Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Knit tie]

Well, even if Putin is a better man that Poroshenko, you can build a moral case for siding with Ukraine for that one based on the need to defend the principle that you should not invade your neighbors.

And you can also build a moral case for siding with Russia for that one based on the need to defend the principle that countries shouldn't be ruled by tinpot dictators with full media control who repress their political opposition, eliminate democracy, steal their countries' financial support in order to give it to their oligarch buddies with private armies made up of far-right radicals and send their people to die in wars against those of their territories that refuse to bow to their rule.

NVM not talking about this to prevent thread heat death.

Let's talk about the current armed conflict instead. The rebels claim that they have recently inflicted heavy casualties on the "Donbass" battalion, possibly even wounding or killing its commander, Semyon Semenchenko, after said battalion stumbled into their ambush.

[Helgoland]

Well, what do you think would have been the moral thing to do? Ignore the conflict? Side with Russia? Build a ten-meters-wall around Ukraine, fill the inside with seawater and build resorts on the new coast?

The fact that there isn't a perfect moral option doesn't mean that you can't pursue the least bad option for moral reasons. The world  is full of situation where the moral option is to support unsavory people, because what would happen if you don't support them would be even worse: Think of supporting Iraq's government against ISIS, or Afghanistan's against the Talibans.

I was thinking of making pretty much this post - and I find it very telling that Knit declined to answer...

[Knit tie]

Well, what do you think would have been the moral thing to do? Ignore the conflict? Side with Russia? Build a ten-meters-wall around Ukraine, fill the inside with seawater and build resorts on the new coast?

The fact that there isn't a perfect moral option doesn't mean that you can't pursue the least bad option for moral reasons. The world  is full of situation where the moral option is to support unsavory people, because what would happen if you don't support them would be even worse: Think of supporting Iraq's government against ISIS, or Afghanistan's against the Talibans.

I was thinking of making pretty much this post - and I find it very telling that Knit declined to answer...

Read the crossed out part of my previous post and the post before that one, please. I'd still rather not talk about this to prevent another pointless blame-assigning flamewar, but if you insist...

[Mr. Strange]

Well, what do you think would have been the moral thing to do? Ignore the conflict? Side with Russia? Build a ten-meters-wall around Ukraine, fill the inside with seawater and build resorts on the new coast?

The fact that there isn't a perfect moral option doesn't mean that you can't pursue the least bad option for moral reasons. The world  is full of situation where the moral option is to support unsavory people, because what would happen if you don't support them would be even worse: Think of supporting Iraq's government against ISIS, or Afghanistan's against the Talibans.

And from what I've seen Ukrainian gov has been taking advantage of laws and institutions that ware laid out during earlier pro-Russian governments, not something they created themselves. Claiming that as a moral reason to act against Ukraine raises the question why wasn't it morally okay to do the same to Yanukovych earlier?
Yes there are people in Ukrainian governmeant we (and I mean EU and USA here) don't want there, but their support comes from threat of Russia to Ukraine, and continuing this conflict will just validate it further. Just like in Greece (and to lesser extension rest of EU) where last elections saw rise of radical-right and -left groups, crisis (real or perceived) feeds radical groups, and the way to "defeat" them is not by force, but by stabilizing the situation. If Ukraine had not been invaded and instead had formed trade treaties with both Russia and EU most of the arguments Right Sector and other groups like that used would have been proven wrong and their support would have collapsed, unless they adopt different targets, like oligarchs and corrupted bureaucrats. Ukrainian future would look pretty different if that had happened, wouldn't it?
Maybe that's why Putin didn't want that to happen...

[Helgoland]

Knit, it's a simple question with an answer that is both interesting as well as relevant to the threat. That the responses may be flamey is a different (and rather unimportant) matter.
So: What should Europe do? What should Europe do under the assumption that the rebels are illegitimate?

[Knit tie]

Knit, it's a simple question with an answer that is both interesting as well as relevant to the threat. That the responses may be flamey is a different (and rather unimportant) matter.
So: What should Europe do? What should Europe do under the assumption that the rebels are illegitimate?

Why such an assumption? That's a rather biased question when you make such an assumption, if you ask me.

Now, what I think Europe should do, without any assumptions about the legitimacy of the rebels, is seriously force both sides to actually stop fighting, with peacekeepers if necessary, and then negotiate an actual peace agreement between Novorossiya and Kyiv that will be actually enforced, and not just repeatedly ignored by both sides as convenient.

[Helgoland]

Peacekeepers if approved by Russia, or regardless of Russian consent?
And those were two different questions, the second was intended to shed light on your general principles independent of our current political allegiances...

[Knit tie]

Peacekeepers if approved by Russia, or regardless of Russian consent?
And those were two different questions, the second was intended to shed light on your general principles independent of our current political allegiances...

Oh, I see.

Anyway, I think Europe should bring in peacekeepers regardless of both Russian and Kyiv's consent - "whoever fires a shot next, will have declared war on all of us." And then, after it becomes clear that neither Poroshenko nor Zakharchenko nor Putin want another world war, negotiate peace between the two sides.

And if the rebels were truly illegitimate, all Russian soldiers in disguise or on FSB's payroll, if the population of Donetsk and Lugansk was forced to declare independence from Kyiv at gunpoint, then Europe's doing everything right, go Europe.

[Helgoland]

Even supporting a government that shells civilians, as you report every now and then? I'd be interested in a statement a bit more differentiated than 'Go Europe'...
On a slightly different matter, I'd highly recommend shoving this through Google Translate.

[SirQuiamus]

Peacekeepers if approved by Russia, or regardless of Russian consent?
And those were two different questions, the second was intended to shed light on your general principles independent of our current political allegiances...

Oh, I see.

Anyway, I think Europe should bring in peacekeepers regardless of both Russian and Kyiv's consent - "whoever fires a shot next, will have declared war on all of us." And then, after it becomes clear that neither Poroshenko nor Zakharchenko nor Putin want another world war, negotiate peace between the two sides.

And if the rebels were truly illegitimate, all Russian soldiers in disguise or on FSB's payroll, if the population of Donetsk and Lugansk was forced to declare independence from Kyiv at gunpoint, then Europe's doing everything right, go Europe.

Send European troops into Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission? Wouldn't that cause our reality to coincide with Putin's alternate reality, I mean the one where NATO and EU are currently maintaining a military presence in Ukraine?

[Knit tie]

I was going to edit that post, but you've already replied to it. 

Yes, Europe should at least attempt to stop the shelling of civilians in any case, especially if they were forced to oppose Kyiv, just as it should at least attempt to stop the other abuses of the current Ukrainian regime. It's just that if the rebels are truly illegitimate, Europe should still help Kyiv to win, as opposed to stopping the ATO completely if the rebels are not illegitimate.

Reading your article now.

EDIT: Ah, that woman who is being accused of treason. I have to say that I am not informed well enough to make any judgements on that story right now, as I am yet to read an unbiased account of what happened. Pro-Russian sources claim genuine espionage, anti-Russian ones, such as yours, push the story of "an innocent victim," and considering how grossly misrepresented all such anti-Russian "an innocent victim" stories are - Khodorkovsky, Navalny, Pussy Riot, etc... - I am disinclined to trust them as well. At the very least, I can say right now that calling a foreign embassy to report your observations of your country's military is not a smart thing to do by any means. Imagine, hypothetically, what would happen if this woman was living in the USA and called the Syrian embassy there to report a bunch of Syrian rebel commanders undergoing training at a local American military base.

[smjjames]

Same thing, she'd probably get called out for treason. Or at least some form of spying charges and release of classified knowledge.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. does not have a military base in Syria, so the base wouldn't be local for one.

[Knit tie]

I meant "a local American military base" as in "a military base located near the place where that woman lives in America," but that's just semantics.

EDIT: Hey, check this out! Although I am not sure in what way the USA is "unwilling to share power" with authoritarian rulers, considering that it's currently buddies with Saudi Arabia and used to be buddies with a whole bunch of undemocratic characters such as Pinochet and the like. Also, I disagree with the author's imposition of the Western values onto Russians, but that's just the universal bane of humanity in general, I believe.

EDITEDIT: Slavic racial bonus: +85 resistance to sanctions, apparently . Although here I disagree with the author's claim that Russia is going to go bankrupt without its oil and gas export revenues, but again, this is a common misconception; to see why this is a misconception, please read this and kindly disregard the bad translation of the commentary. Hell, disregard the commentary at all, just take a look at all the pretty pictures, that'll be enough. But I may be misinterpreting the author there, if what he really said in the paragraph I referred to above was that Russian consumption is driven mainly by imported goods bought on oil money, then this is indeed true and I cannot do anything but agree with it.

[smjjames]

And what happens if that oil money dries up?

As far as the sanctions, they aren't even the tough sanctions like those on Iran or NK.

[Knit tie]

And what happens if that oil money dries up?

As far as the sanctions, they aren't even the tough sanctions like those on Iran or NK.

When oil money dries up, Russia will lose about 16% of its GDP. Unpleasant, but nowhere near lethal. Of course, our export revenue will decrease significantly, but export revenue does not the entirety of a country's GBP constitute. And really, having an import expenditure that greatly exceeds the export revenue would sound like a much scarier fate for Russia if there weren't so many countries in the world nowadays that are successfully growing and developing with huge budget deficits.