Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Czcibor]

Splendid. You want to prevent Russian "imperialism" by giving the Russians every reason to embrace it.

No, as the best case scenario we want whole region made of not-corrupted, not-militaristic, not-imperialistic, democratic countries. In most of Europe it worked quite well.

For a while some west European politicians tried to pretend that it also applies to Russia. Instead of real actions, some otherwise serious politicians were expressing "serious concern" while you invaded Ukraine.

Now we just want to explain to contemporary Russian regime that imperialism is rather expensive. We hope that either Putin or oligarchs or masses would get the message and change the behaviour accordingly. Or just the oligarchs would sacrifice Putin as Romanian military did with Causescu. Whatever.
In case of regime change presumably the prospective new ruling group would still be presumably militaristic and corrupted, but would be more serious concerning not violating international law.

Because, you see, there are millions of Russians supporting Putin, and a handful who have told you they do not. Just mentioning the second group means it is at least as important as the other one, which implies what I wrote.

I not doubt that. That's the reason I think they have now exactly what they deserve. (or would have when all retailers finally adjust prices)

 

[Czcibor]

Please do not mix these two issues. This little branch of discussion is about the developments since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was your statement that the people in the US embraced Russia, yet Russia is somehow distrustful and isolationistic (and imperialistic at the same time, what a nice combo). What was Russia's aggression toward its neighbours prior to 1997, when three countries, east of the then-current Nato block, were invited to join Nato?

First Chechen War in years 1994-1996?

Anyway do you consider forming Commonwealth of Belarus and Russia in 1996 as hostile move towards Poland? If not why joining NATO by Poland do you consider as hostile?

 

[voko]

I want Russians to stop being antagonistic towards the West.

Which no sane person would not applaud to. The method, which you proposed, however, would do exactly that: antagonize them, or keep them antagonized. Because that method is what the "outlandish propaganda" is telling the Russians about the West.

Apparently, you disagree. If yes, what would you do?

Yes, I find that method wholly ineffectual for your purpose. I gave examples earlier in the thread of some other things that the West has done to antagonize Russia (and I do not want to debate as to whether it is correct to say they were antagonistic; they are according to Russian official statements, and that it all that matters here). This entire Ukrainian thing, when Yanukovich was ousted despite a deal signed just a day before, was a very, very antagonistic thing (again, I am talking about the views openly presented by Russia's top brass, not what the West thinks about that). How, indeed, can the West de-antagonize Russia?

 

[russ_watters]

"IF"? The Ukrainian Freedom Support Act of 2014", passed by the Senate a few days ago, defines a policy, "to[/PLAIN] deter the Government of the Russian Federation from
further destabilizing and invading Ukraine and other independent countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia". How is that different from the proposal in #725, which said "so that [Russia] can't attack neighbors"? And how is a policy "https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2828/text" different from "Keeping Russia just poor enough"?

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer: that action was specifically designed to oppose Russia's imperialism and was passed in response to Russia's imperialistic acts.

Are you suggesting that the above is a viable reason for Russia to continue to invade and conquer its neighbors?

Putin is hugely popular in Russia and as far as I can see his current policies are fully supported.

Given Putin's control over the media, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being tricked, but in this day and age it is tough to accept. If, indeed, the Russian people are in favor of old style imperialism, that would be pretty disurbing and sad.

It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there.

American troops in Western Europe is a vastly different animal from Russian troops in Eastern Europe. The Iron Curtain was a real thing.

And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

Are you suggesting that the Ukraine's signing a treaty with the US is a viable reason for Russia to invade Ukraine?

Which no sane person would not applaud to. [Russia to stop being antagonistic toward the west]

Um -- you did just say that Russians support Putin's antigonism toward the West, by a wide margin. Are you saying the vast majority of Russians are insane?

I gave examples earlier in the thread of some other things that the West has done to antagonize Russia (and I do not want to debate as to whether it is correct to say they were antagonistic; they are according to Russian official statements, and that it all that matters here).

Are you suggesting that those things are viable reasons to invade Ukraine? Are you suggesting that Putin is entitled to decide for himself that they were antagonistic enough to jusitfy invading Ukraine?

This entire Ukrainian thing, when Yanukovich was ousted despite a deal signed just a day before, was a very, very antagonistic thing (again, I am talking about the views openly presented by Russia's top brass, not what the West thinks about that). How, indeed, can the West de-antagonize Russia?

Are you suggesting "the West" ousted Yanukovich? Are you suggesting his ouster (by whomever) was a viable reason for Russia to invade Ukraine?

