Russia has invaded Ukraine. How will the West respond?

[John_Mace]

@Rune

Now that’s just silly. International politics is not an episode of CSI. In any case, only if the majority disagreed with the result of the referendum was a crime committed.

Or rather, it’s not really clear to me if people object to the incorporation of Crimea into Russia even if a majority of the Crimea population were in favour.

If you want to have sex with a woman, you take her out to dinner and hope she asked you up to her place afterwards. You don’t barge into her place brandishing guns and “ask” for sex. The analogy is apt.

[Rune]

@John_Mace

If you want to have sex with a woman, you take her out to dinner and hope she asked you up to her place afterwards. You don’t barge into her place brandishing guns and “ask” for sex. The analogy is apt.

heh. That’s pretty funny. Although to be honest, if the chick wants me to bang her, I’m going to bang her no matter what her daddy says or that her rich American uncle has given her a purity ring.

What I want to know is if people would object even if it shown pretty convincingly that a majority was in favour of joining Russia.

[Grim_Render]

The analogy is pretty exact. Russia could have had Crimea with sweet promises and subtle kisses. Instead Russia chose threats and rape.

The whole notion of sending in the troops and faking a referendum under gunpoint delegitimizes Russias claim to Crimea. A cliam that previously was fundamentally quite strong.

[CarnalK]

@Malthus

Yes, the West is blameless - even praiseworthy - given that the “push” hasn’t come from the West, but from Russia’s neighbours, who are rightfully frightened of Russia exerting its “influence” in the ways we have all seen in the Crimean example.

Appeasing Russian aggression isn’t the answer.

It seems like you are completely ignoring any pro-russian sentiment in large sections of Ukraine and the well documented Western work with the opposition groups behind the scenes. Baffling.

[Grim_Render]

@CarnalK

It seems like you are completely ignoring any pro-russian sentiment in large sections of Ukraine and the well documented Western work with the opposition groups behind the scenes. Baffling.

Given that Russia needed to hold a referendum with no options for the status quo, and guns on the steets in what is supposed to be the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine, I think its fairly obvious that Russia didn’t think it could win a fair referendum.

[nevadaexile]

@Rune

The thing that should concern us as citizens of Western nations is that Obama and the rest of the West are not helping either. They’d done a lot more to create the current situation than has Putin. Talking of associating Ukraine with NATO was such a harebrained stupid idea that it boggles the mind. The EU not much better. I’m not a political genius, but even I could foresee that a NATO bid would not end well for Ukraine. You can look back in my history and I’m pretty sure you’d find posts saying something along those lines. Why the hell couldn’t the best political minds of the United States foresee the same? You want to integrate the three countries Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia together into a Western framework. Not create rifts and suspicions by taking a divide and conquer approach.

I’m going to Odessa next months. Apparently they’re pretty upset about a march earlier this month wherein hundreds of protesters had travelled to Odessa from western parts of Ukraine and marched through the streets shouting “Russians To The Knife.” So now a lot of Odessa citizens have taken to writing personally to Putin to ask for Odessa being made part of Russia.

Crimea is gone for good. What Ukraine needs now is a reconciliation process if it wants to have a glimmer of hope of continuing to exist even in its current reduced size. How are western responses helping with this?

Soooo…Russia… a nation in near economic and demographic free fall, sees that their future lies in reincorporating former territories by force? And that this route won’t result in myriad additional internal conflicts (beside the Trans-Caucasus) which will drain away preciously needed capital and cost it desperately needed foreign (especially European) support?

While Vladimir Putin seems to be this shortsighted I hope that the majority of Russian aren’t that stupid. After all, Russia is much a smaller (population size) than the US and it now faces a NATO that borders its homeland. Starting external conflicts without a clear concept of what is in store will be suicide for Russia as a sovereign nation.

Hopefully, a larger number of Ukrainians realize this and take up arms against the Russian military if they decide that Crimea was just a “snack.” Given Russia miserable performance in Afghanistan and Chechnya, perhaps a bloody external conflict will be what it takes to finally collapse what is rapidly becoming a dangerous but irrelevant former world power.

