In Ukraine, the US and Europe have limited options

[bshole]

I am probably misinformed on this whole mess. It is my understanding that:

A. Ukraine had a democratically elected government.
B. That democratically elected government was ousted using violence.
C. Russia then intervened.

Questions:
Russia intervened because it loves democracy?
America wants to counter-intervene because it hates democracy?

 

[fskimospy]

The ethnic Russians in Crimea may not have always lived there, but they certainly do now. Do they have no rights because the Soviets did fucked up things in the 50s?

Of course they have rights. What rights of theirs do you think were being violated by the Ukraneian government? Are you accepting uncritically the evidence-free accusations of Russia that people were being attacked?

Regardless of all that, my argument is if a foreign country occupies a territory and commits crimes against humanity there, they don't get to use the results of their crimes against humanity as a pretext for a second occupation.

 

[fskimospy]

I am probably misinformed on this whole mess. It is my understanding that:

A. Ukraine had a democratically elected government.
B. That democratically elected government was ousted using violence.
C. Russia then intervened.

No.

1.) Ukraine had a democratically elected government.
2.) Large scale popular protests erupted against this government.
3.) The government started murdering the protesters.
4.) The government was then ousted.
5.) Russia then invaded Crimea to 'protect' Russians there despite no evidence of them being attacked.

Questions:
Russia intervened because it loves democracy?
America wants to counter-intervene because it hates democracy?

Russia intervened because Ukraine's pro-Russian government had just been ousted and they want to keep their satellite states in line.

 

[BUnit1701]

I am probably misinformed on this whole mess. It is my understanding that:

A. Ukraine had a democratically elected government.
B. That democratically elected government was ousted using violence.
C. Russia then intervened.

Questions:
Russia intervened because it loves democracy?
America wants to counter-intervene because it hates democracy?

A. The democratically elected government favored closer ties to Russia than the EU. This position is supported by ethnic Russians in the east, but less so populations in the western areas.

B. Western populations revolt in protest of trade agreements the government was seeking/implemented (not sure how far this got) with Russia.

C. Russia moves troops to secure military facilities leased to Russia in Crimea.

So, no, Russia intervened because it loves its military bases on the Black Sea.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am probably misinformed on this whole mess. It is my understanding that:

A. Ukraine had a democratically elected government.
B. That democratically elected government was ousted using violence.
C. Russia then intervened.

Questions:
Russia intervened because it loves democracy?
America wants to counter-intervene because it hates democracy?

Russia intervened in a Provence held by ethnic Russians who are quite pro-Russia to begin with. Who were the ones backing / behind the former Ukraine government which was ousted by the mob in Kiev. Who may have been at risk of further conflict with that mob.

No one's intentions are so stupidly simple as in your post. "For democracy", hardly. It's more complicated for that, but we can shape how this plays out by not being dynamically opposed to letting Crimea choose the future of this conflict.

We have to stop Ukraine from shooting, prevent further Russian advances, and get them to let the people of Crimea decide. That's the best option to move forward with.

 

[BUnit1701]

Of course they have rights. What rights of theirs do you think were being violated by the Ukraneian government? Are you accepting uncritically the evidence-free accusations of Russia that people were being attacked?

Regardless of all that, my argument is if a foreign country occupies a territory and commits crimes against humanity there, they don't get to use the results of their crimes against humanity as a pretext for a second occupation.

I highly doubt they were being attacked, but no one can deny that Russia has popular support in Crimea. I support the right of those living in the Crimea region to have a government of their choice, particularly as it is appearing that Ukraine can not maintain a coherent government and the divide can be seen geographically.

 

[Zstream]

The ethnic Russians in Crimea may not have always lived there, but they certainly do now. Do they have no rights because the Soviets did fucked up things in the 50s?

The Crimea is worth $$ and has value. Just because people speak or want Russian authority does not mean it can be taken with military power. It means that the people cam vote or go into politics to change things.

There is a difference, learn it. This isn't an uprising, this is direct military action.

 

[fskimospy]

I highly doubt they were being attacked, but no one can deny that Russia has popular support in Crimea. I support the right of those living in the Crimea region to have a government of their choice, particularly as it is appearing that Ukraine can not maintain a coherent government and the divide can be seen geographically.

That's fine, but that's pretty highly problematic when applied to Russia as they are actively suppressing the right to self determination in a number of other areas. (Chechnya???) Russia doesn't give a shit about self determination, they care about enforcing their interests in Ukraine.

Secondly, there's no self determination happening when an obviously biased foreign power is currently occupying and suppressing non-Russian elements of the population. If you truly believe in self-determination you would be for an immediate expulsion of occupying troops so a legitimate referendum can be had.

 

[AViking]

So if I'm reading this right 58% of Crimea are Russians. Out of 2 million people.

Would this be the same as Mexico invading "parts" of Southern California? I figure there's gotta be close to 2 million people just along the border of California and I wouldn't be surprised if half were Mexican.

Texas might be a better example to get the percentages right.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Russia doesn't give a shit about self determination, they care about enforcing their interests in Ukraine.

Exactly, Ukraine is vital to Russian economics (gas sales to the EU) and why they would prefer to take control of the country.

 

[Genx87]

So if I'm reading this right 58% of Crimea are Russians. Out of 2 million people.

Would this be the same as Mexico invading "parts" of Southern California? I figure there's gotta be close to 2 million people just along the border of California and I wouldn't be surprised if half were Mexican.

Texas might be a better example to get the percentages right.

Sounds about right. This whole thing with people defending Russia here is bizzare. Reminds me of the demands of Hitler in the late 30s of Austria and the Sudetenland and eventually Danzig.

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Would this be the same as Mexico invading "parts" of Southern California?

No it wouldn't. The Crimea was part of Russia right up till 1958 when it was handed over to be governed by the Ukraine.

 

[BUnit1701]

The Crimea is worth $$ and has value. Just because people speak or want Russian authority does not mean it can be taken with military power. It means that the people cam vote or go into politics to change things.

There is a difference, learn it. This isn't an uprising, this is direct military action.

In response to an uprising the local populace doesn't support. All the facts matter.

 

[BUnit1701]

That's fine, but that's pretty highly problematic when applied to Russia as they are actively suppressing the right to self determination in a number of other areas. (Chechnya???) Russia doesn't give a shit about self determination, they care about enforcing their interests in Ukraine.

Secondly, there's no self determination happening when an obviously biased foreign power is currently occupying and suppressing non-Russian elements of the population. If you truly believe in self-determination you would be for an immediate expulsion of occupying troops so a legitimate referendum can be had.

Sounds about right. This whole thing with people defending Russia here is bizzare. Reminds me of the demands of Hitler in the late 30s of Austria and the Sudetenland and eventually Danzig.

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

And I find people condemning Russia here to be bizarre. Violent protesters showed they were perfectly willing to attack government police/facilities. How is Russia not justified in protecting it's military assets in the region? Further, why does Russia's military presence preclude a fair and free referendum?

 

[Northern Lawn]

Sounds about right. This whole thing with people defending Russia here is bizzare. Reminds me of the demands of Hitler in the late 30s of Austria and the Sudetenland and eventually Danzig.

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

Same here but thank god EU won't make the same passive mistake as they did in the 1930's. These are some stinging words...

European Union foreign ministers met in emergency session in Brussels to discuss possible punitive steps against Russia unless it pulled its troops back to its own bases in Crimea, including suspension of talks with Moscow on visa liberalization. But France and Germany said that sanctions were not on the table, urging dialogue with Russia first.

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

I'm reminded that there are a million americans living in Canada.

 

[Genx87]

No it wouldn't. The Crimea was part of Russia right up till 1958 when it was handed over to be governed by the Ukraine.

California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas were part of Mexico at one point.

 

[Hugo Drax]

According to the GOP Obama is a pussy and should have our forces fighting the russians now.

 

[shadow9d9]

The Israelis that wrote the article cited by OP should know all too well what happens when aggressors like Putin are placated. It led to the Jews being put in gas chambers but I guess they forget that lesson they constantly espouse when it comes to Israeli interests (getting Russian cooperation on Iran).

Since Israel was made because the Jews were aggressors, I can't really take their "advice" to heart. Hell, they can't even survive on their own without the US protecting them...

 

[senseamp]

Sounds about right. This whole thing with people defending Russia here is bizzare. Reminds me of the demands of Hitler in the late 30s of Austria and the Sudetenland and eventually Danzig.

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

Crimea was in Russia long before Texas was in the US. Texas voluntarily joined the US. Crimea was arbitrarily "given" to Ukraine by Khruschev (who was from Ukraine) 60 years ago. The people of Crimea never had a say in it, until now.
There is going to be a referendum at the end of March on Crimean independence from Ukraine.

 

[fskimospy]

No it wouldn't. The Crimea was part of Russia right up till 1958 when it was handed over to be governed by the Ukraine.

If by 'right up till' you mean 'from 1783 to 1953'. It was a relatively autonomous region under the Ottoman Empire for centuries before Russia conquered it. If we're going by historical claims I guess we should give it to Turkey.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is a real cancer for a nation to have foreign demographics within its borders if those demographics can be used as justification for invasion.

Demographics determine loyalties. Crimea is pro-Russia. You keep saying invasion, but it could simply be liberation. It is not for you to decide.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'm actually a pretty big history nerd.

And yet, you have learned nothing from it. You are another internet tough guy, just like the fools who rushed the US into 2 endless occupations.

Hell, you couldn't even suggest what a show of force would be.. you gave a wiki definition. You know nothing and have no independent thought.

 

[BUnit1701]

California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas were part of Mexico at one point.

And were removed from Mexico via war and the resulting peace treaty. In the case of Crimea, well senseamp sums it up pretty well:

Crimea was in Russia long before Texas was in the US. Texas voluntarily joined the US. Crimea was arbitrarily "given" to Ukraine by Khruschev (who was from Ukraine) 60 years ago. The people of Crimea never had a say in it, until now.
There is going to be a referendum at the end of March on Crimean independence from Ukraine.

 

[fskimospy]

And I find people condemning Russia here to be bizarre. Violent protesters showed they were perfectly willing to attack government police/facilities. How is Russia not justified in protecting it's military assets in the region? Further, why does Russia's military presence preclude a fair and free referendum?

Can you provide examples of violent protesters attacking government police and facilities in Crimea? (please do not use Russian media as it is a propaganda arm of the Russian government) Can you provide any examples of Russian military assets in the region being threatened?

Can you think of any reasons why military occupation by a party that 1.) has a vested interest in the outcome of an election and 2.) has shown no qualms about suppressing dissent and manipulating elections in the past JUST MIGHT mean that a referendum would not be free and fair?

Why is it bizarre for people to condemn an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state in violation of numerous international agreements to which it is signatory as well as the UN charter?

 

[AViking]

No it wouldn't. The Crimea was part of Russia right up till 1958 when it was handed over to be governed by the Ukraine.

Huge parts of the US were part of Mexico until we took it from them. Half my college career was spent bitching about Mecha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA