Ukraine (and Russia)

[JewelSong]

I don't mean by this that I think Frelga should give a lecture series..

I would totally be down with that, though.

[Frelga]

You guys are too kind.

I'll give it a try, probably in Bag End as it is bound to get personal. Not today, because I pulled my back and can't sit and type.

[Primula Baggins]

Ow! I hope you feel better soon.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Lines on a map are NOT just lines on a map. They contain within them people with lives and families. Changing lines on a map - particularly changing them to accommodate the ambitions of a regional power such as Russia - can lead to horrible strife, suffering and death.

Crimea joining Russia while under Russian occupation is a hugely dangerous event. Pardon my rudeness, but anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

In case anyone is interested, I spent 2 years with the OSCE with a focus on the region. I am now working directly on the issue in a capacity I cannot disclose.

That won't help anyone who is concerned about my objectivity, but I figured it was important to disclose.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

[eborr]

I cannot claim to have any special knowledge or relationship with either Russia or Ukraine, they were countries I have avoided doing business with like the plague, primarily because of the corruption and gangsterism, but I do have some experience of working in Estonia, and the Czech republic shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and an association with Lithuania going back more than 30 years, as Mrs Eborr's Dad was Lithuanian, and he fled the country because of reprisals that the Russians were taking on people who "volunteered" to work in the forced labour camps, so I am well aware of the Russians and their soft touch, and of the stifling effect communism had on individuals and families during the soviet era.

However having spent a part of my life in the armed forces, and an even greater part divesting DOD's of their funding I am well aware of the propaganda the free world put's out, and there is very little that's black and white out there

I have great deal of scepticism about anything that's reported in the media unless I can fully appreciate the under currents that are operating, and have some insight into the agenda's.

I say this with cognisance about what is happening in Syria, and about what happened in Libya, about which I have some inside knowledge.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Out of curiosity, how have you "divested" DOD of their funding?

[Primula Baggins]

Selling them things.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Saying that any election or referendum cannot be valid because there are Russian troops in Crimea is overlooking the long history the US has of conducting elections in other countries.

Yes, they are just lines on a map. If the people in the region want them changed, why is it the responsibility of the US to say that they cannot. Crimea was Russian long before it was Ukrainian. So the Crimeans want to change back, and it benefit Russia. And my point is "So what?"

Is it the job of the US to govern Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea? Is it our job? Is it our jurisdiction? Is it our responsibility?

[Túrin Turambar]

Saying that any election or referendum cannot be valid because there are Russian troops in Crimea is overlooking the long history the US has of conducting elections in other countries.

The U.S. does not have its troops in countries which are voting on whether they should be annexed to the U.S. or not. There is a vested interest in this case that did not exist in Afghanistan or Iraq (or Germany, Japan, etc).

[Passdagas the Brown]

Saying that any election or referendum cannot be valid because there are Russian troops in Crimea is overlooking the long history the US has of conducting elections in other countries.

Yes, they are just lines on a map. If the people in the region want them changed, why is it the responsibility of the US to say that they cannot. Crimea was Russian long before it was Ukrainian. So the Crimeans want to change back, and it benefit Russia. And my point is "So what?"

Is it the job of the US to govern Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea? Is it our job? Is it our jurisdiction? Is it our responsibility?

Yes, it is our job to stop Russia's territorial ambitions in Europe.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Why? (I don't disagree, I would just like to see you expound further.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Why is it the job of the US to stop the "territorial ambitions" of any country? What makes us the police man of the world? What makes our shooting of foreign people good while when other countries do that it is bad? And if you want to get nitty-gritty, especially since none of the times we've done that it has been benevolent but has been in the selfish interest of some within the US.




Especially given that the "territorial ambitions" are to reclaim territory that was theirs long before, as I've already pointed out.


Oh, and don't forget Texas-USA-Mexico.

[Nin]

I am quietly reading every day several times, but as it happens, I'll leave for an exchange with students on saturday and do have an impressive quantity of work to do.

But, Frelga, as a descendant of "Galician Germans", I'd be most interested to learn more about the Ukraine and from a very different perspective and experience than my grand-mother's was, I am sure.

(On a completely different level, Frelga, do you know anything about traditional Russian clothing? I'd ask a question or two in the suitably attired thread, then)

[Passdagas the Brown]

Why? (I don't disagree, I would just like to see you expound further.)

An aggressive nation seizing the sovereign territory of other nations precipitated one of the greatest existential risks the world has ever seen - World War II (followed closely by the threat of a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the USSR, which almost became a reality during the Cuban Missile Crisis). In a world of dangerous technologies, these kinds of pre-modern actions by states can severely upset the global security order that was institutionalized after WWII, and potentially lead to devastating consequences. Secondly, I believe the US and its allies have an obligation to defend human rights worldwide.

The United States, and its allies, are currently in the best position to help prevent states from realizing such territorial ambitions. If we do nothing, that will encourage similar actions in the future.

Now, because Russia has a large nuclear arsenal, what we can do is largely limited to the economic and political sphere. But since Russia is far more integrated into the global economy than it was during the Cold War, these measures - if strong and backed by the US and the EU - can really bring Russia to its knees.

IMO, Putin made a huge mistake here, and he may ultimately pay politically. The Russian business class if already on the verge of revolt.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Why is it the job of the US to stop the "territorial ambitions" of any country? What makes us the police man of the world? What makes our shooting of foreign people good while when other countries do that it is bad? And if you want to get nitty-gritty, especially since none of the times we've done that it has been benevolent but has been in the selfish interest of some within the US.




Especially given that the "territorial ambitions" are to reclaim territory that was theirs long before, as I've already pointed out.


Oh, and don't forget Texas-USA-Mexico.

The fact that Crimea was once part of Russia is irrelevant. A large chunk of the American Southwest was once part of Mexico, but that does not justify Mexico seizing that land from the United States.

Crimea is currently part of Ukraine, and Russia is pressuring the region - through a military occupation - to join Russia. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I do not believe we can have a fruitful discussion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An aggressive nation seizing the sovereign territory of other nations precipitated one of the greatest existential risks the world has ever seen - World War II

I would amend that to "aggressive nations seizing the sovereign territory of other nations precipitated one of the greatest existential risks the world has ever seen - World War II." Imperial Japan invaded and seized parts of China well before Nazi Germany took any overt aggressive actions.

But that of course does not render what you say untrue.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Why is it the job of the US to stop the "territorial ambitions" of any country? What makes us the police man of the world? What makes our shooting of foreign people good while when other countries do that it is bad? And if you want to get nitty-gritty, especially since none of the times we've done that it has been benevolent but has been in the selfish interest of some within the US.




Especially given that the "territorial ambitions" are to reclaim territory that was theirs long before, as I've already pointed out.


Oh, and don't forget Texas-USA-Mexico.

The fact that Crimea was once part of Russia is irrelevant. A large chunk of the American Southwest was once part of Mexico, but that does not justify Mexico seizing that land from the United States.

Crimea is currently part of Ukraine, and Russia is pressuring the region - through a military occupation - to join Russia.

Of course we're calling their military presence "pressure." It's only not pressure when the US does it. Until the US double standard is dispensed with, dropping the myth of the US as the essential nation and the only one with a right to intervene, we can't have a fruitful discussion.

Oh, and when I wrote "Texas-USA-Mexico" I wasn't hypothesizing about Mexico reclaiming land that was theirs, I was directly writing about the Texas-Mexico war and the US-Mexico war in which the US seized a large part of Mexico. The US was an aggressive nation seizing the sovereign territory of another nation. Our hands aren't clean.

[yovargas]

This standard that nations must be spotless in order to act against unwarranted aggression against a democracy is ludicrous.

In the real world, the somewhat moral need to stand up against the less moral. That's the range we operate in.

I am nowhere near knowledgeable enough on this topic to offer an opinion one way or the other but I see this quote as excellent wisdom. I don't see much relevance between the morality of past actions to the morality of our present actions.

[Túrin Turambar]

This standard that nations must be spotless in order to act against unwarranted aggression against a democracy is ludicrous.

In the real world, the somewhat moral need to stand up against the less moral. That's the range we operate in.

I am nowhere near knowledgeable enough on this topic to offer an opinion one way or the other but I see this quote as excellent wisdom. I don't see much relevance between the morality of past actions to the morality of our present actions.

I think this is a point that is always worth remembering.

For example, the Second World War is always held up as the perfect example of a ‘just’ war. But the Allies were profoundly morally compromised. Britain and France were still imperialist and colonialist powers which had no qualms about using armed force to control their colonies and mandates. Canada and Australia had racist immigration policies and continued to mistreat their native peoples with institutionalised discrimination. The United States still denied basic rights of citizenship to millions of African-Americans in the south. And they had joined with and were actively supporting the government of the Stalinist Soviet Union, possibly the most brutal and repressive state that has ever existed.

In fact, you could easily argue that Britain and France’s declaration of war on Germany on September 3, 1939, was wholly disproportionate to what Hitler had actually done so far (basically use force to integrate mostly German-majority areas previously part of the German or Austro-Hungarian Empires into modern Germany). And that they had no right or interest in Eastern Europe, and that they had openly rejected an attempt at a diplomatic solution by spurning Stalin’s offer of an anti-Nazi pact.

But each case should be considered on its own merits (like this one). And I am not a liberal interventionist in general.

(Side note: I have been thinking of this topic a bit of late as I've been following the debate in the British media on whether the First World War was also a just war.)