Ukraine Crisis master thread

[Tahuti]

Even if they could, I don't see why they would do it in the long term. Substantial sanctions will damage both sides and push Russia for development of trade relations with Asia. This is not in anyone's interests, except maybe China.

The problem is that rational politics are not at play here in this case. The EU's position on Russia is informed by ideological fetishes, similar to the Arab world's position on Israel: We use vague language of human rights and falsely present the other side as an evil cabal with no popular support from within or whatsoever, screaming bloody murder for what are for most part just formal breaches of international law and present their leaders as the new Hitlers. I do understand why our politicians think this way: The alliance with the US is a sacred ideological cow, in the same way Pan-Arabism is a sacred ideological cow for Anti-Zionist Arab countries; It is their life. Yet, in both cases, Atlanticism (and the irrational geopolitical hostility towards Russia) will hurt us as rabid Anti-Israel sentiment has hurt the Arab world.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is an excellent point. However, it seems to ignore that Israel is no better than Arab countries in this regard.

 

[Tahuti]

Whether you think Israel is no better than the Arab countries or not, you can't really deny that the Arab countries are hostile to Israel simply because of adherence to Pan-Arabism and/or Pan-Islamism and not because of any remotely genuine concern of human rights or even cold calculating self-interest, and they do not hesitate to needlessy sacrifice the needs and interests of their own citizens in the name of fulfulling that ideological fetish.

Replace Arab countries with European countries, Israel with Russia and Pan-Arabism with Atlanticism and you'll get my point. Of course, it has to be noted that Russia isn't as radically isolated as Israel is, and the European countries do not have the pervasive human rights abuse the Arab countries have, yet the similarities are - if we are frank - quite obvious. And disturbing. We have just needlessy vilified another country to the point our leaders feel entitled to do anything they desire. The EU is taking the wrong side.

 

[Formaldehyde]

OTOH Israel does it out of "pan-Islamophobia" while needlessly fomenting fear and paranoia that Arab countries all out to destroy them. And this is despite them having no capabilities to even do so.

So, no. I don't see any difference whatsoever, much less that Israel is in any way "radically isolated" while continuing with its own "pervasive human rights abuse". Not to mention that "we have just needlessy vilified another country to the point our leaders feel entitled to do anything they desire" is clearly just as true with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran as it is with Russia.

The only real difference is that you apparently believe this incessant propaganda campaign while you don't in the other cases.

 

[red_elk]

The EU's position on Russia is informed by ideological fetishes, similar to the Arab world's position on Israel: We use vague language of human rights and falsely present the other side as an evil cabal with no popular support from within or whatsoever, screaming bloody murder for what are for most part just formal breaches of international law and present their leaders as the new Hitlers.

Can't disagree with you here. We'll see how the situation develops. From my perspective though, leaders of several major EU countries tend to be pragmatic and not engage too much in ideology-driven politics. May be to some extent, which is necessary to save face, but not more than that. This is not applied to Britain, some Eastern European countries and Baltic States, but I believe Germany and France will maintain decent relations with Russia.

Edit: BTW, you are right about popular support thing - quite a few people here couldn't believe Putin's approval rating in Russia is about 80% now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/26/putins-approval-rating-hits-80-percent/

 

[Commodore]

The fact is you can't organize such referendum overnight, with supporters from one of the sides militarily occupying the region, and expect the other side to show up. That's not the way to do it if you expect the referendum to mean anything.

And luckily, whether the results are relevant in your eyes is not really important. The international community sees the referendum for the fraud it was.

The referendum was rushed, but it wasn't "overnight" like you seem so fond of claiming. The entire world was aware this referendum was coming at least a week before it happened. So given that, your claim that the opposition was not aware when the vote would take place falls a little flat.

So again, until anyone can provide evidence that there was a concerted effort to actively prevent the opposition from voting, the results of this referendum are legitimate and the lack of opposition voter turnout should be seen as nothing more than voter apathy.

 

[Takhisis]

A referendum held during military occupation is legitimate? Define 'legitimate'. Many people seem to think it means the same as 'legal'.

 

[NewEnd]

Sure pal

Ain't your pal, never will be.

The last time there was a disruption (in 2009), there was a talk about reversing the gas flow so that Slovakia (which unlike Czechia isn't directly connected to the West European pipeline network) would get the minimum supplies needed in case its reserves ran out. Czechia has strategic reserves of oil and gas that should last about 3 months with full consumption, longer with rationing, and there are alternate routes for oil and gas imports. My point is, there is room for improvised solutions should Russians decide to play hardball.

Look at you. Your beloved Czechia will be the savior with its meager reserves, eh?
3 months with full consumption?
The economy would fail with that much going out. All prices (not just energy) in the region would skyrocket, since landlocked countries rely on petroleum for ALL trade. There would be massive stockpiling. It would be a disaster... ..and for what? to keep the dream of a United Europe, and it's austerity measures?

Oh, and so you have now saved Europe for one winter.

Now save yourself the next.

Thank god you are not leader of the CFR. You want to play dice with your country out of sycophantic Europhilia. The people would riot.

 

[Tahuti]

Not to mention that "we have just needlessy vilified another country to the point our leaders feel entitled to do anything they desire" is clearly just as true with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran as it is with Russia.

With 'we' I meant Europeans (from the EU). Though I do not dispute your points in the quote here (anymore).

This is not applied to Britain, some Eastern European countries and Baltic States, but I believe Germany and France will maintain decent relations with Russia.

Well, note that Merkel did became Pro-Maidanist which was considered somewhat of a shock since Germany historically, was always the most Pro-Russian EU member since the Cold War, but then again, we are not sure how much of it just talk to appease the other countries. France normally has a Pro-Russian position as well since De Gaulle.

 

[Winner]

Meh, you will always call Russians "thugs" no matter what, everybody got used to it already. There is an Eastern saying "Dog is barking, caravan is going". Russia will continue to negotiate with sane people and pursue its interests regardless of barking dogs. Deal with it, or continue whining.

I called the government headed by Putin thugs, but I see the difference is lost on you. And this is not whining, this is a reminder that Russia and its population will come to rue the day when it decided to become basically a rogue state.

Of course you "forgot" to mention a similar Ukrainian embargo for Russian goods. Double standards you said?

Oh look, somebody who was bullied for 20 years decided to fight back. How unexpected!

Ain't your pal, never will be.

I see you don't comprehend sarcasm either.

Look at you. Your beloved Czechia will be the savior with its meager reserves, eh?
3 months with full consumption?

I know you're new here, but ad hominem attacks against me invoking some sort of deep nationalist bond with my country of origin are immensely amusing and unlikely to elicit the kind of response you're looking for

The economy would fail with that much going out. All prices (not just energy) in the region would skyrocket, since landlocked countries rely on petroleum for ALL trade. There would be massive stockpiling. It would be a disaster... ..and for what? to keep the dream of a United Europe, and it's austerity measures?

Oh, and so you have now saved Europe for one winter.

I see you completely missed the point of my post. Whatever, I won't waste time on wilful ignorants.

The problem is that rational politics are not at play here in this case. The EU's position on Russia is informed by ideological fetishes, similar to the Arab world's position on Israel: We use vague language of human rights and falsely present the other side as an evil cabal with no popular support from within or whatsoever, screaming bloody murder for what are for most part just formal breaches of international law and present their leaders as the new Hitlers. I do understand why our politicians think this way: The alliance with the US is a sacred ideological cow, in the same way Pan-Arabism is a sacred ideological cow for Anti-Zionist Arab countries; It is their life. Yet, in both cases, Atlanticism (and the irrational geopolitical hostility towards Russia) will hurt us as rabid Anti-Israel sentiment has hurt the Arab world.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you even talking about? Give me examples; as it stands you're attacking a strawman notion of Atlanticism and cold war mindset. What I see is Europe that has for the past 20 years tried hard to close both eyes and stick fingers into its ears and sing "lalalalalala" loudly in order to be able to ignore the fact that Russia is NOT a democracy and that the regime DOES NOT want to play by the European rulebook which doesn't include aggression, bullying into obedience, arbitrary embargoes each time a country does something the bigger power doesn't like, military threats, internal subversion, etc. To put it in different words, Europe has been trying hard to see Russia as a reliable and responsible actor in international relations and a partner to the West with whom we can do business.

This illusion, this mental construct in the Western European mind has always been met with lots of scepticism in the newer EU states, and often the reaction of the old EU states was sneering at their experience and accusations of paranoia. Now who's been paranoid and who's been naïve? Putin is making that crystal clear right now. You're just continuing in this tradition of naïvety right now, wanting to see Russia as a "victim" - a victim of what, pray tell, good intentions?

 

[FriendlyFire]

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene



Since Russian troops first entered the Crimean peninsula in early March, a series of media polling outlets have asked Americans how they want the U.S. to respond to the ongoing situation. Although two-thirds of Americans have reported following the situation at least “somewhat closely,” most Americans actually know very little about events on the ground — or even where the ground is.

On March 28-31, 2014, we asked a national sample of 2,066 Americans (fielded via Survey Sampling International Inc. (SSI), what action they wanted the U.S. to take in Ukraine, but with a twist: In addition to measuring standard demographic characteristics and general foreign policy attitudes, we also asked our survey respondents to locate Ukraine on a map as part of a larger, ongoing project to study foreign policy knowledge. We wanted to see where Americans think Ukraine is and to learn if this knowledge (or lack thereof) is related to their foreign policy views. We found that only one out of six Americans can find Ukraine on a map, and that this lack of knowledge is related to preferences: The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.

However, the further our respondents thought that Ukraine was from its actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily. Even controlling for a series of demographic characteristics and participants’ general foreign policy attitudes, we found that the less accurate our participants were, the more they wanted the U.S. to use force, the greater the threat they saw Russia as posing to U.S. interests, and the more they thought that using force would advance U.S. national security interests; all of these effects are statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. Our results are clear, but also somewhat disconcerting: The less people know about where Ukraine is located on a map, the more they want the U.S. to intervene militarily.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey...s-to-intervene/

/faceplam
Great I liked how 2 American selected Australia as the location for the Ukraine and were calling for the US to invade. Most idiots selected the middle east.

Brace yourself because Republicans are going to be back in power.

 

[Winner]

/faceplam
Great I liked how 2 American selected Australia as the location for the Ukraine and were calling for the US to invade. Most idiots selected the middle east.

The funniest are those who placed their dots in the middle of the Black Sea

 

[Phrossack]

I have a feeling that a lot of the respondents were joking. I mean, most of us know perfectly well that Ukraine is nowhere near Nebraska. Perhaps they just wanted the US to intervene militarily in Nebraska. It'd be pretty easy, considering that country's proximity to the US and the fact that we could just wade across the Platte. But we'd first have to defeat Nebraska's mighty Great Navy and its human waves of Admirals.

Unfortunately, geography isn't taught in our schools much if at all. I was always fascinated by it and spent hours as a kid studying globes, pouring through almanacs, and taking computer quizzes, but obviously most people don't do that.

 

[Winner]

Well to be fair the Black Sea kind of has a similar shape to Ukraine.

 

[Verbose]

The problem is that rational politics are not at play here in this case. The EU's position on Russia is informed by ideological fetishes, similar to the Arab world's position on Israel: We use vague language of human rights and falsely present the other side as an evil cabal with no popular support from within or whatsoever, screaming bloody murder for what are for most part just formal breaches of international law and present their leaders as the new Hitlers.

Well, if we get something like Putin's multipolar world, it's going be rather inhospitable to small nations, and the only way to go is the kind of insulation wealth and power provides — so the EU then must become a political, economic and military union. We can then drop the act, and simply deal in terms of money, power and violence, at our discretion. We might even feel we simply have to.

Because if the Europeans don't, and the EU fails, other people will be doing all that to us. It IS possible to tough it out in that kind of environment as small state, but they tend to have to become highly militaristic to do it.

It would be the end of a period of attempting to use wealth, power and influence for a brand of policies that, ideally, would allow "everybody wins" situations, and in its place would come at least a form of zero-sum politics (which by the look of it is how Putin sees it all), or at worst a race to the bottom, the winners being the ones that lose relatively least.

 

[Yeekim]

Then Russia is not bound to respect the treaties made within the context of that promise, including the treaty made with Ukraine.

Marvelous logic. Even if we, for a moment, accepted that the US broke its promise, how exactly would this mean Russia is therefore not bound to respect the treaties it made with Ukraine, a completely independent third party?
The border treaty between Russia and Ukraine is from 2003, and was ratified by parliaments of both states. I suppose this was also "made in the context of Baker's 1991 promise"?

I really don't have energy or willpower to continue this.

 

[Verbose]

I think you're overestimating your own power.

Winners power? Should be limited, as is all ours here.

Otherwise it seems one of the situation that for both Russia and the EU it holds true that they are never as strong as they seem, but also never as weak as they seem.

Currently Russia might look quite a bit stronger than it actually is, to Russians not least (and that's partly by intent), while the EU is underestimated, rather badly even.

 

[Winner]

I really don't have energy or willpower to continue this.

That's okay, nobody expected you to last this long anyway

Seeing the arguments of the pro-Russians in this thread, it's clear that they will basically find an "whataboutist" excuse for anything Putin et al. commit. It's a grotesquery of doublethink and non-sequitur reasoning.

 

[red_elk]

I called the government headed by Putin thugs, but I see the difference is lost on you.

These "thugs" have ~80% of approval rating (it raised substantially after recent "thuggish" actions) , so what you're saying can be applied to ordinary Russian people as well.

And this is not whining, this is a reminder that Russia and its population will come to rue the day when it decided to become basically a rogue state.

Empty threats are empty and amusing.

Oh look, somebody who was bullied for 20 years decided to fight back. How unexpected!

No, Russia wasn't bullied by Ukraine, this is an overstatement. Ukraine merely didn't (and doesn't) pay for gas and was stealing it from EU customers.

 

[Winner]

These "thugs" have ~80% of approval rating (it raised substantially after recent "thuggish" actions) , so what you're saying can be applied to ordinary Russian people as well.

Thanks for illuminating the state of democratic development of the Russian society.

Empty threats are empty and amusing.

We'll have chat about that a few years down the road.

No, Russia wasn't bullied by Ukraine, this is an overstatement. Ukraine merely didn't (and doesn't) pay for gas and was stealing it from EU customers.

I am tired of your endless circular logic. It is a known fact that Russia abuses its dominant position in the post-Soviet market area to bully other countries. The list of products that are subject to the whim of Russian authorities is endless and goes beyond gas and oil.