Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[RedFury]

Long live Russian Crimea.

Question is it that are Russophobes are going to do about it?

Not much. Check mate.

[RedFury]

@XT

You wouldn’t need to if you wrote clearly, concisely and consistently and debated in good faith. Sadly, you don’t so you need to explain yourself when you translate whatever it is you think in into standard English.

Not quite the the poster child for proper English are you, “ehee”?

While it’s working well enough with Redfury and maybe a few other posters, here’s a news flash…it’s not working with most of the rest, who can see through such transparent horseshit for what it is.

Not the first – or last debate – I see the shit kicked out of you; including many of my own. Best part is you don’t realize it. Just try to cover with a bunch of smilies and “jokes.”

And do a victory dance.

[CarnalK]

@RedFury

Long live Russian Crimea.

Question is it that are Russophobes are going to do about it?

Not much. Check mate.

Lol. Checkmate. Tell Mr Cheerleader, what has annexing Crimea done to threaten the West’s king?

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH!

No more “observations” about other posters’ grammar or ability to post well.

None of those remarks promote the discussion.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[Terr]

@RedFury

Long live Russian Crimea.

Question is it that are Russophobes are going to do about it?

Not much. Check mate.

One can imagine an older version of RedFury dancing with glee over the “Germanophobes’” problems with the “check mate” of the annexation of Sudetenland.

[CarnalK]

@Terr

One can imagine an older version of RedFury dancing with glee over the “Germanophobes’” problems with the “check mate” of the annexation of Sudetenland.

That’s funny because I was imagining a young RedFury getting into trouble for scribbling on the wall. “Sorry Mom. The crayon is already up there. Check mate.”

[NotfooledbyW]

Thanks

@XT

I’m guessing that in your mind what Russia did in the Crimea was better today than what Russia did in the Crimea in the past because there was a sham of a vote (with Russian troops in the streets, the Ukraine’s military bases and port facilities interdicted, and no status quo option in the vote, etc) as opposed to the arbitrary whim of a Soviet era SG. Right?

Let’s disregard whether or not you are correct that it was a sham of a vote and accept that it was a vote that tasted somewhat like democracy. And in 1954 there was no vote at all. As Batutista says that there was a month ago at least ‘a taste of democracy’ in Crimea.

Are you in agreement that a taste of democracy is better than no democracy - in terms of the people involved and affected by a vote of any kind?

What if we find that the taste of democracy in Crimea actually does represent the will of the majority of those living in Crimea? Will the vote on the referendum still be a ‘sham’ in your view?

[CarnalK]

No, a “taste” of democracy, particularly when the vote goes toward joining an authoritarian regime, is worse than no taste at all or at most a wash. You think Moscow will ever let Crimea have another referendum if they want to separate from Russia in the future?

[NotfooledbyW]

Pro-Russia Protesters Seize Ukraine Buildings, Kiev Blames Putin
Lina Kushch and Thomas Grove. Reuters. 04/06/14 11:59 PM ET

“The situation will come back under control without bloodshed. That is the order to law enforcement officers, it’s true. But the truth is that no one will peacefully tolerate the lawlessness of provocateurs.”

Acting President Oleksander Turchinov called an emergency meeting of security chiefs in Kiev and took personal control of the situation, the parliamentary press service said.

As if there was no lawlessness of provacateurs having their way in Kiev last February. Why not allow a ‘peaceful’ referendum to settle the issue by changing the Constitution to let each region decide?

[Batistuta]

@NotfooledbyW

Let’s disregard whether or not you are correct that it was a sham of a vote and accept that it was a vote that tasted somewhat like democracy. And in 1954 there was no vote at all. As Batutista says that there was a month ago at least ‘a taste of democracy’ in Crimea.

You’re misinterpreting my previous post. And I sure hope you’re not doing so on purpose.

The referendum had as much of a taste of democracy as vodka has a taste of potato.

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

No, a “taste” of democracy, particularly when the vote goes toward joining an authoritarian regime, is worse than no taste at all or at most a wash. You think Moscow will ever let Crimea have another referendum if they want to separate from Russia in the future?

Perhaps Moscow would allow another referendum. What I intend to watch is whether Putin follows through with rehabilitation if the Crimean Tartars. It was interesting to learn that Ukraine had not done much for the Tatars but it appears that Russian law actually will offer Tatars a significant improvement in their lives, practice of religion and rights to their land etc.

If that improvement comes to the Tatars then I don’t see how there will ever be a majority of Crimeans seeking to leave the Russian Federation.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Batistuta

You’re misinterpreting my previous post. And I sure hope you’re not doing so on purpose.

The referendum had as much of a taste of democracy as vodka has a taste of potato.

Acknowledged. But do you have a thought on my broader point from that same post?

But finding that the missing taste of potato in vodka does not dismiss the fact that the potato is a main ingredient that makes the flavor of vodka what it is and without the potato, producing vodka as we know it, would not happen, I hope, would be agreeable to you.

[Batistuta]

@NotfooledbyW

Acknowledged. But do you have a thought on my broader point from that same post?

The thing is, ’ a bit’ of democracy is not democracy. If you’re allowed to vote but the questions are wrong (which happened in Crimea); or your votes are not being counted fairly (which probably happened in Crimea), then you’re not in a democracy. You might have voted (hence the “taste of democracy”) but your vote was irrelevant.

Dictatorships have been pulling off rigged votes for years, which doesn’t make them democratic.

[Human_Action]

@Batistuta

The thing is, ’ a bit’ of democracy is not democracy. If you’re allowed to vote but the questions are wrong (which happened in Crimea); or your votes are not being counted fairly (which probably happened in Crimea), then you’re not in a democracy. You might have voted (hence the “taste of democracy”) but your vote was irrelevant.

Dictatorships have been pulling off rigged votes for years, which doesn’t make them democratic.

And to your point about a “taste” being worse than none at all, holding (rigged) elections can give authoritarian regimes a veneer of legitimacy, that they wouldn’t otherwise possess.

[CarnalK]

@NotfooledbyW

Perhaps Moscow would allow another referendum.

“Perhaps”? Do you believe that is even remotely a possibility?

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

“Perhaps”? Do you believe that is even remotely a possibility?

There is no need for further referenda. We know that the vote in favor of Russia will always be 98%.

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

“Perhaps”? Do you believe that is even remotely a possibility?

It’s as remote a possibility as the chance that Crimea’s could have separated from Ukraine by going the Constitutional route by getting 100,000 signatures in 15 Oblasts in favor of a referendum. And then passing it.

[CarnalK]

@NotfooledbyW

It’s as remote a possibility as the chance that Crimea’s could have separated from Ukraine by going the Constitutional route by getting 100,000 signatures in 15 Oblasts in favor of a referendum. And then passing it.

So then no, in your opinion not possible. So why even say “perhaps”?

[Batistuta]

@NotfooledbyW

It’s as remote a possibility as the chance that Crimea’s could have separated from Ukraine by going the Constitutional route by getting 100,000 signatures in 15 Oblasts in favor of a referendum. And then passing it.

Except that’s not true. It’s even more remote, just ask Tatarstan.

Also, your hopes that the Tatars will be forever happy under Putin? Good try.

[RedFury]

One Word Defines U.S. Foreign Policy: Hubris

@W.J. Astore

When Hannah Arendt, the famous German-American political philosopher, criticized American involvement in the Vietnam War, she said that our foreign policy “experts” fell prey to using excessive means to achieve minor aims in a region of marginal interest to the United States. You could say the same of most of America’s foreign interventions since 1945. We are a superpower with a boundless propensity for meddling in world affairs. We waste enormous amounts of money and resources intervening in areas that are of marginal importance to our national security.

**There are many reasons for these wasteful interventions, of course. The military-industrial-Congressional complex plays its role. Presidents love to intervene as a sign of “strength.” Natural resources, especially oil, are usually in play. The usual motives, in short: profit, power, greed.

But perhaps the root cause of our mistakes can be traced to hubris, our prideful belief that we can remake other societies and peoples in our image. Our hubris leads us to undervalue legitimate cultural differences, and to underestimate the difficulties involved in bridging those distances. Because we underestimate the difficulties, we rush in with money and troops, only to find that the problems we encounter — and often exacerbate — are not amenable to being solved with money and troops. Nevertheless, once we’ve committed our prestige, we believe that we can’t withdraw without losing face. So we commit even more money and troops and prestige, until our folly can no longer be denied, even to ourselves. After which, sadly, we usually search for scapegoats.

Rarely do we stop to think that some problems simply can’t be solved with massive infusions of money and troops. Indeed, infusions of the same often exacerbate the very problems we claim we’re trying to solve.

The way out, to paraphrase Arendt, is to commit only those means necessary to secure our major aims in regions of vital interest to the U.S.

Such an approach requires humility as well as moderation. Our foreign policy types will need to stop strutting the world stage as if they own it. Our leaders will need to stop vamping like Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard, declaiming “I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.” (If only they had her style.)**

“Look at them in the front offices. The masterminds!” Yes, Gloria Swanson had it right. Our foreign policy “masterminds” need to learn some humility. Either that, or America will be among the smashed idols of history.

– This latter part is rather obvious. Nothing lasts forever.