Ukraine Crisis Thread III: a new European order?

[Akka]

The point is that annexations have defined nation-states in the previous eras.

Slavery has been practiced widely in the previous eras (including the USA as recently as 150 years ago, yay). I think it's safe to say that today it's a totally unacceptable practice.

I think we can put "invasion to grab land" in the same category, so YES we can blame Russia for invading Crimea TODAY without having apologists practicing whataboutism by digging in past history to throw accusation of double-standards (because if we can use any past deed from any nation, then basically anything is excusable and acceptable, and it's just a way of mudying the subject).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

You're missing the point. I'll say it again. The point is that people who live in glass houses...shouldn't throw stones.

Honestly, Russians, of all people, (or their supporters) criticizing America for "annexing territory" and "invading foreign lands" is one of the most hilariously hypocritical things I've ever heard.

Many of us support neither countries so I think we are free to throw stones.

That's funny, wasn't America being raided by the Native American tribes too?

I am sure the Crimeans and Mongols sacked Moscow and Kiev because the Russians trespassed their territories.

 

[LamaGT]

Slavery has been practiced widely in the previous eras (including the USA as recently as 150 years ago, yay). I think it's safe to say that today it's a totally unacceptable practice.

I think we can put "invasion to grab land" in the same category, so YES we can blame Russia for invading Crimea TODAY without having apologists practicing whataboutism by digging in past history to throw accusation of double-standards (because if we can use any past deed from any nation, then basically anything is excusable and acceptable, and it's just a way of mudying the subject).

I was answering to the claim that Russia is super evil or something because in the past it annexed a lot of other "countries" (really mostly Mongol Khanates and empty land, and the Mongols weren't a friendly bunch of people). Which was in itself an answer to the fact that the US was "evil" because it annexed lots of "countries" in the past. A stupid argument anyway.

Anyway since you condemn so much the annexation of essentially Russian land, then surely you must condemn US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan? Which actually killed A LOT of people?

 

[Akka]

A stupid argument anyway.

Yeah, a stupid argument.

Anyway since you condemn so much the annexation of essentially Russian land, then surely you must condemn US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan? Which actually killed A LOT of people?

Actually I did (Iraq's one at least, Afghanistan's was justified in my eyes), which made me headbutt a lot with USA nationalist at the time, and makes today's crisis and wild accusations thrown, a big feeling of déjà vu.

BTW, even if both are condemnable (and I'm not going to try to measure which one is worse than the other), they are not the same in nature : the USA didn't annex Iraq nor Afghanistan, while Russia DID annex Crimea (on the other hand, obviously USA doesn't have any kind of historical/population claim to Iraq and Afghanistan, while Russia certainly can make such one for Crimea).
Don't try too much to make parallels, especially as the intent of finding excuses is rather transparent.

 

[LamaGT]

Yeah, a stupid argument.

Actually I did (Iraq's one at least, Afghanistan's was justified in my eyes), which made me headbutt a lot with USA nationalist at the time, and makes today's crisis and wild accusations thrown, a big feeling of déjà vu.

BTW, even if both are condemnable (and I'm not going to try to measure which one is worse than the other), they are not the same in nature : the USA didn't annex Iraq nor Afghanistan, while Russia DID annex Crimea (on the other hand, obviously USA doesn't have any kind of historical/population claim to Iraq and Afghanistan, while Russia certainly can make such one for Crimea).
Don't try too much to make parallels, especially as the intent of finding excuses is rather transparent.

Can you please elaborate why annexing territory is such a terrible thing? I understand that it would be bad if say Germany annexed Greece, but Crimea is a completely different situation. And yet you vilify Russia so much for this, forgetting that the West and especially the US have their hands stuck deep inside the pot here.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

My apologies. You weren't actually being a hypocrite. Instead, you were using another favorite tactic of the former Soviet Union and the current Russia, as well as China. The tu quoque fallacy, or the appeal to hypocrisy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Also known as "whataboutism" and "and you are lynching Negroes" in the context of the USSR, where it was apparently such a common practice that they even have their own Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Basically, Soviet propagandists were trained to respond to criticism of the USSR's human rights record (or anything else, for that matter) by saying "and in America you lynch Negroes!" or something along those lines.

However, this is a logical fallacy because it only attempts to discredit the opponent's position by claiming the opponent's failure to act in accordance with that position. It does not attack the position itself. It is a subset of the ad hominem fallacy. In other words, even if the argument were correct, all it proves is that your opponent is a hypocrite, not that his argument is incorrect. The fact that someone is a hypocrite does not disprove what he is saying.

To apply that to this case: While the US may indeed be hypocritical for criticizing Russia's territorial annexations, their hypocrisy does not invalidate their criticism. It remains valid. Neither does the US's annexation of territory justify Russia's annexation of territory, that is another fallacy.

Thanks for all the links and input. I admit that while in theory this all sounds nice and is very well acceptable we must view the situation in context with respect to its peculiar details:
1. the main criticism comes from US and puting aside its long distance past we should pay attention to its more recent actions. It was US which unprecedently violated international law (something Russia is now being criticized for)and declared war on functioning country - Irak on the base of fabricated claims, killed million of people there and turned the place into sectarian hell hole. Becouse of this and many others quite recent unprecedented violations of international law and becouse of the fact that large portion of elite in US pursues hostile imperialistic policies as shown in instances such as Wolfowitz doctrine and becouse of US secretive anti-Russian involment in Ukrainian politics its probable that Russia isnt in position to follow to the letter the international law without taking too big a risks against unaccountable rival which could mean jeopardizing its own national defense. In other words you cant have someone always folloving the internatial law while the other does it only when it suits him.
2. as was already stated Crimea is essentially Russian with population who wanted to join Russia meaning it wasnt even annexed in the correct sense of the term.

 

[LoneRebel]

If the US packed up and completely left Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, would Russia leave Crimea?

Of course not.

 

[LamaGT]

I'm not really understanding your point here. So it was okay for countries to annex others up to a certain point in the past, and then it suddenly became not okay? Where is the cutoff point past which annexations become a bad thing?


All I was saying is that annexations are a part of history and that we shouldn't say that one country is evil because it exists due to annexations. Literally every country on Earth is the result of countless invasions and annexations.

But I don't think you can give me any time frame that would excuse Russia while condemning America, though, because Russia's eastward expansion and America's westward expansion took place at roughly the same time.

Not what I was saying. The history of how a nation came to be has nothing to do with the present day. I get the feeling some people refuse Russia's claim to Crimea because it was originally Tatar land, but really if we want to delve into who owned what then we should return Turkey to the Hittites. The reality is that today it's an overwhelmingly Pro-Russian region.

Hmm...I guess Russia felt left behind by America "invading lots of countries in the recent past" so they felt they had to catch up. Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, probably Belarus or the Baltic states or Kazakhstan in the future.

I was too young to understand well what happened in Georgia, but if every invasion would be like the Ukrainian one then they would clearly be better than the 'Muricans who just like occupying countries for no reason. It's almost as if they invade countries just to get their over-bloated military something to do.

I'll still take America over Russia or China any day, thank you very much.

I'd personally take Europe, it's the lesser evil.

Didn't see this post due to page cutoff, answered in quote.

 

[LoneRebel]

I'd personally take Europe, it's the lesser evil.

Yes, I agree with you on that one.

 

[Domen]

Where is the cutoff point past which annexations become a bad thing?

IMO either the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928 or the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. Or never.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If the US packed up and completely left Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, would Russia leave Crimea?

Of course not.

In its true heart this isnt power game of narrow interest but in essence about right of people to happiness and self-determination.

There is no need for Russia to leave Crimea if thats what people there desire just like it is possible for US troops to be deployed around the world if its for well being of international community and in honest spirit of cooperation.

 

[Akka]

Can you please elaborate why annexing territory is such a terrible thing? I understand that it would be bad if say Germany annexed Greece, but Crimea is a completely different situation.

I'm sorry, are you seriously asking why it's bad to invade your neighbour and annex their land ?

And yet you vilify Russia so much for this, forgetting that the West and especially the US have their hands stuck deep inside the pot here.

Russia is the one who pressured and invaded. That's cold, hard facts.
Trying to spread the blame around is of grade-school level of argumentation, on top of reeking of bad faith.

 

[LamaGT]

I'm sorry, are you seriously asking why it's bad to invade your neighbour and annex their land ?

Russia is the one who pressured and invaded. That's cold, hard facts.
Trying to spread the blame around is of grade-school level of argumentation, on top of reeking of bad faith.

I'm asking why the annexation of some land, again, supported by the people and completely bloodless, is so much worse than provoking a revolution that killed hundreds of people, of which both Russia and the West are responsible. Trying to spread the blame is multi-dimensional thinking, which you seem to be lacking.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I'm asking why the annexation of some land, again, supported by the people and completely bloodless, is so much worse than provoking a revolution that killed hundreds of people, of which both Russia and the West are responsible. Trying to spread the blame is multi-dimensional thinking, which you seem to be lacking.

It's not so much as spreading the blame but to understand the actions of every involved party and being able to evaluate them separately.

One thing that amazes me with some people is that they can be completely ignorant and will try compensate this inadequacy with stubbornness and endless attacks on his counterpart.

 

[Akka]

I'm asking why the annexation of some land, again, supported by the people and completely bloodless, is so much worse than provoking a revolution that killed hundreds of people, of which both Russia and the West are responsible. Trying to spread the blame is multi-dimensional thinking, which you seem to be lacking.

For one thing, there is no evidence of the revolution being provoked. Europe was certainly happy to see the pro-EU Ukrainian protests, but so far I've not yet seen any facts making it probable that there was an actual involvement going beyond high-fiving protesters from beyond the border.
Russia, on the other hand, has invaded Crimea, threatened openly about military operations if needed, and massed 40 000 soldiers on the frontier.

Don't even try to pretend that both are on the same level.


Second, your claims that it's supported by the people are not proved. I don't doubt there is a significant support, but so far the only actual results we got were through the highly suspicious referendum - which is no more credible, and probably much less, than the leak heard about recently that the real numbers are 30 % turnout and only 50 % of those voting for annexation.
And even if the people supported it, invasion is not a justifiable way to do it, especially as there were no actual oppression nor danger for russian-speaking people a the time.


Finally, trying to spread the blame around reeks much more of grasping at straws to defend your biased interests than being objective.
It's a commonly used tool to attempt to make everyone equally guilty regardless of the weight of actual responsabilities and actions, by appealing to logical fallacies and binary reasoning.

Don't mix (genuinely or purposedly) a refusal to be dragged down into sophisms with
an inability to understand the bigger picture. It's not because I don't accept your attempts at relativism that I'm gullible and blind.

One thing that amazes me with some people is that they can be completely ignorant and will try compensate this inadequacy with stubbornness and endless attacks on his counterpart.

Considering your recent posts have been basically not-so-smartly disguised insults and ab hominem, tiptoeing around the rules concerning flaming another member, without anything factual to support them, you should really not be the one giving such hypocrital lessons.

 

[kramerfan86]

Things could get ugly fast if these referendums "show" support for independence. Referendums held by armed gunman are obviously not trust worthy, but that wont stop them from claiming they now have a mandate if the results show pro-independence has won, which I think its almost a sure thing it will. Even if the results go against them a bunch of armed thugs arent going to share that they lost their own sham election.

 

[Verbose]

Things could get ugly fast if these referendums "show" support for independence. Referendums held by armed gunman are obviously not trust worthy, but that wont stop them from claiming they now have a mandate if the results show pro-independence has won, which I think its almost a sure thing it will. Even if the results go against them a bunch of armed thugs arent going to share that they lost their own sham election.

They will. Off bloody course they will. There are a smattering of voting stations set up, organised and under guard of armed men of a separatists bent, with transparent ballot boxes, and the vote legible as it is cast. The question voted on is vague and open to interpretation, and the counting and interpretation is going to be done by the men with the guns. The voting might not be, but the people who come out and vote will tend to be the ones that agree with the men with the guns. It would take uncommon coconut-sized balls to boldy walk up to their ballot boxes and stuff an open "No" vote in one. Especially since whatever people in eastern Ukraine who think the referendum illegal in the first place, as is the line of the Kiev government, they probably aren't going to get out and vote in it regardless.

 

[Domen]

Someone in this thread claimed that Russia is becoming depopulated.

Apparently you are not familiarized with the post-2010 data:

Spoiler :

Since about 2010 Russia once again has positive natural growth.

 

[kramerfan86]

They will. Off bloody course they will. There are a smattering of voting stations set up, organised and under guard of armed men of a separatists bent, with transparent ballot boxes, and the vote legible as it is cast. The question voted on is vague and open to interpretation, and the counting and interpretation is going to be done by the men with the guns. The voting might not be, but the people who come out and vote will tend to be the ones that agree with the men with the guns. It would take uncommon coconut-sized balls to boldy walk up to their ballot boxes and stuff an open "No" vote in one. Especially since whatever people in eastern Ukraine who think the referendum illegal in the first place, as is the line of the Kiev government, they probably aren't going to get out and vote in it regardless.

I am all for letting the Ukrainian people vote for their future, but this is obviously an utterly illegitimate means of doing so.

 

[timtofly]

If they vote their independence will that mean that Russia will stand down and let them form their own, illegitimate country?