What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

angrysoba said:
I suppose it depends upon what actions are taken.

Decrying is one thing, as was done recently in Honduras. Rolling the tanks in is something different, particularly when the US and the UK are signed up to a treaty promising to protect Ukrainian territorial integrity.

To be honest, I am not smitten with the new mob in power in Ukraine. I hope there's a proper election soon, and the Ukrainian people get to vote for who they want, but it should be pretty clear what is wrong with what Russia's doing.
Click to expand...

Russia reportedly has the right to station 25,000 troops in Crimea. If they believe that an unruly mob has seized power it's not so unreasonable that they should wish to protect themselves by taking control of local military assets to prevent the new regime from using them.

I'm sure that there's similar precedent for the Western powers somewhere.

I too await elections but I'm worried that if the results don't turn out as desired, there'll just be another coup. the way it's been described here is that it's not just a case of ethnic Russians vs. ethnic Ukrainians there's also a working class Eastern Ukraine / middle class Western Ukraine dimension. A pro-Western government is not a given.
 
Information Analyst said:
Possibly the ultimate solution, but it's generally best to ask about these things diplomatically first.
Click to expand...
By referendum Crimea stayed as autonomous with the independent Ukraine. Why annexing it to Russia would be the ultimate solution?
 
The Don said:
Russia reportedly has the right to station 25,000 troops in Crimea. If they believe that an unruly mob has seized power it's not so unreasonable that they should wish to protect themselves by taking control of local military assets to prevent the new regime from using them.

I'm sure that there's similar precedent for the Western powers somewhere.

I too await elections but I'm worried that if the results don't turn out as desired, there'll just be another coup. the way it's been described here is that it's not just a case of ethnic Russians vs. ethnic Ukrainians there's also a working class Eastern Ukraine / middle class Western Ukraine dimension. A pro-Western government is not a given.
Click to expand...

Are they allowed to demand the surrender of the Ukrainian troops there, under threat of destruction?

I'm assuming the answer to that is 'no'.

But Putin says they aren't Russian troops anyway. :rolleyes:
 
As bad as it could get, it makes it even worse for me when the little Russian scumbag is not honest enough to admit what he is doing.

If England sent in the troops like that here, I would be seriously hosed. Or if they decided to take back part of Australia I'm sure Lionking would be singing a different song.
 
tyr_13 said:
Are they allowed to demand the surrender of the Ukrainian troops there, under threat of destruction?

I'm assuming the answer to that is 'no'.

But Putin says they aren't Russian troops anyway. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that what Russia is doing is right, just that if there was somehow a perfect mirror of the situation that we'd do the same kind of thing.
 
The Don said:
I'm not saying that what Russia is doing is right, just that if there was somehow a perfect mirror of the situation that we'd do the same kind of thing.
Click to expand...

That's a nonsensical claim. There's never going to be a perfect mirror situation, because the situation evolved in the first place in no small part because of the sort of place that Russia is. We are not like Russia, and so we're not going to create a situation that really mirrors what happened. We would have to be very different than we are in order to create a good mirror situation. But claims about what we would do if we were very different than we are, even if technically correct, simply don't matter. We could potentially do anything, if we were different than we are.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's a nonsensical claim. There's never going to be a perfect mirror situation, because the situation evolved in the first place in no small part because of the sort of place that Russia is. We are not like Russia, and so we're not going to create a situation that really mirrors what happened. We would have to be very different than we are in order to create a good mirror situation. But claims about what we would do if we were very different than we are, even if technically correct, simply don't matter. We could potentially do anything, if we were different than we are.
Click to expand...

The question is, what would we do in the case where we have strategic military assets in a country where there has been a coup which has resulted in a regime being installed which is against us. Would we deploy those military assets and possibly bring in some more to secure the area around those assets ?

U.S. activities in Central and South America and U.K. activities in Africa and the Middle East (albeit a long time ago) shows that we'd do exactly this. Furthermore we'd do anything in our power to destabilise the new regime through a combination of deploying our own forces and funding and equipping local forces loyal to our cause.
 
funk de fino said:
As bad as it could get, it makes it even worse for me when the little Russian scumbag is not honest enough to admit what he is doing.

If England sent in the troops like that here, I would be seriously hosed. Or if they decided to take back part of Australia I'm sure Lionking would be singing a different song.
Click to expand...

And I wish some of the people making excuses for PUtin would he honest and say "I think Russia should be allowed to do what they want in the Near Abroad (Russian term for other countries that were in the ex Soviet Union) because Russia has nukes". That is what it comes down to, they are just trying, without much sucess,to put some kind of moral face on it.
 
The Don said:
The question is, what would we do in the case where we have strategic military assets in a country where there has been a coup which has resulted in a regime being installed which is against us. Would we deploy those military assets and possibly bring in some more to secure the area around those assets ?

U.S. activities in Central and South America and U.K. activities in Africa and the Middle East (albeit a long time ago) shows that we'd do exactly this. Furthermore we'd do anything in our power to destabilise the new regime through a combination of deploying our own forces and funding and equipping local forces loyal to our cause.
Click to expand...

Ah, the moral equvilency crap again. Never gets old with the Left.
 
The Don said:
The question is, what would we do in the case where we have strategic military assets in a country where there has been a coup which has resulted in a regime being installed which is against us. Would we deploy those military assets and possibly bring in some more to secure the area around those assets ?

U.S. activities in Central and South America and U.K. activities in Africa and the Middle East (albeit a long time ago) shows that we'd do exactly this.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. If your first paragraph details the full parameters of interest (I think there's a lot more to the situation in Ukraine than what you list), then there is indeed a parallel: Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. And no, we did not respond the way Russia did when Cuba experienced a communist revolution. We did not seize, or even temporarily secure, any additional territory around our base.

Furthermore we'd do anything in our power to destabilise the new regime through a combination of deploying our own forces and funding and equipping local forces loyal to our cause.
Click to expand...

We did the latter. We balked at doing the former.
 
And then there is the fact that Russia signed several treaties guaranteeing the current borders of the Ukraine...
 
Ziggurat said:
No, you are wrong. If your first paragraph details the full parameters of interest (I think there's a lot more to the situation in Ukraine than what you list), then there is indeed a parallel: Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. And no, we did not respond the way Russia did when Cuba experienced a communist revolution. We did not seize, or even temporarily secure, any additional territory around our base.



We did the latter. We balked at doing the former.
Click to expand...

Beat me to the Cuba example.

Besides all of that, yes the US has done so similar things, and worse (although given time this situation can easily turn into the equal of any of that!) to other countries. And our own country. Also, Europe's hands are anything but clean in that regard. Neither are China's, or Japan's, or India's, or well just about anyone's.

That's neither here nor there. Even if it was only the US, or the EU, who had done similar things in the past it still wouldn't matter. It's still a tu quoque. Even if the US would today do the same thing, how does that make it alright for Russia to do it? It is no longer the international accepted norm and hasn't been in my lifetime.

I'm a lefty too, but these arguments and 'points' brought up around this problem are just vacuous. They're great things to bring up when arguing against the US doing something bad but they are silly to bring up in regards to someone else doing something bad. Taking every chance to bash the US isn't helpful. Just remember to remind the US and your fellow citizens why what Russia did was wrong when the US tries to do something similar (or before it starts to try!).

Although my right wing friends have been going on about 'why should we care about the Ukraine?' and 'it's because Obama looks weak!' when it's really got more to do with the EU than the US. There isn't a partisan way assign superiority on this issue, just a couple different brands of wrong and a lot of both sides in the middle angry at the people actually doing things wrong.

/rant
 
lionking said:
Crimea was handed to the Ukraine by Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) in 1954. I find it hard to get too worked up about Russia deciding to take it back.
Click to expand...

Sounds just a little too much like what the appeasers said about Hitler and Sudentanland in 1938 for my comfort.
 
The Don said:
Russia reportedly has the right to station 25,000 troops in Crimea. If they believe that an unruly mob has seized power it's not so unreasonable that they should wish to protect themselves by taking control of local military assets to prevent the new regime from using them.

I'm sure that there's similar precedent for the Western powers somewhere.

I too await elections but I'm worried that if the results don't turn out as desired, there'll just be another coup. the way it's been described here is that it's not just a case of ethnic Russians vs. ethnic Ukrainians there's also a working class Eastern Ukraine / middle class Western Ukraine dimension. A pro-Western government is not a given.
Click to expand...

They can station them at their base in Sevastopol, as far as I know. I don't think it gives them the run of the whole peninsula, including seizing Ukrainian bases and other infrastructure.
 
dudalb said:
Sounds just a little too much like what the appeasers said about Hitler and Sudentanland in 1938 for my comfort.
Click to expand...

Kruschev was following his predecessor's example in just "giving" entire regions, if not nations, away that weren't his in the first place.

As I understand a lot of the 1938 appeasers' argument was "if we let him hurt this guy over here, and that guy over there, and also him in the corner, maybe he'll leave us alone."
 
Polaris said:
Kruschev was following his predecessor's example in just "giving" entire regions, if not nations, away that weren't his in the first place.

As I understand a lot of the 1938 appeasers' argument was "if we let him hurt this guy over here, and that guy over there, and also him in the corner, maybe he'll leave us alone."
Click to expand...

Not really. The appeasement argument was that the Sudetenland was probably unfairly stripped from Germany and should have been allowed to join whoever they liked, and that if Hitler's aims were confined to the Sudetenland then all would be well. But when Hitler invaded Poland, you will note that the same appeasers also declared war on Germany, so your strawman caricature is false. But a further point, usually forgotten, is that Chamberlain pretty much knew that the deal over the Sudetenland was just buying time as Britain had absolutely nothing to fight with and needed to build up their armaments. Britain's complete unpreparedness was highlighted by the later fiasco in Norway.
 
crescent said:
There is a lot of violence in Mexico these days. There are a few towns down there with large American retirement communities.

I reckon we ought to send in the Army to secure those towns, just in case.
Click to expand...

Better yet, since there are so many Mexicans in Texas whose human rights are clearly being violated by that state, then we should be okay with Mexico sending in troops to "protect" their people. What would be so bad with that?
 
From what I have read, the Russians seem to have only occupied military bases in Crimea where there are significant Russian military assets. To military forces in the west this is known as Force Protection, a legitimate activity. The action may appear heavy handed, but so far (to me) it is legitimate. The Russians were permitted to deploy forces in the Crimea, the new forces simply bolster the defences for those forces.

It is likely that some activities over-stepped the mark, or were mis-reported. For instance the calls for Ukrainian forces and warships to surrender to Russian authorities.

An analogy would be to look at US / UK responses to a hypothetical violent confrontation and over-throw of the West German goverment during the tail-end of the Cold War. I'm pretty sure that forces would have been deployed to ensure that security of the bases and the safety of the families was preserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom