Ukraine (and Russia)

[Frelga]

An important distinction - Putin uses the term "Russian speaking" and that covers a lot of people who are not ethnic Russians, including many ethnic Ukrainians. Until the 90s, Russian was the official language in all Soviet republics, while the local language was taught as a second, often optional, language. The result is that outside of rural areas, and especially in the East, Russian was the only language most people spoke. I understand that a lot of progress has been made in the last decades in bringing Ukrainian language forward to its rightful place, but I can also hear people speaking on camera, either in Russian (including the very fluent and idiomatic Russian in which they told the Russian troops to buzz off*) or in rather awkward, russified Ukrainian.


When spoken properly, Ukrainian, incidentally, is one of the most beautiful, melodious languages I've heard.


* Not an exact translation, and you've got to admire a man telling someone who is armed and backed by a column of tanks to go fuck himself

ETA: Russian-speakers include the now-legendary hero of the protests, Tetiana Chornovol, who I am pretty sure is speaking Russian in the radio segment at the link.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Good point, Frelga. I have studiously avoided the regurgitation of Putin's propaganda as much as I can (which is something some media outlets haven't been very successful at). However, as you note, both designations are problematic. The people Putin is really talking about - though he obfuscates for his own purposes - are Russian speakers with dual Russian-Ukrainian citizenship primarily living in Crimea and the east.

On hypocrisies and double standards, I'll simply say this.

In the lead up to, and during WWII, certain choruses of people would say the following:

"Who is the US to reprimand Nazi Germany, when we still have segregation in the south?"

"Who is the UK to condemn Nazi Germany, when they still have colonies?"

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.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Who is the U.S. to reprimand Russia for invading a foreign land based on false or manufactured information when ... .

Sadly, the comparison is a little closer this time around.

[JewelSong]

* Not an exact translation, and you've got to admire a man telling someone who is armed and backed by a column of tanks to go puerile-term himself.

And I bet that sounds even better in Russian than it does in English....

[Passdagas the Brown]

Who is the U.S. to reprimand Russia for invading a foreign land based on false or manufactured information when ... .

Sadly, the comparison is a little closer this time around.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the Obama Administration. This Administration did not invade any nations on false pretenses, so IMO, the question falls flat. The Bush Administration stood on shakier ground when it opposed Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008.

But even if it was the Obama Administration that invaded Iraq based on false pretenses, I think there are some very important differences.

In the first case, you had a democracy (the US) invading an authoritarian country (Iraq), who though not in possession of WMDs, had done a pretty good job of killing large swathes of people within its borders that it didn't like (talk to a Kurd some day). Not justifying the war (I was against it from the beginning), but there's that. The U.S. also did not have explicit territorial ambitions in Iraq.

In this case, you have an authoritarian regime (Putin's Russia) invading a democratic country (Ukraine) for having the audacity to reject its pro-Russian government (a government that was slowly but surely moving along the path towards greater authoritarianism). The pretense this authoritarian regime (Russia) is giving has no basis in fact (that the Ukrainian government is killing Russian-speakers), and their primary ambition (which is territorial) is beginning to materialize, as the Russian Duma discusses the annexation of Crimea. This land grab simply cannot stand, particularly in a subcontinent that was the center of two world wars.

The US and EU, with their admittedly stained reputations, need to stand up to Russia, whose reputation is worse. Again, this is a case of the somewhat moral standing up against the less moral.

"Perfection before action" is an impossible and dangerous standard, IMO, and I find it very troubling when my friends on the left demand it. The defense of liberalism requires a backbone.

[Dave_LF]

Not arguing the point, but the situation with Hitler was quite a bit murkier at the start of the war before the death camps were discovered, and at that point you probably wouldn't have been all that wrong pointing out broad similarities between Nazi and American racism. The Nazis were just being all imperial about it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

So today I (re)learned that there's an oil pipeline through Ukraine. If Russia gets expelled from the G8 they might choke the oil supply.

Hi River. Just wanted to clarify that the gas supply issue is far, far more prominent than the oil pipeline. Russia funnels most of its gas through Ukraine and into Europe, and Europe depends heavily on Russia and stability in Ukraine for the delivery of that gas. Of course, it follows that Russia depends on Ukraine to maintain the flow of gas into Europe, so Ukraine also has that leverage over Russia.

My guess? After a lot of blustering, Putin will pull his troops out of Crimea in exchange for an agreement to send international observers into the region to examine the treatment of Russian minorities.

But he will have largely achieved his objective: keep Ukraine very afraid of Russia, and wary of getting too close to the EU and NATO.

My hope, slim though it is, is that Ukraine learns the opposite lesson, and attempts fast-track reforms to get it closer to EU and NATO membership. If Ukraine eventually joins those institutions, the Russian military threat will disappear. And if the US succeeds in a policy it is spearheading now, it will start to cut away at Ukraine's dependence on Russian gas by exporting loads of US gas to Ukraine. I have some issues about this from an environmental perspective, but I think it may be justified.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Not arguing the point, but the situation with Hitler was quite a bit murkier at the start of the war before the death camps were discovered, and at that point you probably wouldn't have been all that wrong pointing out broad similarities between Nazi and American racism. The Nazis were just being all imperial about it.

