Ukraine

[faultier]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

fairly sure if the canadian equivalent of this party had taken control of the streets of Toronto, US wouldn't be just watching as it happens ?

b2b wasn't the fact that Iraq was allegedly a threat to American soil (WMD yadda yadda) one of the justification for intervention ?

[nowaysj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

fairly sure if the canadian equivalent of this party had taken control of the streets of Toronto, US wouldn't be just watching as it happens ?

I don't see the international community high fiving the US as we invade canada because they elected a quasi-izan government though.

[magma]

Do you think the UK would've sent troops to France if they'd elected Le Pen? Or if Denmark brought in the Danish People's Party? Or if the (admittedly much 'milder') Scottish Nationalist Party took control of an Independent Scotland? Or if any of the multitude of Nationalist groups gaining popularity across recession-hit Europe took power? Or would we let sovereign democracies get on with it until they started affecting other countries? We didn't go into izan Germany because they elected a dangerously Nationalist government, we did it because they started actively annexing countries like Austria and Poland.

Nationalism is a pretty logical consequence when your under pressure from a larger, more powerful country that has previously absorbed you and postures that it could do again - it makes people nervy, extra patriotic and quicker to resort to violent action/riot - Sinn Fein and The IRA were a pretty logical outcome of the political tension in Ireland, it doesn't mean they didn't need engaging with politically, in fact whilst we branded them as mindless terrorists and refused them the chance to debate, we made no progress whatsoever... it doesn't mean that they'll still be required or remain as popular once tensions have died down. Sending the British Army in didn't really achieve a great deal there, did it? We're still arguing about Bloody Sunday 40 years later!

There is obviously a lot of shit for the people of Ukraine to sort out - not least whether the entire country is going to be European or Russian or whether it's going to split into two or more states with various allegiences. Influence from Russia AND "the West" will only slow that process down massively and spread tensions further than the country's borders.

[magma]

if Russia wants to bully Crimean independence militarily or widen his army's scope to the rest of Ukraine? Well, that is exactly the sort of thing we should be disapproving of and it's difficult to argue it another way without desperately searching for shaky justifications

thing is, this is the way the facts are presented in Western media, my company works with an outsourced team in Ukraine (in Kharkiv, near the Russian border to be precise), and what these guys tell me is that they are pro-russian (and probably ethnic russians for the most of them), they don't see the russian intervention as bullying but as Russia stepping in to prevent violence against ethnic russians (again, do not forget the context is that atm Ukraine is a state where the elected government, that was admittedly corrupt, but still, has been overthrown by a "popular" uprising led by far right nationalists and the new government, regardless of its legitimacy, so far hasn't made any steps to rein in those far-rights elements who are casually advocating for Ukraine to be "cleansed of Russians and Jews")

I think no matter what side of the debate you're on, there's an awful lot of propaganda. Russia are talking anti-semitism and fascism in order to justify a build up of troops, pro-Ukraine voices are yelling Russian imperialism and corruption in order to justify the coup... I don't think anyone argues that there is some serious shit to be sorted out within their country, just that hurling grenades over the walls of the debating hall might not be the best way to expedite a healthy resolution.

This is Ukraine's issue - do THEY want to be part of Russia? Do THEY want to be part of the EU? Do THEY want to be one country or several? Do THEY want the Russian Army clearing protesters off the street?

All I'm hearing at the moment is what Putin, various journalists and Western Internet users think. None of those people matter.

[faultier]

don't get me wrong i'm not saying Putin is a saint, and i'm fully aware that there's propaganda on both sides, but as stated, the ukrainians people i know (who are indeed not in Kiev but on the Eastern/pro-russian side of the country, fair enough) really don't seem all that bothered by russian intervention and actually seem to be welcoming it ? clearly i can also see this might not be the point of view of western ukrainians

"This is Ukraine's issue - do THEY want to be part of Russia? Do THEY want to be part of the EU? Do THEY want to be one country or several? Do THEY want the Russian Army clearing protesters off the street?"

maybe this "THEY" doesn't exist, as there's a stark divide between pro-maidan and pro-russian Ukrainians and this is why the situation is what it is ?

again i'm not giving russia's intervention a free pass, but i just wished the reporting on the issue was less one-sided and more nuanced because stirring shit like Western media are doing right now is clearly not helping (note how RT doesn't seem to be near the "WW3 is nigh" mode that seems to be standard in western media these last few days) ?

