Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[RedFury]

@BrokenBriton

I think the point is that while the US has been carrying on like this for 50-60 years, it’s rare to see under the hood, to see the scale of bullshit as it unfolds in real time.

Its all a very nice case study for how the empire conducts geo-politics and, just as interestingly, how the political class presents that to the domestic audience through the conduit of a largely submissive media.

If you rather read the abridged version, John, skip my sleep-inducing wall of text, and read this one.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Nina Khrushcheva said that what the referendum and Russian actions are a violation of Ukraine’s Constititution and international law. … But she says John Kerry should be negotiating a remedy that leaves Crimea aligned with Russia because they are primarily Russians and Crimea is leaving is a done deal. Its over. Crimea is not going back to its former status with Kiev.
And I consider her a great spokesperson on this issue Because here great grand mother is Ukrainian and her great grandfather is Russian. Her great grandfather is the one and only man who issued the “Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic” in 1954.

Was that undemocratic decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet legitimate? Certainly it was legal and binding according to international law. But legitimate in terms of fairness to the Russians living in Crimea in 1954 and to their heirs… A true believer in democracy would not consider that a legitimate matter of choice for the people of Crimea. The illegitimacy of actions taken sixty years later should be seen in that light.

That’s a long winded answer that completely ignores the question. You’ve been praising the referendum, and yet you consider it to be illegal, if you actually do agree with Obama. So, you praise an illegal action. At least we now know exactly where you stand.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

So, the referendum, which you’ve been praising, is illegal. Is that correct?

I am praising the fact that it is happening in the way it is happening, which is non-violent. And when I compare that to non-legitimate action by the USA for regime change by violent military overthrow which has occurred in the past and hundreds of thousands died as a result I don’t see making the best of the situation by correcting a ‘wrong’ of the past by accepting a ‘wrong’ in the present as a terrible outcome. A non-violent ‘wrong’ in the present is not such a terrible outcome. Violence is a key for me… Do you think Crimean voters who voted for Yanukovich should see the violent ouster of their elected President as legitimate? So there are several wrongs that went on here.
If you know of a non-violent means to have a vote in Crimea for what they want to do when they must get permission from Ukraine to even consider it, let me know what it is.

You seem to be ok with the initial violence that started all this. Is that true? I would not stoop so low as to accuse you of praising it but ignoring the first punch to fault blocking that punch and further punches is what I expect from you.

[RedFury]

@RickJay

Who in here is stepping up for the USA? Personally, I’m much more concerned about the people of Ukraine. I’m not even American.

So the USA has done many rotten things. So has Spain. Who gives a crap? That has little to do with Russia invading Ukraine.

I remain curious as to how you would deal with French troops moving into the Basque regions and then those areas suddenly announcing a referendum on separation.

Try Cuba and the missile crisis if you are going for any kind of valid analogy.

Just a suggestion – I’ve had enough of The Onion in this thread.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

I am praising the fact that that it is happening in the way it is happening, which is non-violent. And when I compare that to non-legitimate action of regime change by violent military overthrow which has occurred in the past and hundreds of thousands died as a result… I don’t see making the best of the situation by correcting a ‘wrong’ of the past by accepting a ‘wrong’ in the present. A non-violent ‘wrong’ in the present. Violence is a key for me… Do you think Crimean voters who voted for Yanukovich should see the violent ouster of their elected President as legitimate? So there are several wrongs that went on here.
If you know of a non-violent means to have a vote in Crimea for what they want to do when they must get permission from Ukraine to even consider it, let me know what it is.

You seem to be ok with the initial violence that started all this. Is that true? I would not stoop so low as to accuse you of praising it but ignoring the first punch to fault blocking that punch and further punches is what I expect from you.

What “initial violence” in Crimea are you talking about. The referendum, according to Obama, is illegal. You claim to agree with him, and yet at the same to to praise it. We can only conclude that, surprise surprise, you hold contradictory beliefs. You dare not cross Obama, even when he clearly disagrees with you.

I don’t see Obama praising any aspect of this referendum. So you blithely claim to be agreement with him when you hold the opposite opinion. Cognitive dissonance incarnate.

[NotfooledbyW]

@aldiboronti

He’s not wrong, simply irrelevant, as are all the Western leaders as they busily mouth platitudes, which, let’s face it, are more for home consumption than anything else. They know full well that the most important player, Putin, isn’t listening. Crimea is returning to Russia, the only thing that could possibly prevent that is a referendum vote against such a return. That, to say the least, is unlikely.

Yes indeed, that is a good answer to John Mace’s framing of anyone having an overview of all the ‘wrongs’ past and present going on in the world as opposed to his requirement to focus on only one specific ‘wrong’ committed by the great Russian Devil Man salivating with fangs out for world conquest. I think these attempts to set the boundaries of the debate in such limited terms is a sign of weakness of John Mace’s argument.
Putin just might offer $10 billion bucks in debt forgiveness and cash to Kiev and her new puppet masters and funders for the military assets that will be needed to defend the New Crimean Government. The Sponsors of the New Ukraine Government ought to grab it if it comes.

[RedFury]

Yet another article that explains the situation quite clearly – though I suspect it’ll become the target of endless digs at me, and cause much hilarity amongst those that are determined to keep their star-spangled blinders firmly in place.

Enjoy.

The clash in Crimea is the fruit of western expansion

Diplomatic pronouncements are renowned for hypocrisy and double standards. But western denunciations of Russian intervention in Crimea have reached new depths of self parody. The so far bloodless incursion is an “incredible act of aggression”, US secretary of state John Kerry declared. In the 21st century you just don’t invade countries on a “completely trumped-up pretext”, he insisted, as US allies agreed that it had been an unacceptable breach of international law, for which there will be “costs”.

That the states which launched the greatest act of unprovoked aggression in modern history on a trumped-up pretext – against Iraq, in an illegal war now estimated to have killed 500,000, along with the invasion of Afghanistan, bloody regime change in Libya, and the killing of thousands in drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, all without UN authorisation – should make such claims is beyond absurdity.

It’s not just that western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions. But the western powers have also played a central role in creating the Ukraine crisis in the first place.

The US and European powers openly sponsored the protests to oust the corrupt but elected Viktor Yanukovych government, which were triggered by controversy over an all-or-nothing EU agreement which would have excluded economic association with Russia.

In her notorious “fuck the EU” phone call leaked last month, the US official Victoria Nuland can be heard laying down the shape of a post-Yanukovych government – much of which was then turned into reality when he was overthrown after the escalation of violence a couple of weeks later.

The president had by then lost political authority, but his overnight impeachment was certainly constitutionally dubious. In his place a government of oligarchs, neoliberal Orange Revolution retreads and neofascists has been installed, one of whose first acts was to try and remove the official status of Russian, spoken by a majority in parts of the south and east, as moves were made to ban the Communist party, which won 13% of the vote at the last election.

It has been claimed that the role of fascists in the demonstrations has been exaggerated by Russian propaganda to justify Vladimir Putin’s manoeuvres in Crimea. The reality is alarming enough to need no exaggeration. Activists report that the far right made up around a third of the protesters, but they were decisive in armed confrontations with the police.

Fascist gangs now patrol the streets. But they are also in Kiev’s corridors of power. The far right Svoboda party, whose leader has denounced the “criminal activities” of “organised Jewry” and which was condemned by the European parliament for its “racist and antisemitic views”, has five ministerial posts in the new government, including deputy prime minister and prosecutor general. The leader of the even more extreme Right Sector, at the heart of the street violence, is now Ukraine’s deputy national security chief…

The world’s not buying this one.

[Sitnam]

@NotfooledbyW

Does this do it for you?

No, it does not. The Ukraine wasn’t founded in 1954, in the dissolution of the Soviet Empire The Crimea voted on where they would go. Look up the result, it should embarrass you.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Yes indeed, that is a good answer to John Mace’s framing of anyone having an overview of all the ‘wrongs’ past and present going on in the world as opposed to his requirement to focus on only one specific ‘wrong’ committed by the great Russian Devil Man salivating with fangs out for world conquest. I think these attempts to set the boundaries of the debate in such limited terms is a sign of weakness of John Mace’s argument.

Could you translate that into English?

What we’ve established thus far, is that the referendum, according to you, is the will of the people, and no one should challenge it. At the same time, it’s illegal and against the constitution.

Got it. Good and bad, depending on what argument you want to make any given moment.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

No he is not wrong.

So, just to clarify your position is, since Obama is not wrong:

You affirm that the Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine, and any attempt to separate it from Ukraine is illegal and illegitimate.

That’s interesting, because it’s the complete opposite of what you’ve been arguing in this thread. However, you have now made it clear that you disavow all the posts you made prior and side with Obama. It’s good to see you change your mind and admit a mistake. You’ve come along way, young Padua.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

What “initial violence” in Crimea are you talking about. The referendum, according to Obama, is illegal. You claim to agree with him, and yet at the same to to praise it. We can only conclude that, surprise surprise, you hold contradictory beliefs. You dare not cross Obama, even when he clearly disagrees with you.

I don’t see Obama praising any aspect of this referendum. So you blithely claim to be agreement with him when you hold the opposite opinion. Cognitive dissonance incarnate.

Obama is not wrong that it is illegitimate because what Putin is doing is illegitimate. I disagree with the policy and any over melodramatic concern about danger that Putin’s illegitimate action will harm on a global scale. You don’t Punish Jaywalking the same a First Degree Murder.

