What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

icebear said:
The Crimea is traditionally Russian. Apparently it was 'given' to Ukraine by Khreushchev in 54, something about Khrushchev thinking that being the boss gave him some sort of a license to do Robinhood kinds of things with countries:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...ft-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point

Similar to what we pulled in 1999 with Kosovo. The real fun starts when Serbian and possibly also Russian tanks roll back into Kosovo. That will be at least a $200 ticket.
Click to expand...

 
icebear said:
The Crimea is traditionally Russian.
Click to expand...

What? No. Just no.

Apparently it was 'given' to Ukraine by Khreushchev in 54, something about Khrushchev thinking that being the boss gave him some sort of a license to do Robinhood kinds of things with countries:
Click to expand...

A couple of things:

#1, it wasn't a unilateral decision by Khruschev, as he wasn't (really) in charge yet.
#2, At the time both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the same country.

Crimea's 1991 vote to remain part of the Ukraine is much more important than any symbolic moves by the Presidium in the aftermath of Stalin's death.
 
Cleon said:
What? No. Just no.



A couple of things:

#1, it wasn't a unilateral decision by Khruschev, as he wasn't (really) in charge yet.
#2, At the time both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the same country.

Crimea's 1991 vote to remain part of the Ukraine is much more important than any symbolic moves by the Presidium in the aftermath of Stalin's death.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Puppycow said:
We probably shouldn't rehash the Iraq war in this thread. I'm sure we all know the arguments by heart by now. FWIW, I understand the point that Joey is making, but also the point on the other side.



Getting back to the original question: What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

I would say that Putin's key miscalculation here was not anticipating the Ukrainian nationalist reaction to his interference with the trade deal that was scuttled on his orders.

Now, the typical Ukrainian 'man on the street' probably didn't have very strong feelings about the trade deal one way or the other. Some surveys (here and here) showed a plurality of support for the agreement, but a similar number also favored joining a Russian-led FTA including Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The problem occurred, I think, when Yanukovych admitted that he vetoed the agreement he had supported and negotiated with the EU due to pressure from Moscow. It then became clear to that typical Ukrainian 'man on the street' that the president of Ukraine was not acting on behalf of the voters who elected him, but taking orders from Vladimir Putin. This is what caused the uprising that Putin did not anticipate, and led to everything that has happened since. By being heavy-handed and authoritarian, he managed to alienate the Ukrainian people. His moves in Crimea are going to further turn them against him. Thankfully, no shots have been fired yet, so the it may be possible to de-escalate the situation if Russia doesn't make any more unreasonable demands on Ukraine. That remains to be seen though.
Click to expand...

Pretty solid summary; if Putin was half as smart as some people like to portray him he would have lived with the deal and retained his influence over the whole of Ukraine.
 
Cleon said:
What? No. Just no.
A couple of things:

#1, it wasn't a unilateral decision by Khruschev, as he wasn't (really) in charge yet.
#2, At the time both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the same country.

Crimea's 1991 vote to remain part of the Ukraine is much more important than any symbolic moves by the Presidium in the aftermath of Stalin's death.
Click to expand...
Another +1 to this point.
 
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...

Just bumping this with this part of the OP highlighted.

I think we know the answer now.
 
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...

Right ! So if Britain invaded English Canada there'd be no harm done, right ? Or the US, in fact, so long as they stay out of Chinatown.

ETA: Damn. 2014, not 2015 ! Old thread.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Right ! So if Britain invaded English Canada there'd be no harm done, right ? Or the US, in fact, so long as they stay out of Chinatown.

ETA: Damn. 2014, not 2015 ! Old thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was trying to be clear it was a bump in light of new knowledge, but failed...
 
Belz... said:
I think Stalin was the Russian Hitler.
Click to expand...

No, Stalin was Russia's Ivan the Terrible.

<duck>

OK, you can say he was Russia's Henry the VIII. Henry and Ivan were actually very similar.

Putin has more in common with Hitler than with any of these gentlemen. I suppose he is the answer to the perennial question "What would Hitler be if he were not an antisemite?"
 
L.Y.S. said:
Why do people continually compare the situation to 1938's Germany? It has vague similarities at best. For one, the prospect of aggressively expanding west is not an option at all. Moscow would risk catastrophic war with NATO if they were to get pushy with their EU/NATO former Warsaw Pact neighbors.
Click to expand...
And that's the difference between now and 1938? That expansion to the west back then didn't carry a risk of catastrophic war?

In fact Vladimir Putin is leery about going any further than Ukraine in the west. No amount of force will bring these nations into Russia's sphere of influence.
Click to expand...
Neither you nor I know how Putin actually does feel about that. But based on events up to now, he'd certainly be justified in thinking he could get away with it. After all, he has so far.
 
L.Y.S. said:
Why do people continually compare the situation to 1938's Germany? It has vague similarities at best. For one, the prospect of aggressively expanding west is not an option at all. Moscow would risk catastrophic war with NATO if they were to get pushy with their EU/NATO former Warsaw Pact neighbors.
Click to expand...

Would he? Suppose he occupied Estonia - which could be done before any meaningful response - and threaten a nuclear holocaust if anything is done against "legitimate Russian interests" in the country. How would US respond? With an immediate preemprive strike, or with economic sanctions who would do very little anyway?

McHrozni
 
Toontown said:
Is Putin the Russian Hitler? It's all there in HItler's playbook.
Click to expand...
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...
Puppycow said:
Grenada thanks US, celebrates 1983 invasion

Isn't that weird?
Click to expand...
No. Not weird at all. Key difference is that Reagan was not trying to add Genada to the US real estate portfolio. :p

PS: can folks stop with the Godwin crap already?
 
Darth Rotor said:
PS: can folks stop with the Godwin crap already?
Click to expand...
It is not our fault that certain aspects of Putin's behaviour eeirly resemble one guy called A.H.

Godwin Law does not apply if something actually is Nazi-like.

For example, there was not long ago certain conference of "russian conservatives" (read: neo-Nazis, fascists and other far-right). Surprise quiz! Where it was hold:

A) Ukraine
B) Russia

No prizes for guessing right.
 
Mader Levap said:
It is not our fault that certain aspects of Putin's behaviour eeirly resemble one guy called A.H.

Godwin Law does not apply if something actually is Nazi-like.

For example, there was not long ago certain conference of "russian conservatives" (read: neo-Nazis, fascists and other far-right). Surprise quiz! Where it was hold:

A) Ukraine
B) Russia

No prizes for guessing right.
Click to expand...

http://www.interpretermag.com/russi...alists-and-anti-semites-putin-supporters-all/

I wholeheartedly agree, Godwin Law only applies to inappropriate comparison. That said, Nazis aren't the only comparison, and probably not the best comparison to make anyway (yet?). They're just the most recent that happened in Europe.

Putler's behavior would be par for the course up to 19th century.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
http://www.interpretermag.com/russi...alists-and-anti-semites-putin-supporters-all/

I wholeheartedly agree, Godwin Law only applies to inappropriate comparison. That said, Nazis aren't the only comparison, and probably not the best comparison to make anyway (yet?). They're just the most recent that happened in Europe.

Putler's behavior would be par for the course up to 19th century.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall Serbia doing a lot of that sort of thing in the run-up to the Great War: foment separatist violence among ethnic Serbs in neighboring states, in the hopes of exploiting the unrest to annex territory in the name of protecting "greater Serbdom".












By "seem to recall", I mean that I read it in a history book. The Great War concluded before I was born, and I can't possibly have any real recollection of the events leading up to it... Or can I?
 
theprestige said:
I seem to recall Serbia doing a lot of that sort of thing in the run-up to the Great War: foment separatist violence among ethnic Serbs in neighboring states, in the hopes of exploiting the unrest to annex territory in the name of protecting "greater Serbdom".
Click to expand...

As I said, it's par for the course for 19th century (and an early part of 20th). However, we don't live in that period of time, but in 21st century, where this behavior has no place any more.

McHrozni
 
caveman1917 said:
Does it apply to actual (neo-)nazis?
Click to expand...

Most Neo-Nazis have preciously few similarities with actual historic Nazis.

It's like with those neo-pagans in Iceland, who regularly hold Blots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ásatrúarfélagið

Traditional Blots were about sacrifice though. Specifically - human sacrifice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blót

Without the killing factories and foreign wars (neo-Nazis aren't in a positions to wage those) Nazis are just another political party. One with a mostly bad set of policies and a good sense of fashion, but little more than that. They're certainly no worse than Greek Syriza or UKIP.

So ... no, Godwin's law doesn't apply to neo-Nazis.

McHrozni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom