cold war, putins "message to the west" makes that pretty clear. They should not be allowed to interefere in the UN. Coming to think of it, how can there be no "failsafe" in the UN if one of the involved countries is in fact the agressor? Not to mention that the veto was a retarded idea in the first place, just proper voting would've been alot smarter. Now the UN sits there and can't even declare the annexiation illegal, even though even china is not on russias side.

To me, that seems pretty much pointless and laughable (one of the reasons why putin can act like a dick is in fact that the UN can't do shit, at all).

On April 15 2014 23:54 Acertos wrote:

It has worked like this since the end of WW2 with a seat for all the winners in the security council of the UN. Changes have been proposed but I suppose it would need the agreement of everyone involved including Russia and China.

This has allowed for negotiations in many scary situations in history, and the UN has acted as a peacekeeper in situations which don't directly infringe on the interests of a veto-wielding member.