Support NeoGAF

[Psychotext]

Hard men.

 

[Nikodemos]

What a dangerous-looking protestor.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I thought this was a pretty good article on some of the hypocrisy. I wish there were more objective articles in mainstream western media.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980

That is an amazing article and just shows the hypocrisy. Another one

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-is-on-display-again-in-ukraine-9171396.html

But bluster and self-interest aside, Russia’s invasion helps hold up a mirror to the West’s foreign policy, however much that makes us flinch. “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson was reported to have said in 1918; in the Ukrainian crisis, the first casualty has been irony. “You just don’t invade another country on a phoney pretext in order to assert your interests,” declares John Kerry, Secretary of State for a country which infamously did just that almost exactly 11 years ago. “The world cannot say it’s OK to violate the sovereignty of another nation in this way,” solemnly proclaims William Hague, who merrily waltzed through the division lobby in support of the Iraq war in 2003.

The new government has seven far-right ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych of the neo-fascist Svoboda party, which the World Jewish Congress says the EU should ban. But they do not own the whole revolt, and will only be strengthened by Russian intervention.

Supporters of Western foreign policy attack those who draw attention to our own record at times like this for “whataboutery”, or the “look over there!” approach to debate. A foreign power does something wrong, and anti-war types are said to go, “ah, but what about the West?”, supposedly to suggest that our faults make theirs all OK. That is not the point of this argument at all. Russia is ruled by an authoritarian government that attacks civil liberties and discriminates against LGBT people. It has no noble aims in Ukraine. “What is happening in Crimea these days is a classic act of imperialist intervention,” as the radical Russian group Open Left puts it. Great Powers have always exploited or promoted genuine grievances to justify their self-interest: even Mussolini rationalised his invasion of Abyssinia as liberating the country from the tyranny of chattel slavery.
But this should force us to consider how the rest of the world looks at us. Our nation joins the United States in invading Iraq on a false pretext, effectively destroying the country and killing hundreds of thousands in the process. Israel is allowed systematically to violate UN resolutions, building illegal settlements and annexing Palestinian land. Our great ally, the “witch”-beheading, hand-chopping dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, invaded Bahrain (at the request of Bahrain’s dictatorial regime, of course) to help suppress a struggle for democracy and human rights. The United States launches drone attacks in sovereign nations like Pakistan, in direct defiance of the country’s Parliament, killing countless civilians.
If Russia, or other countries deemed unfriendly, acted in this way, the calls for action would be deafening. When foreign nations commit acts of aggression, it provokes a sense of “we have to do something” in the West; so it does in other countries when we commit similar acts, too. But “rogue state” is not a term that applies to countries that violate international law, but rather to those that have failed to bend to the will of the West.

 

[everyday math]

Whelp here come the sanctions.

 

[antonz]

US Navy Dispatching Missile Destroyer from Greece to Black Sea. USS Truxtun is part of the George H.W Bush Carrier Strike Group currently in Greece.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Obama seems to be really being played like a fiddle by Putin here

 

[p3tran]

one strange pic I found in local media here making the rounds, is a pic dated 15th december 2013, where we can see ms ashton getting her hand kissed by Oleh Tyagnybok, supposedly key member of the far right wing, the one called nazi etc.

this had caused a ripple over here back then, because at the same timeframe the event happened with the pic, the same lady did some very strict comments and instructions towards Greece, and their own far right wing party -mind you, the members of said right wing party in parliament have been ..jailed around that timeframe- , then she goes and has her hand kissed in a formal meeting by that dude
at least thats how it was described over here..

 

[Phoenix]

Obama seems to be really being played like a fiddle by Putin here

I'm curious what your rationale is for thinking that - correct or not.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I'm curious what your rationale is for thinking that - correct or not.

Putin seems to be willing to be someone will lose a lot through sanctions but some in the media are saying we know putin is bad, but isn't this what United States does to other nations? Going by the rationale, it has given credence to other nations to validate sanctions on the United States on the pretense of aggressive acts by a power on an international state. Not all protestors are right wing but a lot of politicians seems to be ultra nationalists and fascists. Putin seems to be playing the long game and Obama seems to be playing the short game

 

[Zabka]

That is an amazing article and just shows the hypocrisy. Another one

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-is-on-display-again-in-ukraine-9171396.html

If Russia is worried about ethnic Russians being abused maybe they should stop whipping their own people in public.

 

[Kurtofan]

Obama seems to be really being played like a fiddle by Putin here

Ukraine (with the exception of Crimea) moved away from Russia's sphere of influence, so I'm not sure that's Obama who's being played.

 

[Partial Gamification]

At the top of the hour, 9am EST, the US will hold a hearing on its Foreign Policy Toward Ukraine and it will be livecast.

The State Department put a fact sheet out yesterday too.

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.

1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.
source

Anyone dispute these facts?

 

[ISOM]

Obama seems to be really being played like a fiddle by Putin here

What would you have obama doing or what should be doing to not be played like a fiddle? People seem to throw comments like these out there as if they can do better. The honest truth is that any actions can set off even more reactions that no one knows what will happen. It's better to be cautious then just winging it.

 

[Funky Papa]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

 

[Volimar]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

backseat diplomacy

 

[Partial Gamification]

Press Sec Carney, US response via White house:

As President Obama has made clear, the United States is pursuing and reviewing a wide range of options in response to Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – actions that constitute a threat to peace and security and a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and of its 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine, and that are inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act.

Pursuant to the President’s guidance, today the State Department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals, reflecting a policy decision to deny visas to those responsible for or complicit in threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This new step stands in addition to the policy already implemented to deny visas to those involved in human rights abuses related to political oppression in Ukraine.

In addition, the President has signed an Executive Order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or purporting to assert governmental authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. This E.O. is a flexible tool that will allow us to sanction those who are most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine, including the military intervention in Crimea, and does not preclude further steps should the situation deteriorate.

These actions build upon the previous actions the United States has taken, including suspending bilateral discussions with Russia on trade and investment; suspending other bilateral meetings on a case-by-case basis; putting on hold U.S.-Russia military-to-military engagement, including exercises, bilateral meetings, port visits, and planning conferences; and our agreement with G-7 nations to suspend for the time being our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June. Depending on how the situation develops, the United States is prepared to consider additional steps and sanctions as necessary.

At the same time, as the President has said, we seek to work with all parties to achieve a diplomatic solution that de-escalates the situation and restores Ukraine’s sovereignty. We call on Russia to take the opportunity before it to resolve this crisis through direct and immediate dialogue with the Government of Ukraine, the immediate pull-back of Russia’s military forces to their bases, the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and support for the urgent deployment of international observers and human rights monitors who can assure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, including ethnic Russians, and who can support the Ukrainian government’s efforts to hold a free and fair election on May 25.

As we follow developments in Ukraine closely, the United States reaffirms its unwavering commitment to our collective defense commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty. We will continue to pursue measures that reinforce those commitments, to include the provision of additional support to NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission and our aviation detachment in Poland.
source

How beholden is Putin to the Russian oligarchy?

 

[Kabouter]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

Whataboutism at its finest, which is not surprising, considering what country we're talking about. Absolutely bizarre seeing it though.

 

[JDSN]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

Yep, one thing is trying to draw parallels and another one is going off-topic.

 

[LiK]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

That always happens. "They did it too!" doesn't justify any of this.

 

[Out 1]

That always happens. "They did it too!" doesn't justify any of this.

Yeah. And only an idiot would compare American intervention (however wrong) in Iraq to the present situation.

 

[Nikodemos]

How beholden is Putin to the Russian oligarchy?

It's basically the other way around. In Russia, you're an oligarch only if Putin allows you to be one. Those who didn't (want to) kowtow to him were either exiled or made examples of.

 

[Dega]

Iraq became the 51st state?

 

[Azih]

Press Sec Carney, US response via White house:

How beholden is Putin to the Russian oligarchy?

I think Putin has placed himself in charge of it.

 

[Partial Gamification]

It's basically the other way around. In Russia, you're an oligarch only if Putin allows you to be one. Those who didn't (want to) kowtow to him were either exiled or made examples of.

That makes sense but in those positions, are they expendable to Putin or are they required as some of the larger cogs in Putin's political machine?

The House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing is up too, if anyone wants to hear them talk; started with focusing on ensuring upcoming national Ukrainian elections, corruption, measures so far...

Chairman has the committee's twitter feed on under his nameplate!

 

[Madness]

It's basically the other way around. In Russia, you're an oligarch only if Putin allows you to be one. Those who didn't (want to) kowtow to him were either exiled or made examples of.

Somewhat correct. One of the first things he did in his "rise" to power was to make friends with the oligarchs, resolve disputes, and to provide them with economic benefits if they supported him. That is why many fully support him.

But once he secured his political base and gained clout, he started to reward those who were loyal to him and punish those who weren't. Now, political power has diminished by oligarchs, and most are now his good friends.

 

[MThanded]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

People love a good strawman.

 

[Phoenix]

Putin seems to be willing to be someone will lose a lot through sanctions but some in the media are saying we know putin is bad, but isn't this what United States does to other nations? Going by the rationale, it has given credence to other nations to validate sanctions on the United States on the pretense of aggressive acts by a power on an international state. Not all protestors are right wing but a lot of politicians seems to be ultra nationalists and fascists. Putin seems to be playing the long game and Obama seems to be playing the short game

A very interesting take as I would have said it to be almost the opposite.

Obama hasn't acted rashly as many people want him to act. Almost immediately there were calls for "action" and "pressure" within a situation where the situation on the ground wasn't clear (and it still isn't in a lot of ways). He has let the situation play out with the rest of the world leaders and now that its a bit clearer what everyone is "planning" he is taking actions, and those actions have more long lasting implications (sanctions) than the short term gains than I believe Putin will gain by acquiring/annexing Crimea. Putin is making a fairly lasting changes in how people will operate in that area. He has closed the door to negotiation with the threat of military force and has given all of the people who would have been considered fringe (We need to build more carriers to stop the Russians) and given them a platform to speak upon. These folks will put pressure on THEIR governments to build systems to keep the Russians in check, to keep strong heavy-handed diplomacy in place to keep the Russians in check. The have made a mess out of a situation that could have been much much better resolved IMO.

As I see it, Russia absorbing Crimea doesn't really buy them as much as its going to cost them long term - at least not in the way that they're supposedly going to acquire it. They face issues with economic sanctions, issues with politics, issues with the region further pushing to remove their dependence on Russian oil, and more uncertainty that foreign investment in Russia would be arbitrarily seized. I think these are far more long reaching issues that Russia will have to deal with far longer than this initial issue.

 

[Kurdel]

If Russia is worried about ethnic Russians being abused maybe they should stop whipping their own people in public.

This is a wonderful post.

 

[Maninthemirror]

That always happens. "They did it too!" doesn't justify any of this.

In retrospect, Russia is about as evil as any major power. Remember this is a country which invaded Afghanistan and ready to take over Balochistan before Zia ul Haq begged US to intervene. This is also a country which has killed many chechan families. This is a country which invaded Georgia because it did not like the government installed and a country which has sided with Asad regime even though even bitter enemies Al Qaeda and US both think Asad is bad for the region.

Compare that with the US where they invaded Iraq on suspicions of WMDs, on Afghanistan because they refused to give up Al Qaeda, went into Pakistan soil without permission, helped nato in removing Qaddafi in Libya and support the fighters against Asad. Invaded Vietnam where they lost

The one difference being Russia has never done a positive military mission like freeing South Korea from the advancement of North Korea, taking military action saving millions of Bosnian Muslims and defended Kuwait when Saddam invaded.

But for the Secretary of State and President Obama to say attacking the sovereignty is a violation of international law, it lands you right in the hands of the argument laid down by Putin that United States is too meddling in the affairs of other countries because they think its in their best national interest, then he says in that argument why am i not allowed to act according to the best national interest of the Russian nation. By putting in sanctions in place for a nearly bloodless military intervention up to now the message is that if you invade another country because you feel its in your national interest but not the world and the country invaded, then you are creating a red line yourself and if you don't follow it you are a hypocrite. Would this mean us would get out of Guantanamo bay because its on Cuban soil even though Cubans don't like you being there ? Are you then going to put sanctions on Israel for violating treaty after treaty in building settlements where the land according to UN should belong to palestinians ? Will you put sanctions on Saudi Arabia when their forces invaded Bahrain during the uprising recently ? Of course not its not happened and it wont happen because United States does not follow its own rules of intervention

The best approach is not sanctions but negotiations with the higher ups to get this resolved without any economic hit to anyone and not basing the arguments which result in hypocrisy

 

[Sneds]

Whataboutism at its finest, which is not surprising, considering what country we're talking about. Absolutely bizarre seeing it though.

Why is it surprising that the actions of a foreign government would lead people to reflect on the actions of their own government? After all, people of the West can do little to affect Putin's actions but have much greater potential power to influence their own governments' foreign policies.

In relation to the Owen Jones article that was posted, Jones makes clear that 'whataboutism' doesn't justify Russian actions. Instead, he argues that 'Democracy, human rights and peace are universal, global causes. They are continually threatened by Great Powers. That is why all of us – whether in Moscow, London, Beijing or Washington – need to fight for a new global order that prevents Great Powers simply throwing their weight around.'

I'm not sure what's bizarre about that.

 

[Madness]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2559980

Read this. These are honest questions though. CBC is our national broadcaster much like BBC is to the UK. Because, sometimes when discussing politics, it's nice to discuss all sides of the issues. I don't see how it's "whataboutism" when people are trying to say what Russia is doing is not singular or unique.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Feeling really uneasy about this. Really hope this doesn't lead to any war at all.


=/

 

[Maninthemirror]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2559980

Read this. These are honest questions though. CBC is our national broadcaster much like BBC is to the UK. Because, sometimes when discussing politics, it's nice to discuss all sides of the issues. I don't see how it's "whataboutism" when people are trying to say what Russia is doing is not singular or unique.

Basically this.

 

[NyMartin]

Feeling really uneasy about this. Really hope this doesn't lead to any war at all.


=/

fear not its all window dressing, world powers prize their economies rather than to let themselves get stuck in a massive war over something as small as the Crimea. This is not 1853.

 

[Madness]

Feeling really uneasy about this. Really hope this doesn't lead to any war at all.

=/

Me neither. I'm hoping that the pro-Russian populations in Donetsk and Luhansk don't really start creating problems. Here's hoping Merkel and Hollande can meet or speak with Putin and end this situation quick.

 

[Azih]

Merkel seems to be kowtowing to Putin though isn't she? Isn't Germany one of the powers not wanting to put harsh economic sanctions on Russia?

 

[Osiris]

So, Germany announces it's "red line" as any moves towards the eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian PM has announced that they are "ready to sign EU association pact as soon as possible" and Crimea has announced it's intention to break away and join the Russian Federation, which overall also weakens the Russian hold over Ukraine should they be successful.

Not sure this is entirely the outcome Russia was looking for here, as predicted the heavy-handedness the Russians has moved with will be pushing Ukraine, West and East, less the Crimean peninsula, further into the EU/Wests sphere of influence.

It also managed to overtly expose the EU's reliance on an unreliable actor, with likely long-term repercussions for the Russian energy trade, something they are over-reliant on.

I don't see a win here for Putin at all.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Merkel seems to be kowtowing to Putin though isn't she? Isn't Germany one of the powers not wanting to put harsh economic sanctions on Russia?

Most of Europe does not want sanctions they want a diplomatic resolution

 

[Guileless]

Future scene from outside the polling place in Sevastopol:

 

[Kadayi]

The West will be called hypocrites if they don't recognize this decision. Putin's got this in the bag.

Similarly if the vote goes in the Russians favour, the West will undoubtedly pile on the usual disbelief over it all as well.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I love how some people seem much more concerned with the West's hypocrisy (as real as it is) than the alarming fact that Russia has invaded a sovereign nation for fuck all reasons and now is trying to claim at least part of its territory.

Come the fuck on.

This is an amazing exerpt:

Supporters of Western foreign policy attack those who draw attention to our own record at times like this for “whataboutery”, or the “look over there!” approach to debate. A foreign power does something wrong, and anti-war types are said to go, “ah, but what about the West?”, supposedly to suggest that our faults make theirs all OK. That is not the point of this argument at all. Russia is ruled by an authoritarian government that attacks civil liberties and discriminates against LGBT people. It has no noble aims in Ukraine. “What is happening in Crimea these days is a classic act of imperialist intervention,” as the radical Russian group Open Left puts it. Great Powers have always exploited or promoted genuine grievances to justify their self-interest: even Mussolini rationalised his invasion of Abyssinia as liberating the country from the tyranny of chattel slavery.
But this should force us to consider how the rest of the world looks at us. Our nation joins the United States in invading Iraq on a false pretext, effectively destroying the country and killing hundreds of thousands in the process. Israel is allowed systematically to violate UN resolutions, building illegal settlements and annexing Palestinian land. Our great ally, the “witch”-beheading, hand-chopping dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, invaded Bahrain (at the request of Bahrain’s dictatorial regime, of course) to help suppress a struggle for democracy and human rights. The United States launches drone attacks in sovereign nations like Pakistan, in direct defiance of the country’s Parliament, killing countless civilians.
If Russia, or other countries deemed unfriendly, acted in this way, the calls for action would be deafening. When foreign nations commit acts of aggression, it provokes a sense of “we have to do something” in the West; so it does in other countries when we commit similar acts, too. But “rogue state” is not a term that applies to countries that violate international law, but rather to those that have failed to bend to the will of the West.

Some accuse of appeals to hypocrisy and whataboutism but that's not what we're doing, so here are a lot of appeals to hypocrisy and whataboutism. Criticisms of the West always tend to ignore goals, motives, intents, and outcomes all of which distinguish the West from others and instead portray everything as some evil plot.

Most of Europe does not want sanctions they want a diplomatic resolution

That's quite a false choice you've set up there

 

[Elchele]

So, Germany announces it's "red line" as any moves towards the eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian PM has announced that they are "ready to sign EU association pact as soon as possible" and Crimea has announced it's intention to break away and join the Russian Federation, which overall also weakens the Russian hold over Ukraine should they be successful.

Think this is, sadly, the best solution for all parties involved. Ukraine will be able to move forward now, and distance itself from Russia. Russia gets a very key part of Ukraine, and show how "strong/badass" they are to the rest of the world in getting what they want by force, EU look like idiots, without balls to stop Russia... maybe this will make them think in gradually drop their gas dependency from Russia.

 

[Enkidu]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2559980

Read this. These are honest questions though. CBC is our national broadcaster much like BBC is to the UK. Because, sometimes when discussing politics, it's nice to discuss all sides of the issues. I don't see how it's "whataboutism" when people are trying to say what Russia is doing is not singular or unique.

It all depends on how you phrase it. Often it seems people point to western (particularly US) hypocrisy as a way to deflect criticism directed at Russia. And while it is indeed quite hilarious how Kerry, as a representative of the US, tells Russia that it cannot just invade other countries on made up charges, unless you actually support the USA's right to invade Iraq for made up reasons then it hardly excuses Russia. Two wrongs does not make a right, just because the US invaded a country does not give Russia the right to do the same and in this case the US is on the right side, even if it got there through hypocrisy.

Similarly if the vote goes in the Russians favour, the West will undoubtedly pile on the usual disbelief over it all as well.

Obviously the results of the vote would be completely irrelevant if Russia is still occupying the region. If Russia pulls out and UN peacekeepers move in, then we can start talking about holding a fair referendum.

 

[RM8]

The "America is evil too!" argument is super tiring because *gasp* not all of us who criticize Russia are Americans. So I say "man, Russia is so mean!" only to get "Well, so is America!" responses quite often recently. It doesn't cancel my argument/opinion and it's honestly completely irrelevant.

 

[mnz]

The one difference being Russia has never done a positive military mission like freeing South Korea from the advancement of North Korea, taking military action saving millions of Bosnian Muslims and defended Kuwait when Saddam invaded.

But all of that is tainted by your political view. As a communist, you would probably see every single conflict of the cold war era in a different light.

Also, defeating Nazi Germany was pretty ok. And the end of the soviet era was amazingly peaceful in retrospect, eventhough some still think that was Gorbatschow's weakness showing. Same with nuclear disarmament. Defeating the prisoner's dilemma through peaceful negotiations? I would call that positive.

 

[Partial Gamification]

Future scene from outside the polling place in Sevastopol:

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/01/rsz_final_crisis_thumbs_down-610x745.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Let's hope not.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://abload.de/img/putin48s3i.png

 

[theignoramus]

Criticisms of the West always tend to ignore goals, motives, intents

Jean Kirkpatrick, William Buckley style special pleading

professing a noble goal or intent means nothing if the the beneficiaries of "benign" intervention are worse off than if there had been no intervention at all.

 

[Psychotext]

Obviously the results of the vote would be completely irrelevant if Russia is still occupying the region. If Russia pulls out and UN peacekeepers move in, then we can start talking about holding a fair referendum.

Results seem like they'll be pretty much meaningless anyway. Looking like a done deal well in advance.

Odds that there will be a decent amount of international observers on the ground to ensure free and fair elections is slim to none... and even if they are (and the election isn't fair) then it'll be written off as Western propaganda anyway.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But all of that is tainted by your political view. As a communist, you would probably see every single conflict of the cold war era in a different light.

Moral Relativism is silly. The soviets were wrong.

Also, defeating Nazi Germany was pretty ok. And the end of the soviet era was amazingly peaceful in retrospect, eventhough some still think that was Gorbatschow's weakness showing. Same with nuclear disarmament. Defeating the prisoner dilemma through peaceful negotiations? I would call that positive.

Yeah, I'll give you fighting Nazi's was good but that was kinda because they attacked first, they had a non-aggression pact and had no problems letting Hitler take over half of Eastern Europe. Lets not pretend they defeated the Nazi's for freedom. They were defending themselves. And peaceful? The 1980s weren't really peaceful. I'll give you that they were 'relatively peaceful' but not peaceful. They had their own Vietnam in Afghanistan (They killed far more than the US did in their middle east wars), they tried to put down revolts and had a coup d'etat.

Jean Kirkpatrick, William Buckley style special pleading

professing a noble goal or intent means nothing if the the beneficiaries of "benign" intervention are worse off than if there had been no intervention at all.

I never claimed 'benign' intervention or that intervention was correct or justified, just that motives matter if your going to claim evil or malice. Anti-Western crusaders ignore this, and provide asinine comparisons to be provocative instead of critiquing the actual issues at hand, doing so would mean having to come to terms with the fact the US isn't the worlds greatest evil or 'just as bad' as soviets/putin/nazi germany/whoever the dictator-de-jour is, like the try to pretend

 

[thefro]

A very interesting take as I would have said it to be almost the opposite.

Obama hasn't acted rashly as many people want him to act. Almost immediately there were calls for "action" and "pressure" within a situation where the situation on the ground wasn't clear (and it still isn't in a lot of ways). He has let the situation play out with the rest of the world leaders and now that its a bit clearer what everyone is "planning" he is taking actions, and those actions have more long lasting implications (sanctions) than the short term gains than I believe Putin will gain by acquiring/annexing Crimea. Putin is making a fairly lasting changes in how people will operate in that area. He has closed the door to negotiation with the threat of military force and has given all of the people who would have been considered fringe (We need to build more carriers to stop the Russians) and given them a platform to speak upon. These folks will put pressure on THEIR governments to build systems to keep the Russians in check, to keep strong heavy-handed diplomacy in place to keep the Russians in check. The have made a mess out of a situation that could have been much much better resolved IMO.

As I see it, Russia absorbing Crimea doesn't really buy them as much as its going to cost them long term - at least not in the way that they're supposedly going to acquire it. They face issues with economic sanctions, issues with politics, issues with the region further pushing to remove their dependence on Russian oil, and more uncertainty that foreign investment in Russia would be arbitrarily seized. I think these are far more long reaching issues that Russia will have to deal with far longer than this initial issue.

That's my thoughts as well. Obama's thinking of the long-term view (as he typically does) which is why he's willing to take heat/"look weak" in order to achieve his longer-term foreign policy goals.

I'm fairly confident the US was doing a lot behind the scenes, but they're content to "lead from behind" and let Poland do "preplanned military exercises" near the Ukraine border, etc.

Same thing the US did in Libya and with Syria.