[magma]

maybe this "THEY" doesn't exist, as there's a stark divide between pro-maidan and pro-russian Ukrainians and this is why the situation is what it is ?

Well, yeah, that's exactly why the situation is what it is. The Borderland regions (Crimea etc) are historically separate from Ukraine, feel a greater affinity for Russian culture and speak Russian... there's certainly a strong argument for them declaring independence, but, and this seems to be the bit everyone's conveniently forgetting/ignoring - this has already happened - Crimea was made independent shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and is still an autonomous region. If it wants to declare independence, it has all the ability in the world to do so - all it has to do is vote. Last time they voted, they voted to stay part of Ukraine but maintain some autonomy... perhaps that would change now that Ukraine have removed Russian as an official state language. Perhaps now there is a quorum in Crimea large enough to secede, but that's not going to be found out by the Russian military, it's going to be found out by vote counters.

Whatever happens, decisions have to be made by the Ukrainian and Crimean people as to whether they want to co-exist - those debates have been going on for decades and continual influence from Russia doesn't seem to help (handing out passports to Russian speaking Ukrainians or permanently stationing troops in Crimean cities, for example). Russia has been involved in propaganda in Ukraine for as long as anyone can remember and it doesn't seem to have done anyone any good. It certainly hasn't had a "stablizing effect".

again i'm not giving russia's intervention a free pass, but i just wished the reporting on the issue was less one-sided and more nuanced because stirring shit like Western media are doing right now is clearly not helping (note how RT doesn't seem to be near the "WW3 is nigh" mode that seems to be standard in western media these last few days) ?

I've not seen much "WW3 is nigh" in the media tbh, maybe I'm reading the wrong papers; the nearest I've seen is "this could lead to a second Cold War"... I've seen plenty of knee-jerk WW3 panic from non-media individuals in places like this.




tl;dr The Soviet Union was hacked up in a rush when it fell, leading to poorly marked out and often now failed Republics and because Russia has never truly come to terms with not owning them all anymore, it's kept itself involved in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Ossettia and Abkhazia leading to a complete lack of resolution of any of those places' issues and a LOT of bloodshed along the way. Russia should back the fuck off and admit it's no longer owner of an Empire. I'm not screaming WW3, but I am screaming Chechnya 2.

[titchbit]

heading

Heading to a Brave New World? You don't know where you are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But don't think for a second that you are powerless to shape the world, or that you will get any kind of (meaningful) truth from the television.

These two together are very contradictory. You're definitely one for the hyperbole aren't you NWJ? We are not in a Brave New World scenario. They are not killing babies at birth because they can predict their entire life or almost all of the other things that happen in that book (admittedly it's been a while).

But if we were, then any individual that's not in the government would in fact have no ability to change things.

However, I still think that any one individual, in today's scenario, does not have the ability to change things unless they have powerful positions in the government, the media, or lots and lots of money, none of which are me.

[faultier]

"tl;dr The Soviet Union was hacked up in a rush when it fell, leading to poorly marked out and often now failed Republics and because Russia has never truly come to terms with not owning them all anymore, it's kept itself involved in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Ossettia and Abkhazia leading to a complete lack of resolution of any of those places' issues and a LOT of bloodshed along the way. Russia should back the fuck off and admit it's no longer owner of an Empire. I'm not screaming WW3, but I am screaming Chechnya 2."
the comparison with South Ossetia 2008 would be more accurate than with Chechnya tho?

i think we (as in people in Western countries) infer a lot on the intentions of Russia (not that i have any insider knowledge though), my impression is that Putin isn't the one acting like a warmongering maniac in this particular case? idk, again, i'm not saying the guy is a saint, but how does that make sense to you that he would willfully get embark in that whole thing right after the Sochi games which were supposed to be his "look guys, Russia isn't so bad" moment, i really think he would have prefered not to HAVE TO be involved

also there might be something to add about how Russia (well, Gorbatchev, more precisely) agreed to dismantle the USSR and Warsaw pact (and undisputably did so) on the condition that NATO wouldn't expand further east, let alone spearhead several unilateral military interventions in sovereign countries... i don't think Russia is clinging to the idea that it owns an empire as much as the US does and for this reason needs to have the Russian (and Chinese, and Al Qaida, though things get complicated on that front because it seems they are now on the side of democracy, at least in Syria, another debate) scarecrows to justify keeping on fighting the good fight, even if that means poking the mostly asleep bear every once in a while to make sure the public opinions are still on board?

tl;dr: on paper nothing can justify foreign interventions on sovereign countries, in practice, things unfortunately dont work that way and its easy to point fingers at putin while at the same time not acknowledging the roles of other foreign powers in exacerbating this situation (if not engineering it from scratch)

[nowaysj]

*bunch of rational international shit*D4NNY is the greatest*bunch of rational international shit*

[titchbit]

browaysj

[nowaysj]

So did maddow tell you what to think yet? Did she take the tack that invading Iraq was a great move, our geopolitical interests were greatly furthered, and the people of Iraq have benefited greatly. Or did she draw a political distinction, that that invasion was wrong, that it was predicated on a lie, or a whole production of lies, because the Republicans were at the helm, but now that the Dems are driving the boat, the invasion of the Ukraine would be totally cool, would further our geopolitical interests, and the people of the Ukraine would see us triumphant liberators?

[titchbit]

9pm Thursday

____________________________________________________

I left the world for a few years in college, didn't know wtf was going on, this chick Ranka was trying ride the bologna, and I was like why do you have 14 people living in your apartment.

BROWAYSJ!!!!!!!

[nowaysj]

Oh okay, lemme know, I'm waiting with bated breath.

[magma]

also there might be something to add about how Russia (well, Gorbatchev, more precisely) agreed to dismantle the USSR and Warsaw pact (and undisputably did so) on the condition that NATO wouldn't expand further east, let alone spearhead several unilateral military interventions in sovereign countries... i don't think Russia is clinging to the idea that it owns an empire as much as the US does and for this reason needs to have the Russian (and Chinese, and Al Qaida, though things get complicated on that front because it seems they are now on the side of democracy, at least in Syria, another debate) scarecrows to justify keeping on fighting the good fight, even if that means poking the mostly asleep bear every once in a while to make sure the public opinions are still on board?

Russia has been at the centre of empires for centuries, not just the Soviet decades; given that Britain had a much more fleeting, but much more wide-reaching effort at it which ended over three generations ago, but still finds its way into a lot of Brits' gut thinking about all manner of issues (you only have to read the Daily Express to see that there are plenty of Brits out there that still think The Queen should be the world's Mum) - Russia have had 'independence' struggles with an ever growing number of its former possessions over the past couple of decades; it certainly seems like their imperial instincts haven't died off - but there's definitely a fair bit of assumption going on there.

It's perfectly fair to point out that it's not like Russia have been absorbing them back into the motherland... but it does seem that they still feel some sort of allegiance to "Russian speaking people"... which is sort of contradictory to the whole idea of not having an empire any more. Just because someone speaks Russian and likes Putin's rhetoric doesn't make them Russian unless they live in Russia. If Crimea wants to secede then it has the autonomy and the right to vote on it alone as it has done in the past - if it then wants to court whatever kind of arrangement with Russia, that's up to them, but right now, those people are Ukrainian, not Russian. The election (well, ok, coup) of a nationalist government and removal of Russian as an official language is almost certainly justification for a vote on Crimean independence, but it simply isn't any sort of justification for Russia "defending" all the "Russian speaking Ukrainians" as if they were property of the Motherland. They're not. They haven't been for decades. When it comes down to brass tacks, Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians are more British than Crimeans are Russian.

The post Sochi timing is interesting for sure, but you could just as easily argue it in the other direction. Putin is world famous for posturing - the guy gets adored at home for being photographed hunting shirtless and generally doing stuff that's so macho we'd think he was a bit of a tit over here. He's LOVED. I'm torn, but half of me wonders if Putin isn't relishing the timing however little control he had over it - he's currently got centre stage to be whatever leader he wants the world to see him as. He seemed to be showing something approaching restraint for the last 24 hours or so, but then:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-ukraine- ... hvg45.html

Yeah, an intercontinental missile test. Now. Planned for at least a week because the Americans were notified, but still... that's an interesting thing to do when you know the world's watching. Honestly strikes me as a pretty standard Cold War dinosaur.

tl;dr: on paper nothing can justify foreign interventions on sovereign countries, in practice, things unfortunately dont work that way and its easy to point fingers at putin while at the same time not acknowledging the roles of other foreign powers in exacerbating this situation (if not engineering it from scratch)

Yep, absolutely... but right now, I can't really see why anyone would manufacture this short of getting into extreme conspiracy territory. The West, especially Europe and especially Germany (the only non-American country they'd feasibly be intimidated by) is crippled by its dependence on Russian gas supplies; there's no way we'd have a war with them (goodbye 70 years of widespread European peace) and we can't get them economically because it'd blow back in our faces. This is hellish timing for everyone involved.

Just an aside the US clinging onto an empire is an interesting idea to me since they've never had an actual empire. I know what you mean, they have had an extremely fruitful period as the world's only proper hyperpower and probably the world's most effective ever cultural megaphone, but they have never been able to exercise control over their "empire" as real imperial powers like England or Russia did. Toppling the odd government and colluding with the odd puppet are small fry compared to enslaving half the world in the name of tea and sugar. I think America will learn its appropriate humility a lot quicker than we are still doing.

[titchbit]

magma, I'm genuinely interested in your take on the talking point circulating that goes something like.... "when you go around invading countries that did not attack you, like Iraq, then that sets a precedent, and the US/the West no longer has the moral authority to tell other countries that they can't do the same thing."

i mean if you think about it, it's a very similar situations. invading a country that didn't attack you, but is having serious problems, and then claiming that it's for the reason of "oh we're just trying to help them out by stabilizing their government" but really it's for more selfish reasons.

[magma]

In principal, I agree, but the reality is a lot more nuanced. For a start, the people that took us into those wars were in what appears to have been a minority within our country (UK anyway, US was more broadly in favour) plus... and this is the important bit.... are no longer in power; Tony Blair's been out of Number 10 for 7 years and he's still having to deal with waiters trying to put him under citizen's arrest whilst he's having his tea! Iraq began ten years ago - we've had two Prime Ministers since then even though most of us were against in the first place, it's now fairly 'accepted' that they were at least very bad ideas and very possibly illegal as fuck; it's difficult to say that David Cameron can't have an opinion on this because Tony Blair took us into an illegal war and it's even more difficult to say a journalist from the Guardian or indeed Magma from London can't have an opinion, because, hell, I marched against those wars in the first place. I'm not being hypocritical for maintaining my views.

Also, because of the coalition's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan there has been a bit of a paradigm shift in thinking about those sorts of wars over here. Even when usually anti-war voices were screaming for action in Benghazi, the most our leaders had the balls to do was impose no-fly zones; our leaders really don't like the idea of wars anymore.

Finally, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't happen in a vacuum. Yes, they were our countries' mistakes, but no, that doesn't mean that other people can't learn from them. To finally break the thread's Godwin's Law cherry, the rest of the developed world didn't all have to carry out a Holocaust in order to learn that it was a bad thing never to be repeated... once was enough.

[didi]

interesting and vaguely relevant to the direction the thread is going

“… What has the no-fly zone established by Security Council resolution 1973 become? How could NATO perform more than 20,000 missions against the Libyan people if there was a no-fly zone? After the Libyan Air Force was completely annihilated, the continued “humanitarian” bombing shows that the West, through NATO, intends to impose their interests in North Africa, turning Libya into a colonial protectorate.”

“…Why is the Libyan seat in the UN granted to the “national transitional council,” while the admission of Palestine is blocked by ignoring, not only its lawful aspiration, but also the existing will of the majority of the General Assembly? Venezuela hereby ratifies its unconditional solidarity with the Palestinian people and its total support for the Palestinian national cause, which naturally includes the immediate admission of Palestine as a full member state within the United Nations.


“And the same imperialist pattern is being repeated regarding Syria.”


“It is intolerable that the powerful of this world intend to claim for themselves the right to order legitimate and sovereign governments rulers to step down. This was the case in Libya, and they want to do the same in Syria. Such are the existing asymmetries in the international setting and such are the abuses against the weakest nations.”


“If we direct our eyes to the Horn of Africa we will witness a heartbreaking example of the UN’s historical failure: most serious news agencies report that 20-29,000 children under the age of 5 have died in the last three months.”


“What is needed to face this situation is $400 million, not to solve the problem, but just to address the emergency that Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia are going through. According to all sources, the next two months will be crucial to prevent more than 12 million people from dying, and the worst situation is that of Somalia.


“This reality could not be more atrocious, especially if, at the same time, we ask ourselves how much is being spent to destroy Libya. This is the answer of U.S. congressman Dennis Kucinich, who said: “This new War will cost us $500 million during its first week alone. Obviously, we do not have financial resources for that and we will end up cutting off other important domestic programs’ funding.” According to Kucinich himself, with the amount spent during the first three weeks in Northern Africa to massacre the Libyan people, much could have been done to help the entire region of the Horn of Africa, saving tens of thousands of lives.”


“…it is frankly regrettable that in the opening address of the 66th General Assembly of the UN, an immediate appeal to solve humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa was not made, while instead we were assured that “the time has come to act” on Syria.”


“We are also crying out for the end to the shameful and criminal blockade of our sister Republic of Cuba: a blockade that, for more than fifty years, is being exercised by the empire with cruelty and brutality, against the heroic peoples of José Martí.


“As of 2010, 19 UN General Assembly votes confirm the universal will demanding that the United States stop the economic and trade blockade against Cuba. Since all sensible international arguments have been exhausted, we have no choice but to believe that such cruel actions against the Cuban Revolution result from imperial arrogance in view of the dignity and courage shown by the unsubmissive Cuban people in their sovereign decision to determine their own fate and fight for their happiness.


“From Venezuela, we believe it is time to demand of the U.S. not only an immediate and unconditional end to the criminal blockade imposed against the Cuban people, but also the release of the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters held hostage in the prisons of the American Empire for the sole reason of seeking to prevent the illegal actions of terrorist groups against Cuba, under the shelter of the U.S. government.”


“For us, it is obvious that the UN is not improving, nor will it improve from the inside. If the Secretary General, along with the President of the International Criminal Court, take part in an act of war, as in the case of Libya, nothing can be expected from the current structure of this organization and there is no longer time for reform.”


“It is unbearable that there is a Security Council that turns its back, whenever it wants to, on the clamor of the majority of nations by deliberately failing to acknowledge the will of the General Assembly. If the Security Council is some sort of club with privileged members, what can the General Assembly do? Where is its room for maneuver, when Security Council members violate international law?


“Paraphrasing Bolívar when he spoke of nascent Yankee imperialism in 1818, we have had enough of the weak following the law while the strong commit abuses. It cannot be us, the peoples of the South, who respect international law while the North violates it, destroying and plundering us.


“If we do not make a commitment, once and for all, to rebuilding the United Nations, this organization will lose its remaining credibility. Its crisis of legitimacy will be accelerated until it finally implodes. In fact, that is what happened to its immediate predecessor: the League of Nations.”

[test_recordings]

Russia are allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea anyway, even I can see the western media like Yahoo blowing it out of proportion all facts considered because they only have 16,000 currently present I think.

Also, Putin has the final say and he's saying no because he knows it's inflammatory.

No Russian invasion foreseen from my perspective. Crimean military heads have already switched loyalties to the Crimean government anyway so it's probably not going to be necessary.

Russian 'pressure' is going to be more of an issue. Even unspoken, anything going bang across the border will probably trigger an invasion like in Georgia and I don't think even Crimeans really want that if they can avoid it.

[nowaysj]

Hey, whaddya say we make Ukraine look like Syria?

[garethom]

Russia are allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea anyway, even I can see the western media like Yahoo blowing it out of proportion all facts considered because they only have 16,000 currently present I think.

The agreement was that they're allowed up to 25,000 troops in Russian military bases, not 16,000 troops locking down airports and standing armed outside of Ukranian bases.