Think about it John Mace, how many international law violations have been committed over the decades? How violent and disruptive was the US and UK invasion of a sovereign nation in March 2003 with no justification? Are we all still here except those who perished in that VIOLATION and all the others around the world?

You seem to be confused about what I am praising if you must use that word. I have told you what I am praising. I am praising that Putiin’s violation of international law when compared to not-Putin violations in the not so distant past, is non-lethal and non-destructive. So I have that.

You don’t seem to be concerned about the “initial violence” in Crimea when the protests in Kiev led to the downfall of an elected President. The Crimeans who voted for that President see that the rule of law in Ukraine does not prevail if violent force is used. So they may want out. Can you blame them if they want out?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

So, just to clarify your position is, since Obama is not wrong:

You affirm that the Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine, and any attempt to separate it from Ukraine is illegal and illegitimate.

That’s interesting, because it’s the complete opposite of what you’ve been arguing in this thread. However, you have now made it clear that you disavow all the posts you made prior and side with Obama. It’s good to see you change your mind and admit a mistake. You’ve come along way, young Padua.

Show me were I have affirmed that the Crimea is not an integral part of Ukraine, and any attempt to separate it from Ukraine is legal and legitimate.

I am acknowledging that (integral to Ukraine) Crimea is being separated from Ukraine illegally with the help of Russia and that may turnout to be in the end a good thing despite being a violation. I do not disagree with Obama and Kerry that it is illegal, I disagree that it is as serious a violation as it is being made out to be. This is petty larceny of a pack of gum from the dime store and its is being treated as if it s the Soviet invasion of Hungary all over again. Sometimes even superpowers cant do anything about violations of international law… God Knows Russia, France and China could not stop the UK and UK when that deliberately and wantonly violated international law. The west was dicking around meddling in Ukrainian affaires and the got burned and they have little to strike back.

So Obama and his successors won’t recognize Crimea for ten years. That will Be punishment enough for this non-violent violation. Do the sanctions for while, and you’ve done your duty for the sake of enforcing a breach of international law … I don’t concern myself much about the referendum as it dpes violate Ukraine’s constitution. That is because of Kiev’s piss poor management of its internal affairs. When they don’t respect their constitution themselves they are in revolutionary mode and lo and behold when they got there the shit hit the fan. And they want our hard earned money now to help clean up their mess.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

What we’ve established thus far, is that the referendum, according to you, is the will of the people, and no one should challenge it. At the same time, it’s illegal and against the constitution.

Where have I written that no one should challenge it?

It’s not the ‘will of the people’ yet since the people have not voted.

But where do you get the idea that ‘the will of the people’ cannot be in favor of doing something that is illegal and against a constitution?

The Russians in Crimea are not attached to Ukraine by their own 'people’s; assent.

That happened by decree from Moscow in 1954.

I tend to cut them some slack on what violations they commit because of that.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Sitnam

No, it does not. The Ukraine wasn’t founded in 1954, in the dissolution of the Soviet Empire The Crimea voted on where they would go. Look up the result, it should embarrass you.

Are we talking about when the internationally recognized borders of Crimea were set? I don’t see where Crimea was given a vote to separate themselves from the Ukraine?
The Ukraine government always had constitutional authority over Crimea since the time that Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. Where did Crimea have a vote to separate from the Ukraine’s sovereignty?
by December 1991 internationally recognized[2]) Crimea was at the time part of the Ukrainian SSR which was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union

After a referendum on 20 January 1991, Crimea regained its status as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.[1] (Since this was months before the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991 (by December 1991 internationally recognized[2]) Crimea was at the time part of the Ukrainian SSR which was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union.[1][3]) In February 1992 the Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into “Republic of Crimea” and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government.[1] On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent[1] (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992[4]) and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.[4] On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[4] On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea’s independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same.[4] In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of “Autonomous Republic”.[1]

Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

5 things to know about Crimea

[Latro]

@RedFury

Try Cuba and the missile crisis if you are going for any kind of valid analogy.

How is that an analogy of the current situation?
That was an agreement by both sides to remove missiles close to each others borders.
What would be the American equivalent of Russia removing the troops from the Crimea?

[blindboyard]

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_25/Anonymous-Ukraine-Klitschko-e-mails-and-Nuland-Pyatt-dialogue-prove-US-backed-coup-9378/

The e-mails released by Anonymous between Laurynas Jonavicius an Advisor to the President of Lithuania, a country that has been active in Nazi historical revisionism, and Vitaly Klitschko were accidentally uncovered by Anonymous when they hacked the e-mails of the Lithuanian Administration and show how Klitschko is controlled by the West through a Lithuanian intermediary.

The text of the first e-mail, rewritten verbatim below is apparently one of the first as he addresses the advisor as “Mr. Jonavicius”. In the e-mail Klitschko refers to plans for his future inferring that he agrees to their terms. He also mentions the money him and his circle are to be paid, a visit to the Lithuanian Embassy and his bank account in Germany where the said monies are to be transferred.

Klitschko’s e-mail source IP information shows that his e-mails emanate from his own domain “k-mg.com” which expires August 26th, 2014. His domain is registered to Klitschko Management Group GmbH, located at Grosse Elbstr. Street 275 in Hamburg, Germany. Klitschko is known to have travelled to Germany several times before the upheavals.

[Batistuta]

@Latro

How is that an analogy of the current situation?
That was an agreement by both sides to remove missiles close to each others borders.
What would be the American equivalent of Russia removing the troops from the Crimea?

I think the Cuban missile crisis is not a bad analogy. You have several of the same ingredients:

• An American president who is often perceived as being soft
• A Russian leader willing to test the boundaries of said American president
• A contested territory in the West’s backyard
• Russia trying to take control (to some extent) over that contested territory

And it’s all developed into a classical game of brinkmanship, with Russian troops seeing how far they can go without the West taking decisive measures. A lot like the Russian ships heading towards Cuba and turning around just before reaching the US blockade.

Also, a caveat about the Cuban missile crisis: the USA did agree to remove missiles from Turkey (if I remember correctly). But such missiles were outdated and quite useless by 1961. In the case of Crimea, we have yet to see what Russia wants in exchange for stepping back.

[blindboyard]

A Shadow US Foreign Policy

Last September, NED’s longtime president, Carl Gershman, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to urge the U.S. government to push European “free trade” agreements on Ukraine and other former Soviet states and thus counter Moscow’s efforts to maintain close relations with those countries. The ultimate goal, according to Gershman, was isolating and possibly toppling Putin in Russia with Ukraine the key piece on this global chessboard.
…
In furtherance of these goals, NED funded a staggering 65 projects in Ukraine, according to its latest report. The funding for these NGOs range from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars and created for NED what amounted to a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.

This NED shadow structure, when working in concert with domestic opposition forces, had the capability to challenge the decisions of Yanukovych’s elected government, including the recent coup – spearheaded by violent neo-Nazis – that overthrew him. Presumably, NED wanted the “regime change” without the neo-Nazi element. But that armed force was necessary for the coup to oust Yanukovych and open the path for those IMF-demanded economic “reforms.”

Beyond the scores of direct NED projects in Ukraine, other major NED recipients, such as Freedom House, have thrown their own considerable weight behind the Ukraine rebellion. A recent Freedom House fundraising appeal read: “More support, including yours, is urgently needed to ensure that Ukrainian citizens struggling for their freedom are protected and supported.” Freedom House meant the “citizens struggling” against their elected government.

So, over this past week, a policy dispute about whether Ukraine should accept the European Union’s trade demands or go with a more generous $15 billion loan from Moscow escalated into violent street clashes and finally a putsch spearheaded by neo-Nazi storm troopers who took control of government buildings in Kiev.

With Yanukovych and his top aides forced to flee for their lives, the opposition-controlled parliament then passed a series of draconian laws often unanimously, while U.S. neocons cheered and virtually no one in the U.S. press corps noted the undemocratic nature of what had just happened. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Cheering a ‘Democratic’ Coup in Ukraine.”]

[Steophan]

@RickJay

When did the people of Crimea suddenly need “an answer”? What was the desperation here? Was Crimea suddenly beset by rampaging hordes of Kiev-based looters? And why did this sudden desire for secession only arise when Russian troops arrived in force?

When the fascists violently took over their country. Did you miss that?

Crimea is no more entitled to unilaterally separate from Ukraine than, say, South Carolina is entitled to unilaterally separate from the United States.

All states and people are entitled to self determination, including South Carolina. If you disagree with that, I look forward to you supporting your country rejoining the British Empire, and attacking France for their help in the revolution.

For a guy who claims to be a great genius at avoiding the propaganda of the Western media, you’re remarkably easily fooled by one of the most ludicrously transparent maskirovka campaigns in modern history.

Just because this happens to be in Russia’s interests doesn’t mean it’s not true. Ukraine has been a divided country since independence, and this fascist coup has made it urgent.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Red: Even if you assume the USA is mostest evilest country that ever existed, why would you condone what’s going on in Crimea? There’s a whole separate debate about whether the US has the moral high ground to criticize, but why would you condone another power doing something similar?

It makes no sense.

Did you ever write on this forum that a it was justified for a nation to bomb and invade another in order to perform regime change without there being a threat to national or international security nor a humanitarian crisis that would justify it?

The world is still here after that major and deadly violation of international law was committed.