 

[voko]

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer: that action was specifically designed to oppose Russia's imperialism and was passed in response to Russia's imperialistic acts.

That was not my point. You said something was hypothetical, conditional on a big *IF*. While in fact the thing which you call hypothetical is pretty much in effect now.

Are you suggesting

I am not suggesting anything here, not today in this thread at least.

American troops in Western Europe is a vastly different animal from Russian troops in Eastern Europe.

Pretty obvious, that. As Vlad said not so long a ago: if Grandma had male genitals, she would have been Grandpa. The fact remains, however: Russians out, Americans still in. What do you think this suggests to the Russians?

The Iron Curtain was a real thing.

I do not need to be told. I am old enough to remember that first hand.

 

[russ_watters]

That was not my point. You said something was hypothetical, conditional on a big *IF*. While in fact the thing which you call hypothetical is pretty much in effect now.

No, it really isn't. The fact that those actions are a response to Russia's imperialism is key here. It's like you don't understand the difference between a punishment delivered after a crime and a punishment delivered for no reason. It's bizarre.

I am not suggesting anything here, not today in this thread at least.

Well it certainly seems like it. You are defending the logic, at least.

Pretty obvious, that. As Vlad said not so long a ago: if Grandma had male genitals, she would have been Grandpa.

Too obvious: it is clear you are pretending not to understand what I meant and creating a false equivalency. Russian troops in Eastern Europe were an occupying force for puppet states. American troops in Western Europe are not.

The fact remains, however: Russians out, Americans still in. What do you think this suggests to the Russians?

For Russians who understand that Russia remains imperialistic, it would suggest that the West is taking prudent steps to protect itself from Russia's imperialistic threat.

I do not need to be told. I am old enough to remember that first hand.

It would appear you do need to be told, since you created the false equivalency!

 

[voko]

It's like you don't understand the difference between a punishment delivered after a crime and a punishment delivered for no reason. It's bizarre.

It may be key for something, but not for your invocation of "hypothetical", which is what I am discussing with you here. I never debated that there was (normally) continuity and causality in politics.

Well it certainly seems like it. You are defending the logic, at least.

What logic? You and other people keep talking about invasions and ascribing to me something about them, something which I never said. Could you just stop doing that?

Russian troops in Eastern Europe were an occupying force for puppet states. American troops in Western Europe are not.

Repeating myself here: your (Western) perception means nothing to the Russians. They perceive it differently. You keep talking about how American troops in Europe are good for Europe, and the Russians keep talking about Western hypocrisy. And, before you say that perhaps the Russians should make an effort and see it the way the West sees it: they actually tried 25 years ago. Mr Putin called the result of that "a greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20th century". As far as I can tell, this resonates with a huge lot of Russians. I doubt they will try that again any time soon.

 

[russ_watters]

It may be key for something, but not for your invocation of "hypothetical", which is what I am discussing with you here. I never debated that there was (normally) continuity and causality in politics.

The hypothetical here explicitly includes the continuity/causality. That's the entire point here: you are trying to separate them to turn the punishment for the crime into the provacation for committing it.

What logic? You and other people keep talking about invasions and ascribing to me something about them, something which I never said. Could you just stop doing that?

Well, here's the thing: you are arguing a case for the invasions being justified, you just aren't explicitly saying you believe they are. It's like OJ with his "If I Did It" book. And also, from your previous post:

I am not suggesting anything here, not today in this thread at least.

Those words seem very carefully chosen. They imply to me that the answer to my question is yes, you do support the invasions, you just don't want to overtly state it or have to defend it here (which is fine, by the way). Is my interpretation correct?

Repeating myself here: your (Western) perception means nothing to the Russians.

No one is suggesting they do. In fact, we've discussed in detal the fact that they don't and why. And we're discussing it because it is scary and disturbing that Russians are apparently so disconnected from reality.

You keep talking about how American troops in Europe are good for Europe, and the Russians keep talking about Western hypocrisy.

Yes, but here's the problem: one is a fact and the other is a lie. Again, that's the problem! Putin is lying to the Russian people and the Russian people are accepting it.

And, before you say that perhaps the Russians should make an effort and see it the way the West sees it: they actually tried 25 years ago. Mr Putin called the result of that "a greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20th century". As far as I can tell, this resonates with a huge lot of Russians. I doubt they will try that again any time soon.

You are mixing together separate issues in a way that is creating an intentional falsehood. The collapse of the Soviet Union certainly was a disaster for Russians* (as, of course, was the existence of the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make the West an aggressor or make invading your neighbors acceptable. They have nothing at all to do with each other. This isn't about differing perspectives, it is truth and lies; right and wrong.

*Though things worked out better for the Eastern Eurpoeans that Russia was oppressing.

 

[nikkkom]

This entire Ukrainian thing, when Yanukovich was ousted despite a deal signed just a day before, was a very, very antagonistic thing (again, I am talking about the views openly presented by Russia's top brass, not what the West thinks about that).

I am sure West liked anti-Yanukovich side, but I saw no evidence that they helped them in any way more significant than by diplomacy. In other words, West did nothing unacceptable there.

It's obvious Russia thinks that Ukraine is "their turf" and West must not play there. Therefore, they feel that West having an opinion on Ukrainian internal politics and daring to openly speak about that is an infraction. That's what I see as imperialist aspirations: Russia wants to be a superpower, it wants to have vassal buffer states around it.

The West fundamentally disagrees on that point. The West thinks that it (like everybody else) has a right to have opinions on Ukrainian politics. It can say that they like party X there and dislike party Y. It's not a breach of the rules, as West sees it.

How, indeed, can the West de-antagonize Russia?

Sorry. I asked *you*. What is your proposed solution?

 

[nikkkom]

> Russian troops in Eastern Europe were an occupying force for puppet states. American troops in Western Europe are not.

Repeating myself here: your (Western) perception means nothing to the Russians. They perceive it differently. You keep talking about how American troops in Europe are good for Europe, and the Russians keep talking about Western hypocrisy.

The huge difference is that American troops in Europe were, and still are present with the explicit permission of countries they are stationed in.

Soviets were forcing themselves onto Warsaw Pact countries, resorting to actual fighting, with tanks and army, twice when local populations tried to push them out (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968).

Some ignoramuses claim that Americans are not "really" guests, that they will stay even if host country will ask them to leave. Well, it was empirically tested. There was one case when Americans were asked to leave - in France, by de Gaulle after Suez crisis. Guess what - they *did* leave France.

 

[russ_watters]

Some ignoramuses claim that Americans are not "really" guests, that they will stay even if host country will ask them to leave. Well, it was empirically tested. There was one case when Americans were asked to leave - in France, by de Gaulle after Suez crisis. Guess what - they *did* leave France.

And is still true today, as we left Iraq when asked to leave there.

 

[nikkkom]

Given Putin's control over the media, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being tricked, but in this day and age it is tough to accept. If, indeed, the Russian people are in favor of old style imperialism, that would be pretty disurbing and sad.

Just a note: I think it's not just Russians. Sadly, I'm sure just about any other nation can be made to support almost any policy, no matter how outrageous, with sufficient amounts of propaganda.

We have several historical examples:
Nazi Germany. I'd be happy to think that it was an exception, and we'd never have anything like it, but...
North Korea.
Serbia in Yugoslavian wars: even knowing about horrors of WWII and nazism, they managed to slide into supporting an extreme form of nationalism which included invading other nations, mass murder of civilians and running concentration camps (!).
And now, Russia.

I'm not saying they are equally bad. I'm saying that each of them had a powerful state-run propaganda machine - and eventually majority of people started to believe it.

 

[Astronuc]

As Ukraine truce holds, Russia vows economic pain
http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-truce-holds-russia-vows-economic-pain-175516384--finance.html

Not exactly a good neighbor policy.

"The Ukrainian government has made its choice. And even if our neighbors have a poor understanding of the ultimate price they will have to pay, that is their right," Medvedev said.
Those ominous words came as a renewed truce in east Ukraine called for by President Petro Poroshenko is holding — barring sporadic violations — since it began last week.

Ukraine is entitled to self-determination, just as Russia is, or any other nation.

 

[mheslep]

As Ukraine truce holds,

On paper, otherwise not.
"http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/us-ukraine-crisis-rights-idUSKBN0JT11K20141215"

 

[Silicon Waffle]

...

Ukraine is entitled to self-determination, just as Russia is, ...

Exactly!

 

[nikkkom]

Are there English translations of those available?

youtube search for "captured russian soldiers in ukraine" gives a number of hits. For example, these have translation in subtitles:

 

[Czcibor]

I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

When did they marched out from Ukraine (Crimea), Belarus (in their case actually there is something like a consent) or Moldova?
(bold mine)

(it's funny to make a fact check of your posts)

 

[voko]

@nikkkom @russ_watters It looks like I won't have much time today and probably tomorrow to spend on the forum and address your questions. I will eventually, worst case over the weekend. Cheers.

 

[Czcibor]

Lukashenko (Belarusian dic... president) demands that Russia shall pay to his country for export in USD or EURO.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ruble-coll...henko-calls-halt-trade-russian-rubles-1480156

 

[voko]

The hypothetical here explicitly includes the continuity/causality. That's the entire point here: you are trying to separate them to turn the punishment for the crime into the provacation for committing it.

You are fundamentally mistaken here. This distinction does not exist for Russia. As a sovereign state, it won't accept being punished by any other state for whatever reason, but especially if the other state invokes a "crime and punishment" rationalization, as you did, because that adds insult to injury, encroaching on Russia's sovereignty. And this is not just my theory. The recent official comment by Russia's foreign affairs spokesman said just that: "unacceptable; provoking; an attempt of extraterritorial application of US legislation; null and void for Russia; against the principles of international law; US solely and fully accountable for consequences; hostile act by US".

Well, here's the thing: you are arguing a case for the invasions being justified, you just aren't explicitly saying you believe they are.

So you admitted I never said that. Which means you misrepresented my argument, and I won't be discussing this further.

And we're discussing it because it is scary and disturbing that Russians are apparently so disconnected from reality.

You seem to have missed my whole point. This is what you think about the Russians. The Russians think that you are disconnected, or being a hypocrite.

Yes, but here's the problem: one is a fact and the other is a lie.

A statement in a formal theory can be true, false or undecidable, depending on the theory's basic axioms. This has profound implications in real life, to the point that I find your assertion very naïve. We can, with an effort, assign absolute "true" or "false" to simple statements of facts on the ground, such as absence or presence of troops in particular locations; more complicated statements, no way: there will always be differing opinions and lines of thinking.

Again, that's the problem!

You made this a problem by trying to apply binary logic where it does not work. Again, as I said, perceptions of one and the same event can be very different in Russia than in the West. And this is not because the Russians are stupid, or brainwashed, which you will inevitably have to infer from your binary logic.

You are mixing together separate issues in a way that is creating an intentional falsehood. The collapse of the Soviet Union certainly was a disaster for Russians* (as, of course, was the existence of the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make the West an aggressor or make invading your neighbors acceptable. They have nothing at all to do with each other. This isn't about differing perspectives, it is truth and lies; right and wrong.

You are attacking a straw man here, because my argument did not have anything about "mak[ing] the West an aggressor or mak[ing] invading your neighbors acceptable".

 

[voko]

I am sure West liked anti-Yanukovich side, but I saw no evidence that they helped them in any way more significant than by diplomacy. In other words, West did nothing unacceptable there.

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

It's obvious Russia thinks that Ukraine is "their turf" and West must not play there. Therefore, they feel that West having an opinion on Ukrainian internal politics and daring to openly speak about that is an infraction. That's what I see as imperialist aspirations: Russia wants to be a superpower, it wants to have vassal buffer states around it.

And Russia sees that exactly the other way around.

The West fundamentally disagrees on that point. The West thinks that it (like everybody else) has a right to have opinions on Ukrainian politics. It can say that they like party X there and dislike party Y. It's not a breach of the rules, as West sees it.

Russia obviously sees that differently. The breach of the deal was a game changer. Perhaps the West needs to take into account Russia's old school thinking?

Sorry. I asked *you*. What is your proposed solution?

In the short term, I do not see any. I do not think that any party in the stand off will back off abruptly.

The huge difference is that American troops in Europe were, and still are present with the explicit permission of countries they are stationed in.

This is irrelevant for the discussion. Let me remind you the context:

I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

 

[Czcibor]

You are fundamentally mistaken here. This distinction does not exist for Russia. As a sovereign state, it won't accept being punished by any other state for whatever reason, but especially if the other state invokes a "crime and punishment" rationalization, as you did, because that adds insult to injury, encroaching on Russia's sovereignty. And this is not just my theory. The recent official comment by Russia's foreign affairs spokesman said just that: "unacceptable; provoking; an attempt of extraterritorial application of US legislation; null and void for Russia; against the principles of international law; US solely and fully accountable for consequences; hostile act by US".

I think that you here consider Russia as somewhat typical entity. Generally speaking criminals won't accept being punished for whatever reasons. That's a general rule, if you don't believe you may listen how interviewed criminals rationalize what they did. And also the point of punishment is to make somewhat to stop violating law if moral reasons are not enough.

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

Good. When are you retreating from Ukraine to stop violating Budapest agreement from 1994? Or breach is unacceptable, unless it's Russia who does, then it's everything OK?

Anyway, you think that in case of some internal deal between opposition and gov in Ukraine is not being followed, it means that Russia is entitled to invade that country. Does it work in two ways? I mean if some important agreement is violated in Russia does it give other countries right to invade it? (I mean for example not paying back money to Yukos shareholders, which were expropriated because Khodorkovsky did not get on well with Putin) Or is China entitled to invade Siberia if you don't finish building promised gas pipeline on time?

 

[nikkkom]

It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

 

[nikkkom]

> The huge difference is that American troops in Europe were, and still are present with the explicit permission of countries they are stationed in.

This is irrelevant for the discussion. Let me remind you the context:

> I am of the opinion that many Russians would see this very differently. It was Russian soldiers who all marched away from Europe when the Iron Curtain fell. American soldiers are still there. And Nato has moved eastward, despite promises that it would not.

Russian soldiers were there against local populations' wishes in the first place. Basically, Eastern Europe was under Soviet occupation since WWII. The proof is that not one of these countries is friendly to Russia even now, 20 years since they left. Most of them wanted to join NATO, and did so.

"Many Russians would see this differently", yes. They won't admit to themselves that they still try to subjugate neighbors by force. Contract killer also sees himself not a criminal, but as a "janitor of the forest", he "kills only other criminals". There are plenty of ways to rationalize evil.

 

[voko]

Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text

Russian soldiers were there against local populations' wishes in the first place.

You are repeating the point which is irrelevant, as I already said.

 

[nikkkom]

>>> I am sure West liked anti-Yanukovich side, but I saw no evidence that they helped them in any way more significant than by diplomacy. In other words, West did nothing unacceptable there.
[/PLAIN]
>> It may be that Russia has some old-fashioned ideas of diplomacy, where a signed deal is a deal and its breach is unacceptable. No wonder, then, that the West's new diplomacy is not appreciated.

> Which "signed deal" do you refer to?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/agreement-on-the-settlement-of-crisis-in-ukraine-full-text[/URL][/QUOTE]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

As such, the fate of such an agreement is irrelevant to the Russia/West relations. If it was not honored, how is this West's fault?

Especially that in reality, it was not honored because president panicked, fled the country the same day and his former allies defected en masse - despite still having loyal troops on their side. It's not like US marines landed in Kiev and stormed his palace!

 

[Czcibor]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

As such, the fate of such an agreement is irrelevant to the Russia/West relations. If it was not honored, how is this West's fault?

Especially that in reality, it was not honored because president panicked, fled the country the same day and his former allies defected en masse - despite still having loyal troops on their side. It's not like US marines landed in Kiev and stormed his palace!

Technically speaking it was not honoured because Yanukovych went to Russia, instead of (as he promised) help to amend the constitution in 48 hours. If Russia did not want that, they may have just not let him in.

 

[voko]

This is an agreement between then-president and three opposition figures, signed in 21 Feb 2014. This is NOT an international agreement, neither Russia nor other countries are signatories to it.

This is a bunch of truisms. Obviously, neither Russia nor the other three countries can be legally responsible for whatever happened in a technically sovereign nation. That is not the reason why agreement was "witnessed" and counter-signed by Russia and the other countries.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm sure Ukraine is thinking about Russia's incursion upon the territory and sovereignty of Ukraine:

"unacceptable; provoking; an attempt of extraterritorial application of US Russian legislation (or Putin's decrees?); null and void for Russia Ukraine; against the principles of international law; US Russia solely and fully accountable for consequences; hostile act by USRussia".

 

[Czcibor]

This is a bunch of truisms. Obviously, neither Russia nor the other three countries can be legally responsible for whatever happened in a technically sovereign nation. That is not the reason why agreement was "witnessed" and counter-signed by Russia and the other countries.

(bold mine)
I think that's exactly one of source of misunderstanding here. Considering Ukraine as only a "technically sovereign nation", not just as "sovereign nation". It has some different consequences - if they are only "technically sovereign" local population is just loot for a stronger power, not a free nation that can be p*** off with corruption and get rid of president. They have to keep inept and corrupted Yanukovych because a "great" power orders them so, and treats them as zone of influence, right? Maybe they should become more federalized, to become an ungovernable country so Russia can enforce its will easier on such... colony (protectorate, vassal state)?

You pointed out that Russia would not back down. Which I believe, because Putin would lose face if had to give back the loot. I would say that Ukraine is also not going to back down, while the West would keep sanctions. Let's assume maintaining such deadlock that we have right now - what would be the result? How long would Russian economy survive?