Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[Latro]

@Batistuta

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

Maybe.

-ARussian leader willing to test the boundaries of said American president

What has America got to do with the Crimea?

• A contested territory in the West’s backyard

You mean in Russia’s backyard, no?

• Russia trying to take control (to some extent) over that contested territory

Cuba was not contested territory. America didn’t want anything to do with Cuba.

A lot like the Russian ships heading towards Cuba and turning around just before reaching the US blockade.

Right, they didn’t turn aroun because Kennedy was so tough, they turned around because Kennedy gave in.

the USA did agree to remove missiles from Turkey (if I remember correctly)…

Exactly. The thing that started the Cuban crisis.
Which is still touted as how America stood up to the Soviets and stared them down. Rah, Rah!
It’s exactly the other way round.

[BrokenBriton]

@Latro

It’s exactly the other way round.

It’s a shame you finished with that line.

Yep, the crisis in 1961 was resolved by a deal and not the bullshit narrative the public was fed (“We were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked”).

And yep, one half of that deal was kept secret - with Moscow’s agreement - in order to feed the public narrative.

You could even argue Khrushchev achieved quite a lot by sending shipping back and forth for a few months.

[RickJay]

@Steophan

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

Evidently so because nobody has demonstrated anything of the sort happened. Ukraine is still run by the same paliament it was being run by a month ago. There’s no evidence the government has suddenly become “fascist.” This weird, ongoing claim of “fascist” control of Ukraine remains completely unsupported by evidence or common sense.

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.

That’s your opinion, unsupported by any reference to the laws of pretty much every federated state in the world - including by the way, the Russian Federation.

As to my country, we separated quite peacefully from the British Empire, through political negotiation and reasonable, incremental steps towards independence. It was a wholly voluntary change on both sides. Not sure where you think I’m from.

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Try Cuba and the missile crisis if you are going for any kind of valid analogy.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a terrible analogy, it makes no sense at all.

No, a much better analogy would be if French troops inserted themselves into Basque country and then announced those territories were to hold a referendum deciding whether or not to unilaterally secede from the Kingdom of Spain. What would you think of that, pray tell?

[BrokenBriton]

Why is there a need for an analogy; it won’t fit except in the most superficial, nauance-stripped way and gets us nowhere anyway?

[NotfooledbyW]

@jayjay

There seem to be an awful lot of useful idiots willing to crawl into Puty-put’s lap and cuddle up to Daddy.

Is calling people who disagree with the Western normal thinking on matters like this useful idiots add much to constructive discussion?

[Batistuta]

@Latro

What has America got to do with the Crimea?

Whether you like it or not, the USA has to do with pretty much every place on the planet. It is still a global superpower, if no longer the only one. Who do you think people look to when chemical weapons are used in Syria? Whose public announcements do people listen to when Putin moves into Crimea? That’s right, the USA.

@Latro

You mean in Russia’s backyard, no?

No, I mean Ukraine shares a border with Poland which is part of the EU which is the West. Sure, this is the part of the analogy that’s ‘stretched’ the most to fit the Cuban case. But you can’t deny that Ukraine is in the EU’s - and by extension the West’s - backyard.

@Latro

Cuba was not contested territory. America didn’t want anything to do with Cuba.

Really? So the bay of pigs is a part of Jamaica then? I didn’t mean ‘contested’ as in ‘several countries want to own it’, I mean ‘contested’ as in ‘several countries want to exert influence over it.’

@Latro

Right, they didn’t turn aroun because Kennedy was so tough, they turned around because Kennedy gave in.

Exactly, I didn’t claim otherwise. And Putin is hoping that Obama will pull ‘a Kennedy’ and make concessions in exchange for the Russian troops pulling back. Does that not make sense? Is that not in any way similar to Cuba, 1961?

[Gyrate]

@NotfooledbyW

Is calling people who disagree with the Western normal thinking on matters like this useful idiots add much to constructive discussion?

Is calling anti-Russian protestors all fascists constructive, in the absence of evidence? Is acting as if the ethnic Russian population of the Crimea was in imminent danger of genocide constructive?

[Malthus]

@RickJay

Evidently so because nobody has demonstrated anything of the sort happened. Ukraine is still run by the same paliament it was being run by a month ago. There’s no evidence the government has suddenly become “fascist.” This weird, ongoing claim of “fascist” control of Ukraine remains completely unsupported by evidence or common sense.

It is amazingly Orwellian how the pro-Russian crowd has adopted “fascist” as their default smear.

Even those who don’t use it, seriously argue that having some repellantly right-wing types with influence in a government justifies a foreign invasion of the country, even in the total absence of actual repellant acts by said figures. One wonders what countries are immune from the application of such criteria. What about, say, France?

Presumably, these same folks did not approve of Bush’s invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam.

[RickJay]

@Malthus

It is amazingly Orwellian how the pro-Russian crowd has adopted “fascist” as their default smear.

Even those who don’t use it, seriously argue that having some repellantly right-wing types with influence in a government justifies a foreign invasion of the country, even in the total absence of actual repellant acts by said figures. One wonders what countries are immune from the application of such criteria. What about, say, France?

I wonder if we can find hard-right-wing fascist types hanging around with the leaders of other countries?

I’ll pick… oh, I dunno, let’s choose… I know, Spain!

Franco-fascism on the march in Spain: Is the government doing enough?

Well, whaddya know! I guess the Basques and Catalonia should separate. Maybe a foreign intervention is in order!

[NotfooledbyW]

@Gyrate

Is calling anti-Russian protestors all fascists constructive, in the absence of evidence? Is acting as if the ethnic Russian population of the Crimea was in imminent danger of genocide constructive?

I have not called any anti-Russian protesters fascists? Why are you responding to me?

[XT]

@Malthus

It is amazingly Orwellian how the pro-Russian crowd has adopted “fascist” as their default smear.

Even those who don’t use it, seriously argue that having some repellantly right-wing types with influence in a government justifies a foreign invasion of the country, even in the total absence of actual repellant acts by said figures. One wonders what countries are immune from the application of such criteria. What about, say, France?

Presumably, these same folks did not approve of Bush’s invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam.

Perhaps they believe that if they keep saying it that eventually it will become reality. Obviously, it IS reality already to some of them, despite the singular lack of evidence (outside of the type Red has persisted in using from loopy, off the wall web sites catering to…well, gods know what they are catering too, except the crazy).

[QUOTE=BrokenBriton]
Why is there a need for an analogy; it won’t fit except in the most superficial, nauance-stripped way and gets us nowhere anyway?
[/QUOTE]

Simply countering the myriad, ridiculous analogies already being used by…well, folks like you. You know, all those out of the ass ‘this is just like what America does/did!’ analogies up thread. Except the Basque analogy actually makes a little bit of sense in the context of the discussion. Is it a 1 for 1? Nope…that’s why it’s an analogy. But it’s a bit closer to the mark than trotting out the Cuban Missile Crisis (…:p) as one.

Of course, we COULD just talk about the actual situation going on, but then that seems to be impossible with all of the over the top hyperbole about fascist takeovers and conspiracy theory plots about doctors knowing then denying the ‘fact’ that the snipers were shooting both sides and paid by the Bush Administration/Obama/Jews/Fascist Insurgents/Mutant Rabid Space Alien Kittens At The Behest of the EU/etc etc.

[BrokenBriton]

Someone asked why it was such a big deal for Putin. The Cuban Missile crisis works as an explanation for Putin’s reaction becasue it casts events in a US context; when something happens on a direct border.

Trying to make a previous event serve as some kind of general template won’t; these events are way to nuanced.

You must know that; are you just being petty for the sake of it?

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Putin has told you. He’s not claiming he’s entitled. He says he is able and obligated to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians who asked for his help because of the mess in Kiev.

Because of his lease agreement Putin is ‘entitled’ to send or amass up to 25,000 Russian troops into Crimea to protect assets and personnel. They certainly cannot go takeover Ukrainian bases. But in stretching legal restraints Putin appears to have justified in his mind that taking over Ukraine military assets on the Crimean Peninsula is the only way to protect Russisn lives and property that are entitled to be there.

Any significant involvement of Fascists in the interim government is a threat to stability in the region.

Emphasis added

@NotfooledbyW

Is calling people who disagree with the Western normal thinking on matters like this useful idiots add much to constructive discussion?

@Gyrate

Is calling anti-Russian protestors all fascists constructive, in the absence of evidence? Is acting as if the ethnic Russian population of the Crimea was in imminent danger of genocide constructive?

@NotfooledbyW

I have not called any anti-Russian protesters fascists? Why are you responding to me?

No, you just called some unspecified members of the Ukrainian government fascists. Does that add to constructive discussion?

Or is this another time when you’re referring to a hypothetical Ukraine instead of the actual Ukraine that the rest of us are discussing?

[XT]

@BrokenBriton

Someone asked why it was such a big deal for Putin. The Cuban Missile crisis works as an explanation for Putin’s reaction becasue it casts events in a US context; when something happens on a direct border.

Trying to make a previous event serve as some kind of general template won’t; these events are way to nuanced.

You must know that; are you just being petty for the sake of it?

Petty? Um, no. I’m not seeing it because, you know, it’s a bad analogy that really has very few connections to what’s really going on in the Ukraine right now. Did I miss when the US invaded, put troops in the streets, pressured the local parliament (by the simple expedient of HAVING those troops patrolling in the streets) and sliced off a chunk of Cuba permanently to become part of the US? Because that’s EXACTLY what’s happening in the Crimea. Russia is using the excuse of supposed ethnic troubles to basically do a land grab…and you all are basically just talking about how bad the US has been in the past, when you aren’t bringing up loopy conspiracy theories. I’m truly mystified by the pro-Russian response in this thread and willingness to buy what Putin is trying to peddle with such little probing skepticism from some of our members. Ok, I get Red…but some of the rest of you? I know you dislike the US and everything we do, but good grief, the US has little or nothing to do with this, and I’d think you could look at the situation from the perspective of a European having this happen in your relative backyard. Do you REALLY think it’s a good idea that Russia is doing what it’s doing? Seriously?

[XT]

Thought I’d link to this on CNN:

5 lessons for a new Cold War

1. Nobody’s scared of America, but American and European values hold strong appeal.

Lest we forget, this all started over a move by the now-deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who broke his promise to sign a partnership agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Moscow. Ukrainians were enraged, not just because they want more trade with Europe but because they have seen what Western standards can bring to a society.

They were fed up with corruption, authoritarianism and stagnation. They wanted their country to be free of Moscow’s interference, and many gave up their lives to fight for an ideal of stronger democratic institutions, rule of law and fair play.

As strong as the pull of these values is, their principal advocate, the U.S., has lost much of its ability to stare down its foes in support of those who want to institute democratic principles in their countries. We saw it when President Barack Obama declared – years ago – that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad must step down. We saw it when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pelted with tomatoes in Egypt. And we saw it in Ukraine, when Obama warned Putin to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, only to see the Russians capture Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. America does not intimidate.

Its loss of influence means strongmen and dictators have a freer hand.

2. You don’t mess with Putin without paying a price.

Even if Moscow were to relinquish all control of Ukrainian territory today, Putin has already achieved a main goal. He has sent a clear message to countries that were once part of the Soviet Union – and perhaps to the USSR’s former Eastern European satellites – that they cannot defy his wishes without paying a painful price. In that sense, Putin has won.

A top Putin aide warned last summer that Ukraine was risking “suicide” if it dared to defy Moscow. Now we know this was no bluff. Putin is serious about protecting Moscow’s sphere of influence. It’s not clear how closely he wants to control what are supposed to be independent countries.

3. If you are a vulnerable state, you may regret surrendering nuclear weapons.

This may be the most dangerous of all the lessons from this crisis. Ukraine had a sizable nuclear arsenal at the end of the Cold War, but it agreed to give it up in exchange for security guarantees. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine committed itself to dismantling the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. Russia, in exchange, vowed to respect Ukraine’s borders and its independence. Now, Russia has clearly violated those commitments. If Ukraine still had its atomic weapons, Moscow would have thought twice before seizing parts of Ukraine

Der Trihs has been saying this for years now, and while I doubt he thought of it in this context, you know…he may actually have a point. Hard as that is for me to admit.

4. Don’t expect support from all international peace activists (unless the U.S. invades).

To liberal activists in Ukraine and Russia, the reaction from international peace movement must be a hard pill to swallow. Parts of Ukraine have been captured at the point of a gun by a regime that actively suppresses dissent. When liberal Russians protested, police arrested hundreds of anti-war demonstrators.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory and its harsh crackdown on local protests have been criticized by some human rights activists, the reaction among some prominent “peace” activists has been astonishing. Several have mimicked Putin’s line, blaming the U.S. for the crisis. Instead of taking a clear stance in support of a country with invading military forces on its soil, some so-called anti-war groups have taken the opportunity to dust off their anti-American vitriol.

A favorite line of discussion is whether Washington has any right to criticize Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory after the U.S. invaded Iraq, a country that was ruled by one of the world’s most brutal, genocidal dictators. However misguided America’s Iraq invasion, even drawing the comparison is an insult to Ukrainians.

This point especially is clear here on the board, though several of the more sane liberals or left leaning folks on the board are doing very well in trying to fight the meme.

5. The use of brute force to resolve conflicts is not a thing of the past.

One day, if history moves in the direction we all wish, countries will solve their disputes through diplomacy and negotiation. Sadly, that day has not arrived. John Kerry has expressed dismay at Putin’s “19th-century” behavior, but power politics, forcible border expansion and brazen aggression have not been relegated to the history books; witness events in places like Syria, the Central African Republic and now in Ukraine.

Those are the first five lessons. But allow me to offer a bonus, a work in progress that could join as No. 6: When the stakes grow high enough, the U.S. and Europe may rise to the challenge.

Western nations seemed caught off-guard by Putin’s “incredible act of aggression,” as Kerry termed it. Some of Putin’s gains (see No. 2) may be irreversible. But the U.S. and Europe have been shaken up by events, and they may yet send a message of their own, helping Kiev’s government succeed and prosper as it sets out to chart a future of its own and limiting Putin’s ability to replicate his acts of intimidation.

[BrokenBriton]

@XT

Petty? Um, no. I’m not seeing it because, you know, it’s a bad analogy that really has very few connections to what’s really going on in the Ukraine right now. Did I miss when the US invaded, put troops in the streets, pressured the local parliament (by the simple expedient of HAVING those troops patrolling in the streets) and sliced off a chunk of Cuba permanently to become part of the US? Because that’s EXACTLY what’s happening in the Crimea. Russia is using the excuse of supposed ethnic troubles to basically do a land grab…and you all are basically just talking about how bad the US has been in the past, when you aren’t bringing up loopy conspiracy theories. I’m truly mystified by the pro-Russian response in this thread and willingness to buy what Putin is trying to peddle with such little probing skepticism from some of our members. Ok, I get Red…but some of the rest of you? I know you dislike the US and everything we do, but good grief, the US has little or nothing to do with this, and I’d think you could look at the situation from the perspective of a European having this happen in your relative backyard. Do you REALLY think it’s a good idea that Russia is doing what it’s doing? Seriously?

Stand back everyone, I think he’s gonna explode …

[XT]

@BrokenBriton

Stand back everyone, I think he’s gonna explode …

Only with laughter at this lame post. Thanks for playing, we have many nice parting gifts for you…this wonderful ceramic dog, a copy of the Uncritical Putin along with the sequel, Putin and me and, of course, the If you Invaded or Intimidated 5 Small Nations Today, Let’s go to Milliways!

[Malthus]

@XT

4. Don’t expect support from all international peace activists (unless the U.S. invades).

To liberal activists in Ukraine and Russia, the reaction from international peace movement must be a hard pill to swallow. Parts of Ukraine have been captured at the point of a gun by a regime that actively suppresses dissent. When liberal Russians protested, police arrested hundreds of anti-war demonstrators.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory and its harsh crackdown on local protests have been criticized by some human rights activists, the reaction among some prominent “peace” activists has been astonishing. Several have mimicked Putin’s line, blaming the U.S. for the crisis. Instead of taking a clear stance in support of a country with invading military forces on its soil, some so-called anti-war groups have taken the opportunity to dust off their anti-American vitriol.

A favorite line of discussion is whether Washington has any right to criticize Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory after the U.S. invaded Iraq, a country that was ruled by one of the world’s most brutal, genocidal dictators. However misguided America’s Iraq invasion, even drawing the comparison is an insult to Ukrainians.

This point especially is clear here on the board, though several of the more sane liberals or left leaning folks on the board are doing very well in trying to fight the meme.

In the West, this may mark a profound and potentially very damaging change. I see a strong shift to the right happening with many people I know, for exactly this reason.

The left, particularly the ‘human rights’pro-peace’ left, gained lots and lots of legitimacy and attention from the undecided, mainly as a result of the excesses of the “war on terror” era.

The overwhelmingly pro-Putin response to the current crisis on the part of a large segment of this group on the left is draining that away very rapidly. Now, it just seems that they are willing to effectively support war and invasions (or at least, act as apologists for the same), if only the target can be painted as unacceptably right-wing, and/or pro-Western.

[Terr]

@Malthus

In the West, this may mark a profound and potentially very damaging change. I see a strong shift to the right happening with many people I know, for exactly this reason.

God willing.

[Malthus]

@Terr

God willing.

To my mind, it is a bad thing, not a good one. Having an opposition with some legitimacy devoted to upholding human rights and peace, even if in some situations I may disagree with their stance, is I think is a valuable thing.