• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ukrainian Conflict - Donetsk Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Motives definitely matter when comparing two nations. As an example:

John burned down a house because he was baking cookies for homeless people and didn't set the oven correctly.

Frank burned down a house because he didn't want someone else to have it.


The result is the same and so one could argue that both have a bad track record, but in terms of comparing the "culture" or ethics of the two people, one is clearly superior to the other.
 
Motives definitely matter when comparing two nations. As an example:

John burned down a house because he was baking cookies for homeless people and didn't set the oven correctly.

Frank burned down a house because he didn't want someone else to have it.


The result is the same and so one could argue that both have a bad track record, but in terms of comparing the "culture" or ethics of the two people, one is clearly superior to the other.

True.

Although in the case of the US, Britain, Germany, the USSR and current-day Russia the motives are all the same: international influence and national security.
 
cdhZ8lD.jpg
 
It's impossible not to detect some level of hypocrisy in any political or social action. "Whataboutism" is not an argument, it's a red herring that people leverage to distract from the current conversation and appear enlightened and above the fray. You will never find a "he who is without sin" to be the only legitimate person to question or rebuke territorial aggression or self-interest.
 
Motives definitely matter when comparing two nations. As an example:

John burned down a house because he was baking cookies for homeless people and didn't set the oven correctly.

Frank burned down a house because he didn't want someone else to have it.

You don't want to imply that the west was "baking cookies for homeless people"?

The "evidence" for the Iraq invasion was fake. And part of the "evidence" for the 1st Iraq war was also fake. And yeah, not just false, but fake.

and btw. about that "invasion":
CIA director John Brennan told a senior lawmaker Monday that a 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine allows up to 25,000 Russia troops in the vital Crimea region, so Russia may not consider its recent troop movements to be an invasion, U.S. officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...kraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2v89d5ZPH
 
True.

Although in the case of the US, Britain, Germany, the USSR and current-day Russia the motives are all the same: international influence and national security.

I would argue the U.S. moves in Somalia, first Iraq War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, & Libya were all well intentioned.
 
You don't want to imply that the west was "baking cookies for homeless people"?

The "evidence" for the Iraq invasion was fake. And part of the "evidence" for the 1st Iraq war was also fake. And yeah, not just false, but fake.

and btw. about that "invasion":

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...kraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2v89d5ZPH

And Russia was so confident in that treaty that they removed all identification from their soldiers so that they could deny that they were Russian.
 
So why have they been violating the Geneva convention with their troops and why did they attempt no dialogue with the interim government.

Russians believe the politicians supporting the riots who eventually came into power were Nazi's even though they were not Nazi's despite being ultra nationalists and fascists.
 
And Russia was so confident in that treaty that they removed all identification from their soldiers so that they could deny that they were Russian.

So why have they been violating the Geneva convention with their troops by removing all identification from their Soldiers and why did they attempt no dialogue with the interim government. Why did, what were obviously Russian special forces, occupy key government facilities in Crimea and force a sham appointment to 'officially request aid'.

It is fruitless to argue with the poster you are arguing with, his views on the U.S. have been made clear in previous threads. Think Refugee from back in the day.
 
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.

Author is not condoning Russia's actions. Merely commenting on the lack of critical discourse in the mainstream media over the whole affair and the willingness of many to outlets to simply toe their governments line (if not endorse it) without question.

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.

I'm not opposed to the idea of UN oversight, but seriously dat prejudice.....

Bunk shaking head walking away. Gif
 
I'm not opposed to the idea of UN oversight, but seriously dat prejudice.....
You really think that having Russian military on the streets wouldn't call the results of the poll into question?

This isn't about Russia, the same questions would be asked of any election / referendum that could be influenced by the military of one of the involved parties.
 
I would argue the U.S. moves in Somalia, first Iraq War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, & Libya were all well intentioned.

I would argue that that's naive.

In the case of the Gulf War, the Bush administration was open about oil being a central motivating factor in US intervention. Just four days after Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait, George Bush ordered that US troops should be deployed to protect Saudi Arabia. The President made clear that oil was a major concern saying that the USA ‘now imports nearly half the oil it consumes … the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States.’ Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney echoed the President when he said that if Saddam Hussein gained control of Saudi Arabia he would be ‘in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that [would give] him a stranglehold on our economy.’
 
I wonder if this referendum will accept simple majority or something like two thirds. But whatever happens, I don't envy the Crimean Tatars.
 
I would argue that that's naive.

In the case of the Gulf War, the Bush administration was open about oil being a central motivating factor in US intervention. Just four days after Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait, George Bush ordered that US troops should be deployed to protect Saudi Arabia. The President made clear that oil was a major concern saying that the USA ‘now imports nearly half the oil it consumes … the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States.’ Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney echoed the President when he said that if Saddam Hussein gained control of Saudi Arabia he would be ‘in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that [would give] him a stranglehold on our economy.’

You have links that will state that was the central motivating factor other than humanitarian reasons?

Because a lot of what I read/heard at the same tilted towards the latter rather than the former. At that time, Saddam wasn't exactly persona non grata. He thought he had permission from the U.S. to invade.

Long ass link shortened.
 
I'm not opposed to the idea of UN oversight, but seriously dat prejudice.....

Bunk shaking head walking away. Gif
You really don't see the problem with Russian troops occupying a region and then organizing a referendum to see if the people want to secede and join Russia? It's not like Russia can be considered impartial in this matter so they shouldn't be occupying the region if you want to have fair elections. It's like if the Argentinian army gained control of the Falklands and then held a referendum there to see if people to be annexed by Argentina, obviously the result could not be trusted.
 
I don't know that Obama has a choice but the accept the result of this. If you're willing to accept the outcome of a coup as a legitimate means to assume power, it would be hard to then turn around and call a democratic vote as unacceptable.
 
Bahahaha, I'm watching David Cameron's speech regarding Russia's actions.
It's like watching a crappy parent trying to tell their child not to touch the sweets:
"If you touch the sweets before your dinner there will be severe consequences..."

"okay you've touched the sweets, but don't eat any more, there will be severe consequences if you do..."


He's got nothing, just warnings of severe consequences, economic sanctions, but no substance. Russia is just going to sit its arse down in Crimea and not going to move, lol.

I guess Europe relies on Russia too much, anything we do will just hurt us.
 
Anyone who is saying that Crimea´s split from the Ukraine is the best fort he Ukraine on the long run are wrong for both internal and international consequences, and it will set a scary precedence world wide.

In the Ukraine, who will stop other area/cities with Russian majority from demanding independence? Or what will stop Russia from migrating hundreds of thousands of Russians throughout the years to make more areas in the Ukraine pro Russian, have Russian majority and demand independence? You know that they have sleeper agents throughout the years ready to move as seen by those Russian spies arrested in the US a couple of years ago. Of course i am not saying hundreds of thousands of spies, but some few people who can sway other Russians to break up from the Ukraine.

Internationally, plenty of regions like Crimea (majority in the region but minorities in the country), will demand independence, which will create plenty of problems world wide.
 
You have links that will state that was the central motivating factor other than humanitarian reasons?

Because a lot of what I read/heard at the same tilted towards the latter rather than the former. At that time, Saddam wasn't exactly persona non grata. He thought he had permission from the U.S. to invade.

Long ass link shortened.

Well President Bush said it was a central motivating factor himself:

Less than a week ago, in the early morning hours of August 2d, Iraqi Armed Forces, without provocation or warning, invaded a peaceful Kuwait. Facing negligible resistance from its much smaller neighbor, Iraq's tanks stormed in blitzkrieg fashion through Kuwait in a few short hours. With more than 100,000 troops, along with tanks, artillery, and surface-to-surface missiles, Iraq now occupies Kuwait. This aggression came just hours after Saddam Hussein specifically assured numerous countries in the area that there would be no invasion. There is no justification whatsoever for this outrageous and brutal act of aggression.

A puppet regime imposed from the outside is unacceptable. The acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable. No one, friend or foe, should doubt our desire for peace; and no one should underestimate our determination to confront aggression.

Four simple principles guide our policy. First, we seek the immediate, unconditional, and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Second, Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored to replace the puppet regime. And third, my administration, as has been the case with every President from President Roosevelt to President Reagan, is committed to the security and stability of the Persian Gulf. And fourth, I am determined to protect the lives of American citizens abroad.

Immediately after the Iraqi invasion, I ordered an embargo of all trade with Iraq and, together with many other nations, announced sanctions that both freeze all Iraqi assets in this country and protected Kuwait's assets. The stakes are high. Iraq is already a rich and powerful country that possesses the world's second largest reserves of oil and over a million men under arms. It's the fourth largest military in the world. Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence. Much of the world is even more dependent upon imported oil and is even more vulnerable to Iraqi threats.

...

I will ask oil-producing nations to do what they can to increase production in order to minimize any impact that oil flow reductions will have on the world economy. And I will explore whether we and our allies should draw down our strategic petroleum reserves. Conservation measures can also help; Americans everywhere must do their part. And one more thing: I'm asking the oil companies to do their fair share. They should show restraint and not abuse today's uncertainties to raise prices.

In 1992, the US Department of Defense produced a document entitled Defense Planning Guidance, which stated that in the Middle East the US government’s ‘overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.’

You can find an elaboration of this argument here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yA2nUUtUUBgC
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6uu8hHc8zI0C

I don't think many academics contend that US foreign policy is guided by humanitarian causes.
 
I don't know that Obama has a choice but the accept the result of this. If you're willing to accept the outcome of a coup as a legitimate means to assume power, it would be hard to then turn around and call a democratic vote as unacceptable.