Oh yes, I agree. My point is that Germany's invasion of Poland alone should have brought the U.S. into the war, had its leaders understood the implications.

My point is that today, we have the luxury of understanding the implications of such territorial grabs in Europe, and we have an organization (the UN) available to help enforce respect for state sovereignty. In other words, we have learned some lessons, and set up some institutions to prevent the emergence of another Hitler.

In this context, it would be ridiculous to act as if the 20th century never happened, and stick our heads in the sand. But the chorus I hear all around me in the U.S. is "we have our own problems, let Russia have Ukraine!" Exactly what people were saying about Poland in the UK. Astounding historical amnesia, IMO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[I'm pretty sure that wasn't the Obama Administration. This Administration did not invade any nations on false pretenses, so IMO, the question falls flat. The Bush Administration stood on shakier ground when it opposed Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008.

Of course that is true, and I have seldom been so relieved to have a government that takes its lead from someone like President Obama, rather than one that takes its lead from someone like Vice President Cheney. But it still doesn't change the fact that little more than a decade ago the U.S. invaded a foreign country that had neither threatened it nor any of its allies, based on demonstrably false pretenses. That precedent, and the effect that it has on the U.S.'s moral standing in the world, doesn't just disappear with the change in administration.

But even if it was the Obama Administration that invaded Iraq based on false pretenses, I think there are some very important differences.

In the first case, you had a democracy (the US) invading an authoritarian country (Iraq), who though not in possession of WMDs, had done a pretty good job of killing large swathes of people within its borders that it didn't like (talk to a Kurd some day). Not justifying the war (I was against it from the beginning), but there's that. The U.S. also did not have explicit territorial ambitions in Iraq.

In this case, you have an authoritarian regime (Putin's Russia) invading a democratic country (Ukraine) for having the audacity to reject its pro-Russian government (a government that was slowly but surely moving along the path towards greater authoritarianism). The pretense this authoritarian regime (Russia) is giving has no basis in fact (that the Ukrainian government is killing Russian-speakers), and their primary ambition (which is territorial) is beginning to materialize, as the Russian Duma discusses the annexation of Crimea. This land grab simply cannot stand, particularly in a subcontinent that was the center of two world wars.

The US and EU, with their admittedly stained reputations, need to stand up to Russia, whose reputation is worse. Again, this is a case of the somewhat moral standing up against the less moral.

"Perfection before action" is an impossible and dangerous standard, IMO, and I find it very troubling when my friends on the left demand it. The defense of liberalism requires a backbone.

Again, I don't in any way disagree, and I certainly am outraged by the actions of Putin and his government, and support responsible efforts to oppose what he has done. My only point is that even if the two situations are not directly comparable, the actions taken by the U.S. government in invading another country in a way that contravened international law has continuing detrimental effect on the country's moral standing in the world.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think we're on the same page, V! Iraq has certainly had a negative impact on our standing (and credibility) in the world - particularly on an issue like this.

Nonetheless, Ukrainians are very pro-American at the moment, and hoping we do as much as we can to get Russia out of the country. I hope the Obama Administration, and the EU, does not let them down.

[Túrin Turambar]

This interesting Forbes article addresses some of the claims I've seen flying around. In particular, the odd assertion that the Ukrainian interim government is composed of Neo-Nazis.

[axordil]

Nice article, L_M, thanks for passing it along.

[River]

Thanks LM!

I have to admit I lost track of Ukraine in the past couple days. Personal things needed personal attention. However, I had noticed that the saber-rattling had shifted from the military to the financial sectors.

[Passdagas the Brown]

There had really been no mention of a military response to Russia. The only acceptable responses are political and economic. If the US and EU work in concert on sanctions, they could have a very powerful effect on Russia. Russia cannot afford to isolate itself from its primary trading partners.

Unfortunately, Germany is reluctant to take such a step.

[Passdagas the Brown]

This interesting Forbes article addresses some of the claims I've seen flying around. In particular, the odd assertion that the Ukrainian interim government is composed of Neo-Nazis.

I would call it old, rather than odd. Russia trots out fascist and neo-imperialist monikers whenever the terms suit it. Tired propaganda.

[Túrin Turambar]

The Crimean Parliament has voted to join the Russian Federation. It will hold a referendum on March 16th.

[River]

Under Ukrainian law are they actually allowed to do that?

[Passdagas the Brown]

No, apparently. It's akin to the southern U.S. states seceding...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The difference being that the southern U.S. states weren't being backed and egged on by a huge and powerful neighbor that was looking to have them become a part of it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The difference being that the southern U.S. states weren't being backed and egged on by a huge and powerful neighbor that was looking to have them become a part of it.

Exactly! Though there is evidence that the Brits were subtly encouraging them...