[CarnalK]

@Grim_Render

Given that Russia needed to hold a referendum with no options for the status quo, and guns on the steets in what is supposed to be the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine, I think its fairly obvious that Russia didn’t think it could win a fair referendum.

They didn’t waste time on a fair referendum - maybe it’s not even in their DNA. But the fact remains that there is a fair amount of pro-russian in parts of the country. The actions in Kiev inflamed that pro-russian sentiment, as did the revelations of Western interference. To ignore that is ridiculous.

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

They didn’t waste time on a fair referendum - maybe it’s not even in their DNA. But the fact remains that there is a fair amount of pro-russian in parts of the country. The actions in Kiev inflamed that pro-russian sentiment, as did the revelations of Western interference. To ignore that is ridiculous.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous, because there was no need for Russia to intervene. The fact they chose to do so is 100% on them.

Just because both you and are hitting on the same girl at a bar, doesn’t give me the right to rape her if you start laying it on extra heavy. What Russia did was illegal and unnecessary.

[CarnalK]

Can we drop the rape analogies? Thanks.

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

Can we drop the rape analogies? Thanks.

OK. You and I are both looking at a unique painting in a gallery. We’re negotiating with the owner, and I start offering much more than you are willing to pay for it. Meanwhile we both learn that the gallery may be going bankrupt shortly and is coming under new management. You have several other paintings by the artist, and this will complete your set. I’m a newbie.

Do you get to steal the painting?

[John_Mace]

Missed the edit window.

And if you do steal it, am I partly to blame?

[CarnalK]

What if the painting had thoughts and feelings? What if the painting voted for the old management? What if instead of simply being “replaced” the old management was run out of town by people the painting disagrees with? What if you were the guy who helped get the old management run out of town? What if the painting used to be mine and I felt it was improperly taken from me?

Yeah. I might take that painting. If I could get away with it.

[NotfooledbyW]

03-24-2014 at 07:13 PM Grim Render wrote:

The analogy is pretty exact. Russia could have had Crimea with sweet promises and subtle kisses. Instead Russia chose threats and rape.

Grim Render’s argument here is wrong. Russia ***could not have had Crimea ***with ‘sweet promises and subtle kisses’. I have explained why. The Ukraine Constitution forbids it.
On 03-23-2014 at 10:30 PM I wrote in response to John Mace:

Its nice you don’t have a ‘problem’ with it but you fail to comprehend that there was NO democratic and constitutional way for Crimea to separate from Ukraine.

RickJay joined the discussion on 03-23-2014 at 10:44 PM with a challenge:

You keep saying this and yet you have never shown it to be true or even explained why it would be true. What was preventing Ukraine from conducting negotiations with the government of Kiev to arrange for a referendum and subsequent negotiations for independence?

So on 03-23-2014 at 11:31 PM I cited the Ukraine’s Constitution in my response to RickJay:

Article 134. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea shall be an integral constituent part of Ukraine and shall resolve issues relegated to its authority within the frame of its reference, determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.

and

Article 157. The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended, if the amendments foresee the abolition or restriction of human and citizen rights and freedoms, or if they are aimed at the liquidation of the independence or violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine

I have not heard from RickJay as of yet on this, but I am quite certain that the Ukraine Constitution would not allow Crimea to leave Ukraine no matter how many *sweet promises and kisses * that Russia could lay on the leaders of Ukraine.

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

What if the painting had thoughts and feelings? What if the painting voted for the old management? What if instead of simply being “replaced” the old management was run out of town by people the painting disagrees with? What if you were the guy who helped get the old management run out of town? What if the painting used to be mine and I felt it was improperly taken from me?

Yeah. I might take that painting. If I could get away with it.

I guess we have a different idea of what is legal and what is not. What you would do is illegal, just as what Russia did was illegal. I agree with what was posted above that there would have been a legal and internationally acceptable process for Crimea to exit Ukraine and join Russia. What we just saw was neither.

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Grim Render’s argument here is wrong. Russia could not have had Crimea with ‘sweet promises and subtle kisses’. I have explained why. The Ukraine Constitution forbids it.

[/QUOTE]

Cite where in the Ukrainian constitution the Crimea is forbidden from seceding. Because, from what I’ve read, it was specifically built into the constitution that the Crimea could secede (but not in the way they did it).

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
What if the painting had thoughts and feelings? What if the painting voted for the old management? What if instead of simply being “replaced” the old management was run out of town by people the painting disagrees with? What if you were the guy who helped get the old management run out of town? What if the painting used to be mine and I felt it was improperly taken from me?
[/QUOTE]

What if instead of lame analogies we just talked about the actual situation? Whether or not the Crimea could or should or even would have seceded on their own, that’s not how all of this played out. Because the folks in the Crimea backed the former leader…a guy who pissed off the rest of the country enough to run him out of town…is probably relevant, but only goes so far. I mean, if people had been so incensed at GW and deposed him, and the Congress voted to put in power an interim president while new elections were called, would Mexico be justified in occupying Texas because they supported GW and didn’t like the fact that he was deposed? If we are going to do lame analogies, let’s at least keep it close. This isn’t about whether the Texans would, should or could secede, but about whether Mexico would be justified in basically using it’s military to snag back a former piece of itself. Yeah, it’s unrealistic, but it’s also a simple question on which must of this ridiculous discussion hinges…would another country be justified in using it’s military to basically allow (we won’t get into force…let’s assume that, in fact, the Crimeans would have voted to leave the Ukraine even if there weren’t Russian troops involved) a territory in another sovereign nation to secede with the intent of becoming a part of the first nation? If so, why? What’s the justification? If not, then why not?

[CarnalK]

@ John Mace
I don’t think we have much difference in thinking on what is legal, just on how important we think “legal” is.

Now I know everyone thinks NFBW is nutty but has anyone really rebutted what he’s claimed vis a vis the constitution requiring a nationwide vote for Crimea to separate? Or any argument against his article 157 quote?

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

I don’t think we have much difference in thinking on what is legal, just on how important we think “legal” is.

Now I know everyone thinks NFBW is nutty but has anyone really rebutted what he’s claimed vis a vis the constitution requiring a nationwide vote for Crimea to separate? Or any argument against his article 157 quote?

I don’t think it would take too much for the equivalent of their Supreme Court to rule that no article can declare itself unalterable by amendment. Or, you amend the constitution to declare that article invalid, and then you amend the constitution as needed to allow Ukraine to secede.

Step one: Amend the constitution to declare Article 157 void.

Step two: Amend the constitution to allow Crimea to secede under limited circumstances.

Argue in the SCOU, then go forth and sin no more.

[CarnalK]

@XT

What if instead of lame analogies we just talked about the actual situation?

Sorry you didn’t get it but that was precisely the point of what you just quoted.

Whether or not the Crimea could or should or even would have seceded on their own, that’s not how all of this played out. Because the folks in the Crimea backed the former leader…a guy who pissed off the rest of the country enough to run him out of town…is probably relevant, but only goes so far. I mean, if people had been so incensed at GW and deposed him, and the Congress voted to put in power an interim president while new elections were called, would Mexico be justified in occupying Texas because they supported GW and didn’t like the fact that he was deposed? If we are going to do lame analogies, let’s at least keep it close. This isn’t about whether the Texans would, should or could secede, but about whether Mexico would be justified in basically using it’s military to snag back a former piece of itself.

Way to drop the lame analogies.

[CarnalK]

@John_Mace

I don’t think it would take too much for the equivalent of their Supreme Court to rule that no article can declare itself unalterable by amendment. Or, you amend the constitution to declare that article invalid, and then you amend the constitution as needed to allow Ukraine to secede.

Step one: Amend the constitution to declare Article 157 void.

Step two: Amend the constitution to allow Crimea to secede under limited circumstances.

Argue in the SCOU, then go forth and sin no more.

So in 2 simple steps it’s all done. Amending constitutions is so easy after all.

[NotfooledbyW]

@nevadaexile

Soooo…Russia… a nation in near economic and demographic free fall, sees that their future lies in reincorporating former territories by force?

How did you determine that Russia/Putin 'sees their future as incorporating former territories by force?

There was a constitutional crisis in Kiev and the majority of Crimean’s declared independence from Ukraine and ask the Russian Federation to back them. Should they have refused the request because the US and EU are such shining examples of upholding international law … all of a sudden.