Eighty Deuce
Banned
We just need to move "humanitarian aid" into the area. The same way we dropped troops off in Georgia to prevent Russians from getting too ballsy.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ukrainian Conflict - Donetsk Boogaloo
- Thread starter Salvadora
- Start date
- Status
Liberty4all
Banned
Looks like Obama is trying to buy time, angling for the May election.
The reason that the US cared about Kuwait's territorial sovereignty was in order to maintain 'stability' in the region. A central motivating factor in that was oil. I don't believe that the humanitarian plight of the Kuwaiti people came into it. If the US government cares at all about humanitarian causes then its support of brutal dictators is puzzling.
Members of far-right parties took part in the protests and became quite prominent once things started to get really violent. Russian media seemed to be suggesting that all protesters were fascists though, which as far as I know was not the case at all.
Psychotext
Member
I had forgotten that the last elections in Iraq gave the populace a choice between becoming the 51st state and remaining an independent country.
Kadayi
Banned
TBH. If they have no intention of holding fair elections why hold them in the first place? Russia wouldn't be the first country to illegally occupy part of another country and fact I can think of one that has been going on for several years despite massive international protest. Strange that the US don't seem so concerned about that one mind...
Supporting american interests
Maninthemirror
Banned
Ap breaking news
Obama : Crimea referendum against Ukrainian and International law.
How ?
Obama : Crimea referendum against Ukrainian and International law.
How ?
CitizenVectron
Member
Because fake elections give legitimacy since you can't prove they are rigged, even if you suspect it. That's fairly obvious.
Well that's easy to answer, because Ukraine's constitution expressly forbids regional referendums. That makes it illegal.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Obama is always on Whitehouse.gov/live
Also C-Span.org usually covers it. Or do a twitter search anytime for live streams, they usually pop up.
thxya
Sirpopopop
Member
Again, you are picking and choosing which parts of the text that can be used. That's certainly fine. However, I do think it's telling that the first thing mentioned was the invasion of Kuwait, not "protection of oil."
There were several statements made in that speech before oil was brought up that could only be viewed in a humanitarian light.The first statement by President Bush can only be interpreted as a humanitarian justification - "But today as President, I ask for your support in a decision I've made to stand up for what's right and condemn what's wrong, all in the cause of peace." Nothing is more humanitarian than striving for peace! Other statements that can only be interpreted in a humanitarian context - "A puppet regime imposed from the outside is unacceptable. The acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable." Respect for territorial integrity & restoring a country's old regime? That's a humanitarian cause. You are, after all, talking about the ability of a state being able to govern itself.
Regardless, I gave other examples of interventions by the US that were humanitarian in nature.
Can you tell me how Somalia was a realist maneuver for example, or Bosnia?
What type ofl gain did the US obtain from those interventions? How about Libya?
I would argue that most of the U.S. post-cold war interventions & foreign policy maneuvers have been in service of western ideals of democracy. There isn't as much of a tolerance for strongmen as there was during the Cold War era. If there was, the U.S. wouldn't have come out as 'supportive' of the Arab Spring. They would have done their best to clamp it down.
Lagspike_exe
Member
China didn't say anything, they released a generic statement saying nothing. US and China will never be allies due to incompatible values. They are diametrically different civilization. Russian/Chinese strategic relations work through SCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) and their foreign policies have been fully aligned since the disollusion of the USSR. It is ridioclous to think that China and US are "allies" when the US is actively attempting to encircle them, to incite riots in Tibet and by attempting to unite their neighbours in an anti-Chinese alliance based on South Chinese Sea interests. Russia will slowly move away from frontline geo-politics while China steps in. China on the other hand, won't do anything major for years, even decades. They're fully focused on their economic growth and at this rate they'll have the highest GDP in the world in 2017-2018. For example, US overtook UK by GDP in 1860s IIRC and it took until World War 2 for them to become a global player rivaling and a counter weight to USSR. At this point, UK's global dominance was finished.
Why are you equivocating Crimea and Iraq when you disagreed with the latter? And why do you think Russia should follow what you consider a bad example? This cognitive dissonance isn't doing your argument any favors.
Kadayi
Banned
I'm fascinated as to how we've suddenly jumped to 'faked elections'.
How does the Ukrainian constitution stand on coups?
Who said I'm disagreeing with the elections in Iraq? I'm merely highlighting the degree of 'the Russians can't be trusted' prejudice being bandied around in this thread with abandon by simply mirroring the same arguments to the US presence in Iraq. It's fucking farcical that the default opinion with all things Russian is that they cannot be trusted, as if this was a universal law. There hasn't even been a vote yet, let alone results and already 'the fix' is in as far as some people are concerned.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is going off topic. I agree with you the US is guided by more than realist motives but I think your missing the fact the US sees humanitarian and geopolitical considerations as intertwined. There's not always a need to divorce them. By doing so your giving ammunition to those that will use quotes out of context to 'demonstrate' the US is purely realist in its outlook.
The US's entire FP since Wilson has been to establish an international regime (New World Order) where countries know the rules and play by them. Our interventions are always to further that goal. One of those norms is human rights, another is economic stability, another democracy, another capitalism, its a mixture of all of these that determines when the US intervenes. Its not simple. The US is very idealistic compared to other nations. It has always sought since the late 19th century to 'fix the world' that's rather unique.
Sirpopopop
Member
I don't disagree with your latter statement.
I should probably rephrase my statement to reflect my position better. I will do that now.
As of yesterday the U.S. Air Force is moving six F-15s and a KC-135 tanker to the Baltics to boost NATO forces there.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...c-135-to-augment-nato-mission-in-baltics.aspx
Haven't seen anything mentioned anywhere but I suppose if the U.S. Air Force starts moving modern F-22 Raptors to Europe it would mean things are even more serious than they already are. -As if things weren't serious enough now.
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...c-135-to-augment-nato-mission-in-baltics.aspx
Haven't seen anything mentioned anywhere but I suppose if the U.S. Air Force starts moving modern F-22 Raptors to Europe it would mean things are even more serious than they already are. -As if things weren't serious enough now.
Yeah it's a slight kick the can down the road approach. The fact that talks yesterday were ended and people said they would meet again in a few days is political speak for basically "This side said this, the other side said this, we proposed this, they proposed that. We need to consult our leaders etc".
The removal of some russian soldiers yesterday along with a CIA official saying that Russian troop number maybe legal in crimea as per their treaty is a sign that both sides are looking at a covert way of decreasing things while the politicians can play to their respective audiences. Both sides want an out that looks good for them. The picture of Dave cameron on the phone today was hilarious "Look at me! Such statesman!"
The EU has made a big show today for pretty much nothing, the odd visa restricted here and there. That's bugger all but plays well.
At the moment their is much political willy waving going on with all sides trying to look strong in public.
So far this has gone poorly for Putin and it is having an effect on the russian economy with it's stock market down again. A lot of business men/ people in the kremlin back him but if they begin to see profits drop then pressure will increase on him quickly. If europe signals an intention to move away from russian oil and gas because of this crisis then a lot of very rich people will become very pissed.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Good cover on it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26475508
Also, Obama imposing Visa restrictions.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/us-visa-restrictions-officials-ukraine-russia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26475508
Also, Obama imposing Visa restrictions.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/us-visa-restrictions-officials-ukraine-russia
CitizenVectron
Member
... because you directly mentioned unfair elections. So I responded. That is obvious. You asked why someone would hold a fake election, so I gave an answer. You understand that, right?
As for the coup, while it's obvious the threat of the protesters drove Yanukovych away, the actual coup was legal in the sense of the Rada impeaching him in an open vote with existing legislative members with enough for a quorum. Then, the Rada appointed a new temporary government awaiting elections in May. So while the protests caused Yanukovych to run, even if he had stayed the vote to impeach would still be legal and binding as there was a quorum and his own party voted to impeach him along with the opposition (based on the sniper shootings).
The government transfer was legal and valid. In any case, the elections in May will bring in a new government which will be undeniably valid as there will be international election monitors in place like all recent Ukrainian elections.
Maninthemirror
Banned
And coups are legal?
It's for NATO flights around a number of countries that have no airforce. Nothing major. They are part of a routine Baltic airforce patrol. Honestly the media is jumping on every little things at the moment. Now if it was a few hundred planes then it's bad. Six is nothing at all.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
It's true. Interesting to think about in light of the comments from the Crimeans about nationalising Ukrainian assets. Likely trying to keep them there so they can take them later.
Even Merkel?
She was one of the politicians that openly wanted to invade Iraq back then. Germany supported that war anyway (AWACS), but she was even worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel
anyway, about those sanctions. I don't think that anything will happen, because it could get cold in Germany.
And you don't think that the votes looked "a bit" fishy? I think there was not a single vote against it.
CitizenVectron
Member
As stated in my reply:
As for the coup, while it's obvious the threat of the protesters drove Yanukovych away, the actual coup was legal in the sense of the Rada impeaching him in an open vote with existing legislative members with enough for a quorum. Then, the Rada appointed a new temporary government awaiting elections in May. So while the protests caused Yanukovych to run, even if he had stayed the vote to impeach would still be legal and binding as there was a quorum and his own party voted to impeach him along with the opposition (based on the sniper shootings).
The government transfer was legal and valid. In any case, the elections in May will bring in a new government which will be undeniably valid as there will be international election monitors in place like all recent Ukrainian elections.
I know, it's not even a single squadron, just six fighters and a tanker. But yesterday the media was almost hyping it as some sort of major deployment of forces.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Even Merkel?
She was one of the politicians that openly wanted to invade Iraq back then. Germany supported that war anyway by AWACS, but she was even worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel
anyway, about those sanctions. I don't think that anything will happen, because it could get cold in Germany.
What's the deal with this post.
"Even Merkel? *totally unrelated thing about Merkel* Besides Germany imposing sanctions would be bad for them."
Wat
Summer is coming. All in all, I would really assume Europe will start really investing in their energy plans and drop Gazprom asap. It can't be done over night but I really feel like Russia is just making things harder for itself on long run.anyway, about those sanctions. I don't think that anything will happen, because it could get cold in Germany.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Wait, how can you be more than 100% dependent on Gazprom??
Partial Gamification
Banned
Building up reserves or selling it to another country that might have embargos or trade restictions with other countries.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The protestors and us support started long before the vote in parliament didnt it ? That was the start of the coup official or unofficial
http://m.euractiv.com/details.php?aid=517091
This is the new referendum law . Can someone with legal footing explain if they are allowed ?
CHEEZMO™;103392491 said:
Totally unrelated?
I'm calling politicians out, when one time they are totally pro-invasions and even willing to help out, when their "friends" are doing it. And a few years later, they threaten countries with sanctions.
If she was an honest person, she would have condemned the violation of Iraq's sovereignty back then as well. I can't take her seriously because of that. Oh wait, I never took her seriously in the first place. To me she is deep down in the colon of US.
The point is that it's an empty threat. It's as simple as that.
It's a Morgan Stanley estimate.
I'm kidding of course
http://www.businessinsider.com/european-dependency-on-gazprom-2014-3
Kadayi
Banned
It's a shit answer though. If everyone is going to think it's rigged why bother? Given the attitudes expressed here by people though it wouldn't matter if every vote was televised live. The fix would still be in...because you just can't trust the Russians.
I'm skeptical guy by nature, but I also hold to the idea of looking at the evidence before jumping to conclusions. Lets have the referendum results, then start evaluating them is all I'm saying.
Impeaching is fine (president stands down/new president is appointed by leadership until elections). A coup though is still illegal.
I mean shit if Bill Clinton had been impeached and a Republican mob seized control of government would a young Obama being going 'fair cop'? I doubt it.
Neither the US or Russia are monolithic entities, and I would not be at all surprised if people here who are/were against Iraq are against what is going down in Crimea as well.
CitizenVectron
Member
Protesters are allowed to protest. That has no bearing on the legitimacy of a current government. By that standard, any referendum in Crimea would be invalid because there are protesters calling for it, and Russia is also backing it.
The point is that even if you dislike the results of what the protests started, the former President performed an illegal act by cracking down on the protesters with deadly force, and then was impeached for his role and unpopularity, even in the east (after the snipers). His removal was valid, even if it was wanted by the US or others. Every single election or ouster of any government is wanted by someone or another. As long as there is no outside interference (which there didn't appear to be, other than public support of the protests), then the impeachment is valid, and the new interim government is also valid until new elections are held. On the flip side, Russia is interfering militarily in Crimea, not just with press statements. This is illegal and against international law.
There is really no argument against this other than to say you disagree with the results of the impeachment vote, or that you would prefer an independent Crimea. But the methods used by the Ukrainian opposition were legal, and the methods used by the Russians are illegal.
If you use a whataboutism to justify your own action, then you are explicitly endorsing those other actions as justified. I don't think that's the actual narrative here.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Uh.....I don't think Putin gives a shit what we think.
CitizenVectron
Member
They do it because it gives them legitimacy within Russia, which is all they care about. It's propaganda, like when the US lied about WMDs in Iraq. Everyone knows it's fake, but it lets them pretend to their own population that they are righteous.
As for Clinton, if he had been fully impeached and then removed from office, then it wouldn't have been a mob taking over, it would have been the existing Vice President. In the US there is a clear line of succession. With Ukraine it is different, and the Rada was able to appoint an interim President. If a mob had literally appointed themselves government in Ukraine then yes, it would be illegal. But they didn't. The existing Rada, legally elected, impeached, removed, and then replaced the President. It was legal, even if you disagree.
On the specifics of the referendum, there is no way that Crimea can create one within 10 days. Even advanced nations like Canada, US, Sweden, etc cannot print and distribute proper ballots, set up election monitors, polling stations, election volunteers, mail out registration information, etc in 10 days. It's a sham designed to give an air of legitimacy to a move that is pre-ordained. The only way it could be shown to be valid is if UN or independent election observers will be let in, just like will happen in the national elections in May. Why wouldn't Russia allow that, if they wanted the world to believe them? Because they don't care if the world knows it's a sham. They are doing this for the local population and for a Russian audience, who will buy it.
And that's okay to me. That's honest.
I'm calling out people, who change their "opinion" on the fly depending on who is doing it. In the case of Ukrania it's not even that clear, because of the new regime, that may or may not be legit.
Let's take a look at the Ukranian constitution:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_2004
Now you will say, well it's impeachment, so it's fine. But wait:
woops.
jakonovski
Member
If the president ordering the shooting of protesters is not legitimate grounds for a new government, I'm pretty sure the concept of legitimacy has been trodden in the mud, unrecognisable.
CitizenVectron
Member
There is a warrant for his arrest which he refuses to return to Ukraine to confront. I would say that while he hasn't been convicted of any crime, his refusal to face trial would qualify under the spirit of the law under a court review as he is unable to govern the country while in exile and refusing to return to face court.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Because the west is for it. So its bad.
Whataboutism is not used solely for justification, it's about pointing out hypocrisy and viewing things from other perspectives. It's not a question of saying Russia is right, it's a matter of asking the US to take a step back and realize how wrong it was and how much of a moral high ground it has lost.
- Status