Print

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

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Mictlantecuhtli]

When did I say Russia shouldn't be held accountable for taking advantage of separatism in the East and prolonging the fight? It's a despicable ploy to drum up domestic support, and possibly to prove that Russia is still a world power, by undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and more importantly by causing its citizens to suffer.

Yep. That's correct. Thing is, how does this lead into blaming the west? Can you help me understand where the US has exerted influence in this case? You pretend Russia's invasion of Ukraine has a cause somewhere other than wanting to invade Ukraine to force them to stay a puppet state. It's almost as if they didn't want to be a puppet state of a neighboring regime. If your response is 'that's in the US interest so the USA must've caused it' then I'm just going to laugh and continue on my way.

@Mictlan: what if we were to say that both Russia and the USA are guilty of this crisis? No, seriously, what if there isn't a clear villain who's to blame, but two Great Powers squabbling instead?

Soon as you can help show me where US soldiers are facilitating and helping to terrorize Ukraine let me know.

[Kansa]

Here's a poll that says that only 16% of Russians approve of helping Novorossia with troops, just as I said.

This also puts strain on my previous theory that Putin's support would plummet if he were to let the rebels fall: if only a minority of Russians approve of Russia officially getting involved in the Ukrainian civil war, then Putin's involvement there cannot be motivated by fears of his image shattering if he lets the separatists lose. But what can his motive be, then? Perhaps he seeks confrontation with the West out of sheer Cold War oppositionism? Or is it all a plan to challenge the political hegemony of NATO? Or is it all very simple, and Putin just doesn't want a pro-western EU member country right across the border? But then, why interfere with the rebels' war?

I could see him supporting them so that Russia still looks like a strong power to the rest of the world, he might have thought that Russia looked weak in the eyes of the western countries and wanted to do something to basically make them take Russia more seriously. He might have been afraid that if his country looked too weak that the western countries would move against him. This would also make sense why he can't let the rebels fail because it's not his countrymen he cares about looking strong for but actually the other countries of the world,

This is all just speculation though, I'm probably way off.

[Knit tie]

When did I say Russia shouldn't be held accountable for taking advantage of separatism in the East and prolonging the fight? It's a despicable ploy to drum up domestic support, and possibly to prove that Russia is still a world power, by undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and more importantly by causing its citizens to suffer.

Yep. That's correct. Thing is, how does this lead into blaming the west? Can you help me understand where the US has exerted influence in this case? You pretend Russia's invasion of Ukraine has a cause somewhere other than wanting to invade Ukraine to force them to stay a puppet state. It's almost as if they didn't want to be a puppet state of a neighboring regime. If your response is 'that's in the US interest so the USA must've caused it' then I'm just going to laugh and continue on my way.

Ukraine never was a Russian puppet state, as Yanukovich's foreign policy had bouts of both pro-westernism and pro-Russism, and that's even without taking Yuschenko into account. Russia doesn't mind a non-puppet state along its border, it just doesn't want a EU-member and NATO-supporter there. And if Russia wanted Ukraine to stay a puppet state, why didn't it do everything in its power to make the Rebels reach Kiyv? Why did Putin came forth with the Minsk agreements?

@Mictlan: what if we were to say that both Russia and the USA are guilty of this crisis? No, seriously, what if there isn't a clear villain who's to blame, but two Great Powers squabbling instead?

Soon as you can help show me where US soldiers are facilitating and helping to terrorize Ukraine let me know.

Sorry, didn't notice the posts getting onto a new page, here's a revised version of that statement:

@Mictlan: what if I were to say that what's going on in Ukraine is simply two Great Powers squabbling, with one using armed rebels and another unarmed protesters? And that one's not particularly better than the other, in general?

[mainiac]

Thus equating minor support for protestors with killing thousands of people in a civil war.

Oh wait but I'm radically butchering your words by taking them at face value.  How jingoistic of me.

[Erkki]

When did I say Russia shouldn't be held accountable for taking advantage of separatism in the East and prolonging the fight? It's a despicable ploy to drum up domestic support, and possibly to prove that Russia is still a world power, by undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and more importantly by causing its citizens to suffer.

Yep. That's correct. Thing is, how does this lead into blaming the west? Can you help me understand where the US has exerted influence in this case? You pretend Russia's invasion of Ukraine has a cause somewhere other than wanting to invade Ukraine to force them to stay a puppet state. It's almost as if they didn't want to be a puppet state of a neighboring regime. If your response is 'that's in the US interest so the USA must've caused it' then I'm just going to laugh and continue on my way.

@Mictlan: what if we were to say that both Russia and the USA are guilty of this crisis? No, seriously, what if there isn't a clear villain who's to blame, but two Great Powers squabbling instead?

Soon as you can help show me where US soldiers are facilitating and helping to terrorize Ukraine let me know.

Sorry, didn't notice the posts getting onto a new page, here's a revised version of that statement:

@Mictlan: what if I were to say that what's going on in Ukraine is simply two Great Powers squabbling, with one using armed rebels and another unarmed protesters? And that one's not particularly better than the other, in general?

How many dead are there already; how many homeless? There is a parsek-wide gap between sponsoring a pro-something news agency and lobbyists to push the public opinion a bit way or another(I dont think the protesters were paid except for at most some of the organizers, and even then I doubt their employer was CIA) and enforcement via open violence or threat of it by a de facto actual military(Crimea and East-Ukraine).

[Knit tie]

How many dead are there already; how many homeless? There is a parsek-wide gap between sponsoring a pro-something news agency and lobbyists to push the public opinion a bit way or another(I dont think the protesters were paid except for at most some of the organizers, and even then I doubt their employer was CIA) and enforcement via open violence or threat of it by a de facto actual military(Crimea and East-Ukraine).

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

[Baffler]

The USA certainly didn't cause the Maidan revolution, though it must've been quite the pleasant surprise to US officials. As far as involvement goes, all we have to go on is this phone call in which very little is actually said, which the State Department simultaneously refuses to explicitly confirm or deny but effectively confirms its authenticity by apologizing for it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26072281
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

But all that really proves is that the US has interests in the region, which was never in question. If they are actively pursuing those interests, they can afford to do it with more subtlety than the Kremlin.

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

Also this.

[Helgoland]

But sooner or later, the West will stand up, and there will be a war. I know I shall be on the barricades the day Putin threaten my beloved European Union. And I hope I won't have to shoot any of you.

I'm very much tempted to sig this, but it might be even more inflammatory than what I currently have. Is it not sad that the days of the International Brigades are gone? Well, no, because those were the days of fascism, but I believe the Western world could use some more pathos of that type.
And, Knit, stuff like that is why I like these threads:

In Russia threads some flowers grow
Between the shitposts, row on row
That we write; and though we fight,
Entire days, entire nights,
Some flowers grow.

@Mictlan: what if I were to say that what's going on in Ukraine is simply two Great Powers squabbling, with one using armed rebels and another unarmed protesters? And that one's not particularly better than the other, in general?

Killing people is generally frowned upon.

Here's a poll that says that only 16% of Russians approve of helping Novorossia with troops, just as I said.

This also puts strain on my previous theory that Putin's support would plummet if he were to let the rebels fall: if only a minority of Russians approve of Russia officially getting involved in the Ukrainian civil war, then Putin's involvement there cannot be motivated by fears of his image shattering if he lets the separatists lose. But what can his motive be, then? Perhaps he seeks confrontation with the West out of sheer Cold War oppositionism? Or is it all a plan to challenge the political hegemony of NATO? Or is it all very simple, and Putin just doesn't want a pro-western EU member country right across the border? But then, why interfere with the rebels' war?

Why did Napoleon march on Moscow? Why did the Japanese seek to conquer all of Eastern Asia? For what reason did Alexander set out to find the borders of the earth and declare war upon them?
Combine that with an inferiority complex towards the West, manifesting itself as contempt and disgust, and BAM! you got yourself an explanation.

Since Putin's actions defy all rational imperatives, their reason must be irrational. Maybe a bullet between his eyes would save many other pairs of eyes from being treated the same way.


EDIT: If the situation was switched around and the US was supporting the same rebels wanting to become the 51st state, I would certainly condemn the US as well. The "They'd do the same thing!" defense is whataboutism in the purest form, just with an added conjunctive.

[Erkki]

How many dead are there already; how many homeless? There is a parsek-wide gap between sponsoring a pro-something news agency and lobbyists to push the public opinion a bit way or another(I dont think the protesters were paid except for at most some of the organizers, and even then I doubt their employer was CIA) and enforcement via open violence or threat of it by a de facto actual military(Crimea and East-Ukraine).

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

Both of them, actually, but you are again thinking the whole affair as a two-side conflict with Ukraine in the middle when it isn't. Militarily USA does not need to compete with anyone to secure its interests and NATO can already take Black Sea at will, basically. But that is just capability, not something NATO as an Alliance would have interest to. RT loves to bunch the whole alliance into a single hostile entity.

But morals? I don't define any morals other than mine, and in them, the line goes in the use of violence or threatening with it. There just is no excuse in my book, national interests or not, great competing powers or not. I can try to understand Russia's motives(all the dozen or so possible scenarios) but I nor anyone else needs to accept them.

EDIT: If the situation was switched around and the US was supporting the same rebels wanting to become the 51st state, I would certainly condemn the US as well. The "They'd do the same thing!" defense is whataboutism in the purest form, just with an added conjunctive.

Absolutely!

[Knit tie]

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

Consider the following: Canada loses its nukes somehow and has a nonviolent revolution where communists prominently feature. Existing government is overthrown and the new one is openly anti-western and wishes to establish close ties with Russia, China and Iran. A large, important American military base sits right across the USA-Canada border in a superbly defensible region that openly supports the USA and wishes to be a part of it. In another place right across the border, the people of two Canadian provinces say that they want nothing to do with the new "communist" government, capture governmental buildings and declare the independence of "the Republics of Vancouver and Calgary". New Canadian government reacts badly to that and sends forces to suppress the rebels.

Question: what would the USA do?


@ Helgoland ans Sheb: I'd like to ask you both: what would you think of me were I to write

But sooner or later, Russia will stand up, and there will be a war. I know I shall be on the barricades the day Obama and Merkel threaten my beloved Motherland. And I hope I won't have to shoot any of you.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

******, Strelok and his Russian gang are not people of two provinces. They are Russian citizens. Here your analogy dies.

Also
USA wouldn't deny its involvement and wouldn't bury its soldiers like homeless dogs
USA would not run absurd hasty referendums that has nothing common with democracy.
USA would not call supply convoys "humanitarian aid"

[Helgoland]

Knit, I fully understand! You should know that by now - I'd react the same way, in fact, I'd be disappointed if you reacted differently. But ask yourself: Who's threatening who in the current situation? And before you muddy the difference between dropping bombs and distributing leaflets: Putin is funding the Front National, and we don't kick up a giant fuss about it.

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

1) What the fuck are 'pro-Western separatists'?
2) We know the US would do the same, and it's been repeatedly stated that we'd condemn the US' actions in that case. Why do you keep bringing it up? The Westerners in this thread do not, I believe, see themselves as representatives of their countries - you should start taking that into account.

[Erkki]

USA is not even remotely Russia, you cant just swap them around and ask "what would happen?". If you want that experiment, swap Canada to Mexico and you have the current situation where USA has despite all their relations issues managed somehow to not invade them... for how long?

@ Helgoland ans Sheb: I'd like to ask you both: what would you think of me were I to write

Let me answer too: I think you'd be a fool. The situation and its sides are again not inter-changeable because the whole affair is not simply a conflict of interests where the stronger one prevails. Russia has herself, for whatever reasons none of us can fully understand, chosen this conflict and is the aggressor. EU and the "West" are not your enemies(although Putin has declared them to be direct competitors, aggressors, threats and so forth) but will still shoot you in the face in their self defense should Russia choose further escalation towards an open war against NATO.

Choosing to fight for Putin's regime / the current Russia in Ukraine or elsewhere would not be patriotic at all. Further escalation will not bring any good to the Russians. You would only do it if forced to.

2) We know the US would do the same, and it's been repeatedly stated that we'd condemn the US' actions in that case. Why do you keep bringing it up? The Westerners in this thread do not, I believe, see themselves as representatives of their countries - you should start taking that into account.

Also, USA or its Hawks are also not representatives of the NATO let alone the entirety of the "West". Europe has shown considerably patience(cross that over and use lack of balls instead if you wish to) both in its actions and rhetorics. That trend may not continue indefinitely, and if things escalate, EU and NATO will, for sure, bite back at some point.

[Sheb]

Actually, that a discussion/thread I've wanted to start for a long time: what are the acceptable forms of intervention in a country's affair. On one hand, some forms of interventions are clearly morally wrong, a war of aggression for example. On the other extreme, pretending that you should do nothing that attempt to influence stuff in another country is equally stupid: countries do not exist in a vacuum, and diplomacy is the art of influencing other countries.

But in between, there are all kind of interventions which sit in a grey area. What about funding media in another country? Financing political parties? Supporting rebels? What if the other country's government is a dictatorship and does not represent its citizens?

AFAIK, international law only recognize extreme humanitarian risk as a reason to intervene militarily in another country's affair. Is this a sound test?

Also, I'd totally expect that Knit Tie. The difference is that I see a Russian aggression as probable. Georgia, Crimea, 'Novorussiya', the increasing saber-rattling, the cyber attack on Estonia, the declaration about the Baltic's Russian speakers, the rapidly increasing military spending... It's hard not to see a pattern here.

On the other hand, the closest thing Western countries have done to threaten Russia is proposing a free-trade deal incompatible with Russia's custom union to Ukraine, and maybe send a couple PR men.

But yeah, should Obama and Merkel really threaten your homeland, I'd understand your wish to defend it. And I know on that day I'll on a barricade in Brussels protesting Germany and the US's actions. Honestly, any politician stupid enough to attack Russia should be hanged.

[Knit tie]

Knit, I fully understand! You should know that by now - I'd react the same way, in fact, I'd be disappointed if you reacted differently. But ask yourself: Who's threatening who in the current situation? And before you muddy the difference between dropping bombs and distributing leaflets: Putin is funding the Front National, and we don't kick up a giant fuss about it.

Russia's currently dragging Ukraine into a pointless trench war, I've never said otherwise. I've only argued about Putin's motives for doing so, that they go beyond simplistic lust for power and land.

But is this difference in methods due to one side being more moral than the other, or due to different circumstances in which each side tried to further its goals?

No, seriously, this is my main issue with the western media. It claims that the USA didn't annex Ukrainian territories and support pro-western separatists with arms and troops because it obeys international law, while Russia doesn't and is therefore bad, while I think that the USA really would've done the same if it were in Russia's position.

1) What the fuck are 'pro-Western separatists'?
2) We know the US would do the same, and it's been repeatedly stated that we'd condemn the US' actions in that case. Why do you keep bringing it up? The Westerners in this thread do not, I believe, see themselves as representatives of their countries - you should start taking that into account.

1)A hypothetical counterpart analogue of pro-Russian separatists.
2)I never even thought of blaming any of you personally! As I've said already, I consider you all to be my friends.


Anyway, I think I've figured the main conflict between the pro-Russians and Anti-Russians in this thread: the former think that the latter claim that because the West has a moral superiority in this conflict, it is inherently morally superior; the latter think that the former claim that since the West has done similar things in the past, Russia is justified in its recent actions. None of the sides actually claims what the other side thinks it claims. Both sides try to refute each other's perceived claims. Both sides then consider said refutations made by the other side to be new arguments in the same vein as mentioned above. And so the cycle goes on.

@Erkki: I honestly do believe that the whole conflict really is one of influence and interests between Russia and NATO, with the latter simply never needing to do anything that can be interpreted as "aggression" to further its goals. I also believe that Russia and NATO really are geopolitical enemies, just like USA and Iran are geopolitical enemies.