That isn't even the point. A country should be able to resolve it's internal matters politically without the intrusion of a third party. There might have been a place for Russia to have been a arbitrator or observer in a bonafide referendum if they had worked within diplomatic channels.
 
Well, if Crimea wants so badly to be part of Russia let them be. Now all the uproar from Occidentals looks a bit silly.

Last time there was a pool there was no indication that Crimea wants to join anyone... Whatever Russia is saying is completely manufactured through propaganda and militarization of the region.
 
You don't want to imply that the west was "baking cookies for homeless people"?

The "evidence" for the Iraq invasion was fake. And part of the "evidence" for the 1st Iraq war was also fake. And yeah, not just false, but fake.

and btw. about that "invasion":

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...kraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2v89d5ZPH

I wasn't referencing Iraq, I was just making the point in general that the same results don't mean two people or nations are equal. Motives matter.
 
I also wonder what will happen if the referendum says no to joining Russia.

I'm fairly certain the new Crimean government and Russia will make sure that doesn't happen. They will insist on international observers for the general Ukrainian election in May, but I'm thinking they won't be quite so insistent in March for the Crimean referendum.
 
You really don't see the problem with Russian troops occupying a region and then organizing a referendum to see if the people want to secede and join Russia? It's not like Russia can be considered impartial in this matter so they shouldn't be occupying the region if you want to have fair elections.

Are the Russian troops are organising the election? From what I can see the Crimean government is. Realistically it's unlikely the Russian military presence is going to be withdrawn, but if UN observers are allowed in to monitor the referendum then I wouldn't see a problem with it. The last elections in Iraq took place with US military presence and UN observers.

It's like if the Argentinian army gained control of the Falklands and then held a referendum there to see if people to be annexed by Argentina, obviously the result could not be trusted.

You're proposing a fictional scenario and then determining the result? How generous of you.
 
in the future this will be known as the age of porch cat imperialism

wherein like a big fat tom-cat countries will land their big fat asses on tiny countries and get land through forced democracy and general refusal to move
 
The coalition for the first Gulf War was 39 countries. If you like videogames, consumer electronics, disposable income, and food you don't grow/kill yourself, thank the U.S. military for providing security for the global energy supply.
 
Russia is getting increasingly isolated with this referendum thing.

Even Merkel is now warning of sanctions. China will soon join more openly if this keeps up.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-russia-crimea-eu-un-live

In remarks following the Brussels summit, German chancellor Angela Merkel called the anticipated Crimean referendum on joining the Russian Federation “illegal and incompatible with Ukraine’s constitution.”

“We condemn the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty with regard to Crimea and we consider its territorial integrity to be essential.”

She echoed other leaders’ threats of sanctions if Russia does not alter its behaviour.
 
Merkel is attempting to match Western rhetoric but she won't do anything. And expecting China to turn against Russia is laughable. They're more closely aligned than US and EU.
 
Are the Russian troops are organising the election? From what I can see the Crimean government is. Realistically it's unlikely the Russian military presence is going to be withdrawn, but if UN observers are allowed in to monitor the referendum then I wouldn't see a problem with it. The last elections in Iraq took place with US military presence and UN observers.
As long as the UN observers are monitoring I guess that would be enough without Russian troops pulling out, provided there are enough observers and they aren't obstructed in any way. It's not like the Crimean government can be considered neutral in this matter either though, considering it was forcefully installed by armed men when this crisis started.

You're proposing a fictional scenario and then determining the result? How generous of you.
The point is that you can't trust the result. Maybe the occupying force does hold a fair referendum and then respects the result, but considering it just violated the sovereignty of another country it's hard to see why they would bother with fair elections, which is why you can't trust the results.
 
Merkel is attempting to match Western rhetoric but she won't do anything. And expecting China to turn against Russia is laughable. They're more closely aligned than US and EU.

China already told Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. That was a few days ago. They won't like this referendum thing at all. US and China are much more likely to be allies than China and Russia.
 
Well President Bush said it was a central motivating factor himself:



In 1992, the US Department of Defense produced a document entitled Defense Planning Guidance, which stated that in the Middle East the US government’s ‘overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.’

You can find an elaboration of this argument here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yA2nUUtUUBgC
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6uu8hHc8zI0C

I don't think many academics contend that US foreign policy is guided by humanitarian causes.

I never contended US foreign policy was solely guided by humanitarian causes. My main original point was that the U.S. has engaged in humanitarian interventions in the past. Not that humanitarian reasons were the sole reasons for interventions.

Nothing you posted disproved that as the first points made in the speech were with regard to Kuwait's territorial sovereignty. Instead of focusing on that, you ignore it entirely to state that the central motivating factor was oil. It was a factor, but it was not the central factor.

Is US foreign policy guided by humanitarian causes? No. Does the US care more about humanitarian causes than other world military powers? Yes.
 
Obama's about to make a statement at the White House (according to a "breaking news" push notification from NBC news)

edit: on CNN now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom