Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? The internal affairs of a nation are a far cry from annexing a part of another country.

What? Wouldn't annexing a country be interfering with it's affairs?

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Back on the topic though - what happened in Ukraine was a violent take over of power, which was completely supported (and in part organised) by Western parties to further their geopolitical objectives without regarding Russian (or local for that matter) interests. I mean no one now even talks about what was in that association agreement and if it was at all beneficial to Ukraine (it was not).

Weren't there thousands of people protesting to change govt?

Thus, speaking in terms of ultimatums and applying further pressure would not solve the conflict by deterring Russia - it would escalate it.

No doubt. Russia is going to get want they want, the West may as well accept it with as little bloodshed as possible.

[CCIP]

The problem wasn't that thousands of people were protesting, the problem was that the protests eventually turned violent and completely shut out a different side to this conflict. There is a line between the Tea Party organizing an anti-Obama march in Washington, and the Tea Party staying on the Mall, forming a militia, and engaging in gunfights with the PD, Secret Service, FBI, DHS, or whoever else came to clear them out.

I'm not defending Yanukovich at all and I don't doubt for a second that protesting his regime's corruption, flaky policies, and poor decisions re: economic cooperation with Europe was a good cause. But there's a line. At the end of the day, thousands of loud angry people with support in parliament are still not "The People". The problem is that however you slice it, this was an unconstitutional way of creating government change, and it forever alienated what was, and still is, a very large population of the Eastern Ukraine that are less "pro-Russian" and more "pro-themselves". Just as anywhere, the point of constitutional government is to serve the interest of more than just one group or ideology. What would you say if the Tea Party one day stormed the White House and declared the president impeached? And I'd even agree that they'd have a point but still, that is not how you do things in a constitutional way.

That was the breakdown point in this crisis. It cut off constitutional means of resolving it within the Ukraine, and showed interested parties - including Russia - that they had to protect their interests with other means. I'm not even justifying those interests, but I have to agree with ikalugin there - this is where the escalation came from. And in this way, it absolutely does parallel many "regime change" scenarios where the West had acted no better than Russia, from the POV of international law, making it easy for Russia to help themselves to Crimea and act like it was their right.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Weren't there thousands of people protesting to change govt?

In his theory they were on the CIA payroll so it doesn't count.
How about the sheikhs lowering the oil price thus ruining the russian economy?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the 80s: Honduras? Panama? Nicaragua? Iraq 2003? Vietnam? That were internal affairs of those states. But that did not stop the US from massive interferences and weapons deliveries, even interventions and all-out war. Nor has the CIA be shy of interfering fundamentally in the Ukraine.

Completely besides the point Skybird. First off name the part of any of those countries that we've annexed.

Secondly I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of Russia's Ukrainian adventures except to say that if they're going to arm and support one side then they have no justification to say that we shouldn't arm and support the other side.

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

All of this would make sense...if Ukraine was part of Russia. I don't see western Troops marching around in Ukraine. I don't see Leopard and Abrams tanks in Ukrainian service. I don't see western artillery systems in the arsenal of the Ukrainian forces. So what exactly did Moscow "react" to in a sovereign country that justified it's actions?

Well said.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Completely besides the point Skybird. First off name the part of any of those countries that we've annexed.

Annexation is not the only "evil". Arming civil wars to topple regimes, wars against, occupation, invasion, and killing hundreds of thosuands in this, are not any less meaningful.

Secondly I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of Russia's Ukrainian adventures except to say that if they're going to arm and support one side then they have no justification to say that we shouldn't arm and support the other side.

Just that you have far less interests there, than they have.

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

At the end of all the word wringing, they have far greater geostrategic interests in that region of the world, than America. America's only interest there is to tighten its grip around Russia. And it has been like that since the end of the cold war. Geostrategic interests of big powers may be seen as immoral, and injust, and illegal, and godknowswhat - but in this world I see myself living in they nevertheless are a hard fact of life, and their existence cannot be denied, no matter the moral assessment of them.

And if you ignore them too severely, what you get as a consequence is big, big wars.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

All of this would make sense...if Ukraine was part of Russia. I don't see western Troops marching around in Ukraine. I don't see Leopard and Abrams tanks in Ukrainian service. I don't see western artillery systems in the arsenal of the Ukrainian forces. So what exactly did Moscow "react" to in a sovereign country that justified it's actions?

The constant dance of the Ukrainians on Moscow's nose, and far more important: the serious new effort to bring thre Ukraine into the EU, which would only be the prelude to have it joining NATO - and thus the Crimean becoming a naval base and air base for US forces in the Black Sea. That was explained so often now, months ago, it does not become less important only because opportunistically time and again ignoring it.

One could have known in advance in Washington that Moscow would not shy away form anything necessary to prevent the Crimean becoming a NATO area. If they could only have achieved their goal by fullscaloe war against the totlaiuty of the Ukraine, they would have done it, before NATO could embark on turning it into a fortress. And probably one knew indeed! Which only shows the cynism when now the suffering of the civilian population is media-effectively mourned and complained about in the West. Anything the Russians did from autumn 2013 on - is just exercising their doctrine of maskirovska to prevent that NATO scenario becoming true.

Or did you seriously think Putin is eager to become the endless paymaster of the Eastern part of the Ukraine just for sentimental reasons...?

No NATO military is in the Ukraine, you listed that above in your post very correctly. And the Russians want to make sure that it stays that way. That's what it all is about, thats why it started. All what they take on the way to that goal, is just bonus prizes, and prey of opportunity.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

Incidentally, Canada's experience could also offer some very useful lessons for the underlying problems of federalization and regional rights that are tearing Ukraine apart. Things could've gone very ugly with Quebec, but through patience and constitutional process, it'd been brought back from a relative brink in the 1970s (when there was terrorism, threats of secession, and all that). I'm not saying Canada got everything right, and there are still problems, but notably - noone overthrew anything, nobody armed either side, and in the end, a constitutional process was followed. Crucially, there was will to compromise on the notion of nationhood, and will to agree to some disagreements, give concessions and priviliges on language and cultural rights, and more recently - even declare Quebec as a nation within the federal structure of Canada. Not everyone here is happy with it, but the more I think of it and the more I look at Ukraine, the more I appreciate the way Canada has dealt with its separatist problem.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Annexation is not the only "evil". Arming civil wars to topple regimes, wars against, occupation, invasion, and killing hundreds of thosuands in this, are not any less meaningful.

Again, irrelevant. And for a guy who bemoans being held responsible for the sins of previous generations you are very quick to play that card against someone else.

Just that you have far less interests there, than they have.

If you send arms to Canada, the Russians can say that you have no justification to demand that they shall not arm the opposition in Canada? The first question would be: what business do they have in Canada? None. Like you have none in the Ukraine.

That's a really poor analogy. A much better one would be whether the Russians have the right to send arms to the Canadian government if we Americans have occupied then annexed Montreal and are now militarily supporting separatist armies as they advance into the rest of eastern Canada. I'd say in that instance the Canadians have the right to get help from anyone they want.

And if you ignore them too severely, what you get as a consequence is big, big wars.

Or maybe you don't play Nevile Chamberlain and you stare down tyranny to win freedom for millions. The Berlin Airlift for instance? By your theory we should just have let the whole city fall to the Russians, after all Berlin is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the US right?

[ikalugin]

After the cursory glance.

Did anyone read EU assosiation agreement? Because if you did you would not say that signing it was/is/will be beneficial to Ukraine.

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.

That's the kremlin's narrative which you believe in. Fortunately it has nothing to do with the reality.
Technically speaking Maidan had nothing to do with removing Yanukovich which was a purely democratic decision.
btw, you forgot to mention how Yanukovich wanted to suppress the protesters with the help of russian thugs. Was that even legal?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Those angry people at Maidan never voted to the Yanukovich, but were taking power in an undemocratic way, as they have failed again and again to out vote the south-east.

Putin himself once said that he told Yanukovich before the revolution that his time was over and that he had no chance at the next election. Why would Putin say that to him if those few angry people at Maidan would have never had a chance to outvote the south-east? Obviously Putin himself saw that the majority of Ukrainians didn't like Yanukovich anymore or he wouldn't have made that statement.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by kranz

That's the kremlin's narrative which you believe in. Fortunately it has nothing to do with the reality.
Technically speaking Maidan had nothing to do with removing Yanukovich which was a purely democratic decision.
btw, you forgot to mention how Yanukovich wanted to suppress the protesters with the help of russian thugs. Was that even legal?

He didn't loose the elections, there was no referendum, impeachment procedure was not followed. Hence he was not pressed out of power legaly.

Russian as in Russian citizens or ethnic Russians (Ukrainian citizens)? But then I guess that you believe in evil thugs attacking peaceful protesters (who didn't use violence at all) and view Gruz 200 as a credible source.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Putin himself once said that he told Yanukovich before the revolution that his time was over and that he had no chance at the next election. Why would Putin say that to him if those few angry people at Maidan would have never had a chance to outvote the south-east? Obviously Putin himself saw that the majority of Ukrainians didn't like Yanukovich anymore or he wouldn't have made that statement.

Specific candidate being politically dead and a political faction not having suitable candidates are two different things. Hence why one wonders, why was Ukraine pressed to sign a horrible association agreement? Why didn't they wait until the elections?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Again, irrelevant. And for a guy who bemoans being held responsible for the sins of previous generations you are very quick to play that card against someone else.

Because you support these policies until today. You can complain about me if I would defend Nazi views.

That's a really poor analogy. A much better one would be whether the Russians have the right to send arms to the Canadian government if we Americans have occupied then annexed Montreal and are now militarily supporting separatist armies as they advance into the rest of eastern Canada. I'd say in that instance the Canadians have the right to get help from anyone they want.

Pointless regarding the context in which I gave it as a reply. You may think establishing a puppert reoigme and helping it to torture and suppress its population or financing terrorism, is different from annexing that place, is the lesser evil. It is not, you just make a morally undefendable, but opportunistic choice - to support your view.

Or maybe you don't play Nevile Chamberlain and you stare down tyranny to win freedom for millions. The Berlin Airlift for instance? By your theory we should just have let the whole city fall to the Russians, after all Berlin is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the US right?

You call provoking somebody else, a "defence". You expect somebody else acting stupdily against his vital interests, so that your interests get boosted.

As you know, I play chess. Let me explain it by this analogy: if I play the white pieces and move my queen to f3 and my bishop to a4 early in the opening, I would be stupid not to expect Black to do something about my idea to break in on f7 and checkmating him. OF course he would react to that, and since the plan of mine is plain and obvious to see, that is a certain prediction of his behavior. And when Washington moves to make the Ukraine a NATO candidate by pushing the Europeans to bring the Ukraine into the EU as a first step, the Russian response after their bad experiences with Washington 15 and 20 years ago is certain and easy to predict, too.

And I think Washington knew that (else I would need to assume them to be blind and completely retarded, braindead idioos). Which in conclusion leads to realising that Washington wanted things to turn out like this - it is a good opportunity to raise pressure on Putin, and that is what America really is about - the Ukrainian people play no role in Washington's alculations here, not more than the Kremlin cares for their fate.In the end, what Washington always wanted since 1989, is the exstence of Russia to end as a state capable to act globallyx and as a strong opponent to American interest to remain the globally dominant player. It is not about supporting the Ukraine, that is only a strawman argument - it is about getting Russia out of the way. It has always been about that. And many politicians like MacCain never have hidden that.

Political interests should never be mistaken with the moral statements given by ordinary people in the streets. Both are worlds apart. Nations have no morals. Nations have interests.

You would not have entered WWII, if Roosevelt would not have seen the strategic relevance of europe for the US and its global ambitions to take over from the British, its not as if your forefathers were too eager to join, weren'T you - until Pearl Harbour the huge majority of Americans wanted to have nothing to do with the events in Europe. Pearl Harbour was the best thing that could happen to make Americans change their minds on that - because it left them no other choice, the Japanese victory on the battle of that day and the crushing losses for the American fleet were too significant as if one could just ignore them.

Today, you have little intention obviously to do something against the massacres taking place in Kongo, Somalia and Nigeria currently, outclassing the bloodshed in Ukraine. But Ukraine is different from Nigeria, Kongo Somalia, here you can poke the Russians in their eye, and different to the Africna states Ukraine is a card you can play in your match for provoking the Russians and pushing them back (at least that was the plan). When it comes to areas of rare ressources and precious earths, your country has little scruples only to cooperate with warlords and prevent unwanted political leaderships opposing your economic interests, that leads as far as boosting civil wars and supporting the assassination of unwanted oppositional politicians that threaten to establish a government hostile to american company interests. You are not one inch better in these regards than the Russians, Europeans, or Chinese.

Your little Vietnam adventure costed 1 million of local residents, most of them civilians, their lives. Your little Iraq 03 adventure opened the gate to more violence and bloodshed and torture, than the Saddam regime committed. Compared to that quantity of suffering your policies have brought over others, the annexation of a peninsula like the Crimean is the by far smaller evil.

Take care when dismounting that moral high horse of yours, it is so high that you easily break you neck if slipping and falling during dismounting.

I know that Amerians tend to see themselves as the shining centre of the human universe, but you are not. You are better than some, but not better than many others. Many shades of grey, and not too rarely obvious dark and black spots on your jacket as well. You just are very skilled in changing your jackets fast, on the fly, according to what colour opportunistically is needed in order to boost your strategic and economic interests. The ideals and pathos is for the young men only, to make them rally behind their leaders and to make them willing to donor themselves for the "just cause", but wars are not decided by ideals nowadays, but strategic and economic considerations. In other words: the young, good-willed ones simply get lied to, and abused. They got and get betrayed - you may have noted over the years that I almost never attack your country's military and servicemen, but very often your political leaders and agitators, and the naivety of the public.

Of course I am realistic enough to know that they usually do not like to hear that when telling them that. But there is a reason why I would want Bush and gang to be court martialed over - to summarise it - high treason, and lined up before a firing squad. The US losses in Iraq alone are based on betrayal and lies from their side, not to mention the chaos they unleashed in Iraq that has led to the death of a six digits number of people and the whole place beign messed up and descending in instability. They have not only caused the gates of chaos opening in Iraq, and have damaged the longtermed strategic interests of America and the whole West, but they have sent Americans for whom they were directly responsible, into death over nothing else but lies and foul excuses. As so often, the costs for American global "idealism" once again gets paid for by foreign people. By the hundreds of thousands.

I tell you what, idealism alone is simply not good enough. And when it is not kept in check by a strong sense of realism, than I rather prefer to have nothing to do with idealism alone at all. To say how one would wish the world to be, is one thing, and nothing wrong in saying so, it may help to form a better plan. But to act as if it were like that, is irresponsible. Look at the trail of chaos and war your country has left in history in the past 50 years or so. It speaks volumes.

That your country also is so eager to unnecessarily fight wars in a way that despite its military superiority it nevertheless suffers strategic defeats, is your own business, I admit. I can just stand and watch in bewilderment.