• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

Delvo

Дэлво Δε&#
Delvo
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
12,047
Location
North Tonawanda, NY
Some people seem pretty worked up about how bad Russia's recent actions in Ukraine have been. But they haven't pointed to anything Russia's done that actually sounds bad to me.

Every report I've seen/heard so far just says the Russian army has moved into Crimea, the Russian-populated part of Ukraine. That means they haven't entered the rest of it, populated by Ukrainians, and they haven't attacked anybody on either side of the war. It looks like they're taking a precaution to protect Russian people from a spillover of Ukrainian chaos, but standing back out of the Ukrainian people's internal business. It's probably what I would do if I were in charge of Russia.

If there's more than that to what they're doing (like they've entered non-Crimean Ukraine or they've fired shots not in Crimeans' defense), then why have people who seem to think Russia's actions have been terrible not mentioned the terrible part yet?
 
Delvo said:
Some people seem pretty worked up about how bad Russia's recent actions in Ukraine have been. But they haven't pointed to anything Russia's done that actually sounds bad to me.

Every report I've seen/heard so far just says the Russian army has moved into Crimea, the Russian-populated part of Ukraine. That means they haven't entered the rest of it, populated by Ukrainians, and they haven't attacked anybody on either side of the war. It looks like they're taking a precaution to protect Russian people from a spillover of Ukrainian chaos, but standing back out of the Ukrainian people's internal business. It's probably what I would do if I were in charge of Russia.

If there's more than that to what they're doing (like they've entered non-Crimean Ukraine or they've fired shots not in Crimeans' defense), then why have people who seem to think Russia's actions have been terrible not mentioned the terrible part yet?
Click to expand...

Crimea is 60% ethnic Russian 40% non-Russian. That's hardly justification for moving in the troops.

Also, when the troops moved in there had been no threats or acts of violence in that area. And there's no basis for believing a threat was imminent.
 
Unilaterally invading a country is illegal, there are many other ways they could have legitimately addressed their concerns, none of which were even given lip service let alone attempted. Even Put-on knows it is wrong, he has denied the troops there are Russian, claiming that they are "local self-defense forces" and "There are many military uniforms. Go into any local shop and you can find one," lol stupid *****!
 
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.
 
Delvo said:
Some people seem pretty worked up about how bad Russia's recent actions in Ukraine have been. But they haven't pointed to anything Russia's done that actually sounds bad to me.

Every report I've seen/heard so far just says the Russian army has moved into Crimea, the Russian-populated part of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the highlighted part. Moving your troops into a foreign country is an act of war.
 
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.
 
If it wasn't for the fact that Putin is in charge and if I could ignore his previous behaviour in Georgia then what Russis has done is not so terribly bad.

The previous Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected in 2010 through a process which was given a clean bill of health by international observers. He was subsequently deposed in 2014 by groups which include far-right Ukrainian nationalists (described by some as Nazis). If the situation had been the other around, a West-leaning president deposed by groups including pro-Russian factions then we would have been protesting vehemently.

Viktor Yanukovych seems to have been corrupt and grasping but unfortunately this seems to be standard operating practice over there, his predecessor seems to have done the same.

Regarding Russian troops in the Crimea. As Lionking points out Russia thinks that Crimea is part of Russia and not Ukraine. It's a bit like if a U.S. president signed Alaska over to the Canadians (when allegedly drunk), people in the U.S. would continue to think of Alaska as being part of the U.S. for the next few decades particularly if, like in the Crimea, they are entitled to keep a large military presence there. Under the terms of the treaties between Russia and Ukraine, Russia can have up to 25,000 troops on the peninsula. In the UK it's being reported that they still have fewer than that number there.

Given the long-standing antipathy between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine (Ukrainian collaboration with Germany during WWII is a particularly sore point) and recognising that there are far-right Ukrainian elements in the newly installed government, ethnic Russians may reasonably have something to fear. The Crimea has a large ethnic Russian population who may require protection should the right wing elements in the current government decide to settle some old scores.

tl;dr version

If the situation was reversed we wouldn't be as exercised about the whole thing.
 
I don't care really who believes what, if lines drawn on maps matter then people should abide by them.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
If it wasn't for the fact that Putin is in charge and if I could ignore his previous behaviour in Georgia then what Russis has done is not so terribly bad.

The previous Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected in 2010 through a process which was given a clean bill of health by international observers. He was subsequently deposed in 2014 by groups which include far-right Ukrainian nationalists (described by some as Nazis). If the situation had been the other around, a West-leaning president deposed by groups including pro-Russian factions then we would have been protesting vehemently.

Viktor Yanukovych seems to have been corrupt and grasping but unfortunately this seems to be standard operating practice over there, his predecessor seems to have done the same.

Regarding Russian troops in the Crimea. As Lionking points out Russia thinks that Crimea is part of Russia and not Ukraine. It's a bit like if a U.S. president signed Alaska over to the Canadians (when allegedly drunk), people in the U.S. would continue to think of Alaska as being part of the U.S. for the next few decades particularly if, like in the Crimea, they are entitled to keep a large military presence there. Under the terms of the treaties between Russia and Ukraine, Russia can have up to 25,000 troops on the peninsula. In the UK it's being reported that they still have fewer than that number there.

Given the long-standing antipathy between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine (Ukrainian collaboration with Germany during WWII is a particularly sore point) and recognising that there are far-right Ukrainian elements in the newly installed government, ethnic Russians may reasonably have something to fear. The Crimea has a large ethnic Russian population who may require protection should the right wing elements in the current government decide to settle some old scores.

tl;dr version

If the situation was reversed we wouldn't be as exercised about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

In your hypothetical wouldn't Canada still have the right to defend its legally recognized borders?
 
Is Putin the Russian Hitler? The opening moves and motives are quite similar. The aggressiveness. The overt dishonesty. The desire to return Russia to perceived former power and greatness. Opening with small invasions where the geopolitical situation precludes much of an international response or internal resistance. Using the pretext of protecting ethinic Russians to justify invasions.

It's all there in HItler's playbook.
 
When the Soviet union broke, Ukraine was left with several nukes. Quite a few of them, actually.

With encouragement from the US and UK, Ukraine agreed to give up those weapoins, in return for a treaty. The treaty was signed by the presidents of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. It supposedly assured Ukraine's security and sovereignty.

Russia's current actions (arguably) violate said treaty. So this raises a couple of points: i) as one of the countries involved in the treaty, your country (the US) is supposed to ensure that it is kept, or that their violation is not profitable; ii) this whole episode send a clear message that giving up nukes for guarantees means nothing.
 
Puppycow said:
Mexican–American WarWP

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Don't think it is similar. Note that Russia signed a treaty in which it agreed to guaranty Ukraine sovereignty, with Crimea as part of Ukraine. Don't think this can be presented as a border dispute.
 
Delvo said:
Crimea, the Russian-populated part of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
According to 2001 census 58% of population in Crimea identified as ethnic Russians, 24% as Ukrainian, and 12% as Tatar.

There has not been a newer census, but the actual share of Tatar population is significantly bigger now than is was 13 years ago with an average growth rate of 0.9% per year with their repatriation (in 1959 census Tatar share was 0% after the ethnic cleansing). At the same time the share of ethnic Russian population has been declining and also Ukrainian.

The history of the ethnic makeup:
HOCBEHo.png


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...
In the 1991 referendum people voted for independency of Ukraine including the Crimean ASSR with 54.19% support, and Crimea stayed as autonomous with Ukraine. And in 1994, in exchange of handing over its nuclear arsenal for dismantling, Ukraine was given assurances of security and territorial integrity by Russia, US and UK.

Before voting on accession, Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine[5]) were given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[6]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.
Click to expand...
The full text of the Budapest Memorandum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances


BTW, I don't think Putin's goal is to annex Crimea anyway.
 
Travis said:
In your hypothetical wouldn't Canada still have the right to defend its legally recognized borders?
Click to expand...

Yes of course I was just trying to demonstrate that even though part of a country may have been ceded to another, the people who live in the country from which it was ceded may still think that it's "theirs" especially if:

- The ceding was comparatively recent
- There was still a large ethnic population in the ceded area
- There were a number of strategically important military installations in the ceded area

For me the key is the legitimacy of the current, new, Ukrainian government. The current government deposed the democratically elected president. The West is generally sympathetic to the new government because they are western leaning. Had the situation been reversed and a democratically elected pro-Western president had been deposed by a populist uprising which was pro-Russian then we would have been decrying the whole thing, pointing out the extremist elements in the new regime and doing our best to support the deposed president - things that Russia has done to date.
 
The Don said:
For me the key is the legitimacy of the current, new, Ukrainian government. The current government deposed the democratically elected president. The West is generally sympathetic to the new government because they are western leaning. Had the situation been reversed and a democratically elected pro-Western president had been deposed by a populist uprising which was pro-Russian then we would have been decrying the whole thing, pointing out the extremist elements in the new regime and doing our best to support the deposed president - things that Russia has done to date.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom