What's wrong with what Russia's doing?

Mikemcc said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is one point of view - but would the Americans order the German military to surrender and turn over its equipment - including the big ticket items like the Air Force and Navy? Would it deny that any of the forces were actually American? Would is claim that Americans were being attacked, even if it was obvious that none were? Would it claim there were hundreds of thousands of refugees where there were none?

I could see that in your scenario the US and UK might deploy around their own bases. I doubt very much that they would attempt to occupy the German bases.
 
Wow the State dept is put out a great statement ridiculing and debunking Putin, kind of a rare move.

President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm

As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two plus two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”
Click to expand...
 
Joey McGee said:
Oh ya, Jon Stewart was mocking Kerry's statements because apparently what Russia is doing in Ukraine is akin to the Iraq war... :rolleyes: I'm quite done with that whole game for sure.
Click to expand...

I saw that. The way Kerry phrased it was just asking for it. Something like "It is illegal to invade another country under false pretenses." How could he resist?
 
Joey McGee said:
Oh ya, Jon Stewart was mocking Kerry's statements because apparently what Russia is doing in Ukraine is akin to the Iraq war... :rolleyes: I'm quite done with that whole game for sure.
Click to expand...

Puppycow said:
I saw that. The way Kerry phrased it was just asking for it. Something like "It is illegal to invade another country under false pretenses." How could he resist?
Click to expand...

It's too bad because it makes Kerry a laughing stock by saying stuff like that. In fact, Russia's actions are wrong, but having the US and the UK reaching for the smelling salts and saying, "How could anyone, in this day and age invade a country!" is just piss funny.

dudalb said:
Ah, the moral equvilency crap again. Never gets old with the Left.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but why exactly is "moral equivalency" a bad thing? Does it mean, that when X is done by country Y it is good, but when done by country Z it is bad, and it is thoroughly wrong to compare Y with Z? In which case, is there anything really wrong about X at all?

Because I thought that what we are talking about is that X is bad, and therefore X will be bad no matter who does X.
 
angrysoba said:
It's too bad because it makes Kerry a laughing stock by saying stuff like that. In fact, Russia's actions are wrong, but having the US and the UK reaching for the smelling salts and saying, "How could anyone, in this day and age invade a country!" is just piss funny.
Click to expand...

I found the actual quote by Kerry. It's basically equivalent to my paraphrase:

”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” he said.
Click to expand...
(On Face the Nation)
and:
”You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.”
Click to expand...
(On Meet the Press)
 
Puppycow said:
I saw that. The way Kerry phrased it was just asking for it. Something like "It is illegal to invade another country under false pretenses." How could he resist?
Click to expand...
Because there is a difference between an intelligence failure and inventing intelligence. Because there is a difference between finishing off a dictator you've already been to war with but mistakenly let live, and invading a democratically country that isn't a threat to others or it's own people. Lots more reasons...
 
Joey McGee said:
Because there is a difference between an intelligence failure and inventing intelligence. Because there is a difference between finishing off a dictator you've already been to war with but mistakenly let live, and invading a democratically country that isn't a threat to others or it's own people. Lots more reasons...
Click to expand...

Whether there is or there isn't, Kerry used the expression "You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext", which remains what he said even if you move the goalposts for him afterwards.
 
Maybe here's a better analogy than either Iraq or the Mexican-American war. Tell me what you think.

Invasion of GrenadaWP

Operation Urgent Fury was a 1983 United States-led invasion of Grenada, a Caribbean island nation with a population of about 91,000 located 100 miles (160 km) north of Venezuela, that resulted in a U.S. victory within a matter of weeks.
Click to expand...
While the invasion enjoyed broad public support in the United States,[5] and received support from some sectors in Grenada from local groups who viewed the post-coup regime as illegitimate,[6] it was criticized by the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law".[7]
Click to expand...

There's an interesting coda to that story though:
Grenada thanks US, celebrates 1983 invasion

October 25, 2013 12:52 PM

ST. GEORGE'S, Grenada (AP) — The planes began flying over Grenada around dawn, their low rumble awakening people in the tiny Caribbean island where a military government had seized power days before and executed the prime minister.

More than 7,000 U.S. Marines and Army paratroopers invaded the island to the cheers of Grenadians, who commemorate the 1983 action with a national holiday known as "Thanksgiving Day." About 100 people in all died during the operation dubbed "Urgent Fury."

Dozens of U.S. veterans, Grenadians and former U.S. students evacuated from Grenada's medical school during the operation gathered Friday to celebrate the 30th anniversary of one of the most popular foreign invasions in recent history and what was then the largest U.S. military operation since the Vietnam War.

"The U.S. stemmed the flow of blood, for which we are eternally grateful," said Grenada Prime Minister Keith Mitchell as he spoke at a Thanksgiving Day church service. "It is because of that we can enjoy democratic principles, which we sometimes take for granted."
Click to expand...

Isn't that weird?

Not saying it justifies what Russia is doing in Crimea, but there do seem to be some similarities, as well as differences.
 
angrysoba said:
Whether there is or there isn't, Kerry used the expression "You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext", which remains what he said even if you move the goalposts for him afterwards.
Click to expand...
I don't get it... The reasons for going to war in Iraq were not "completely trumped up".
 
Last edited:
Primus said:
I must have missed the bit where we found WMD's?
Click to expand...
What you must have missed was the Duelfer report which explained how the intelligence agencies were fooled by Saddam into believing this, and perhaps the CIA report that explained the intelligence failure entitled "Misreading Intentions". Trumped up insinuates "Fraudulently devised" and means not just an intent to deceive, but totally invented out of nothing. Many people forget that the vast majority of Americans wanted war with Iraq, WMDs or not, for a wide variety of reasons that are forgotten under the cloud of all of the bad news and sad things that happened there.
 
Joey McGee said:
What you must have missed was the Duelfer report which explained how the intelligence agencies were fooled by Saddam into believing this, and perhaps the CIA report that explained the intelligence failure entitled "Misreading Intentions".
Click to expand...

You been knocking back on Hitchie's Ole Cough Medicine again? :D

You must remember Colin Powell stating "as facts" what Iraq possessed. And he said it to the United Nations. They said at the time it was "not conjecture" and then later on they blamed Iraq that these things turned out not to be facts after all.

Joey McGee said:
Trumped up insinuates "Fraudulently devised" and means not just an intent to deceive, but totally invented out of nothing. Many people forget that the vast majority of Americans wanted war with Iraq, WMDs or not, for a wide variety of reasons that are forgotten under the cloud of all of the bad news and sad things that happened there.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make that the vast majority of Americans wanted war? If Putin pointed out that the vast majority of Russians wanted to go into Crimea regardless of any pretext whatsoever would it make a difference? Of course, not.

Oh, and that "cloud of all of the bad news and sad things that happened there" is standard Hitchie. Pretending that some kind of "bad and sad things" just happen instead of were directly caused by their actions.
 
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. 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.

Moscow will eventually have to take a page from western Europe if it wants some of its former constituents back.
 
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.
 
angrysoba said:
You been knocking back on Hitchie's Ole Cough Medicine again? :D
Click to expand...
Lots of people who admired Hitchens disagreed with him about Iraq, I think for myself thanks very much. He was wrong about sports ;)
You must remember Colin Powell stating "as facts" what Iraq possessed. And he said it to the United Nations. They said at the time it was "not conjecture" and then later on they blamed Iraq that these things turned out not to be facts after all.
Click to expand...
Actually what he was referring to was specially the claim was "The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had" not that they had them for sure... It doesn't show that they completely invented anything... which is what "trumped up" means... honestly now.
What difference does it make that the vast majority of Americans wanted war? If Putin pointed out that the vast majority of Russians wanted to go into Crimea regardless of any pretext whatsoever would it make a difference? Of course, not.
Click to expand...
I'm obviously not insinuating that... :rolleyes: what I'm saying is that people forget that there were lots of good reasons to take him out at the time and the WMD claim simply absorbed all of the political dialog and soured the entire debate when it failed.
Oh, and that "cloud of all of the bad news and sad things that happened there" is standard Hitchie. Pretending that some kind of "bad and sad things" just happen instead of were directly caused by their actions.
Click to expand...
What? :boggled: Indeed, you can't divorce the events that took place from the act of the invasion, but it isn't just that simple to just say that because all of these terrible things took place, therefore the invasion was unwise and immoral. It's more like stock Obama "History will judge the original decision to go into Iraq."

This topic will indeed derail the thread, as it always does, trolls will descend and ruin it all.
 
Is what Russia doing right or wrong?
Based on their own treaty guarantee, wrong.

Putin cares about the following: can he get away with it?

I am betting the over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom