War in Ukraine

There still was a regime change on fabricated pretext, current intervention in Syria and so on. We can argue fine points all we want, but thing is, from out here it is very difficult to see the difference, so the reaction of the world does look more than a little disproportionate. Heh, sometimes it feels as if my country has a nation-level Aspergers, unable to grasp the little social subtleties that let others get away with stuff, trying to do the same and getting hit for it

edited 13th Sep '14 9:01:48 AM by Beholderess

The key thing, at least from my point of view was that Saddam was seen as, and actually was, a maniac who oppressed and terrorized neighboring countries and his own people, though his ability to harm other nations was crippled after the first gulf war. In my view, had the we not run our administration of the country into the ground, invading Iraq would have been the morally right thing to do, regardless of any WMD's. But since we were so incompetent it could reasonably be argued that we did more harm than good. Ukraine by contrast, while defiantly not a pillar of democracy and human rights, never did anything like that,and the current governments legitimacy was doubtful at first, never did anything as bad as Saddam. In addition, you guys annexed territory, which is a major no no in international relations.

Edit: And many did oppose our invasion ,with vigor , to the point where it destroyed all the pity we had gained post 9/11

edited 13th Sep '14 9:25:23 AM by JackOLantern1337

In any case, I dont understand how someone would argue that, because the US invaded Iraq, that means Russia can invade Ukraine. Ukraine had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I mean both of them were shady but the one doesn't justify the other.

The big difference between those situations is that you stick to Western "global democracy, rule of law" viewpoint. Of course, Western actions do make sense in it ;)

From a really different "local culture, wishes of people" viewpoint, Iraq invasion was done by complete outsiders from a different continent who had nothing to do with situation on the ground (but somehow gave themselves right to mess with affairs that are thousands of miles away from them), and then replaced the local way of life with their own, crushing a log of cultural and religious beliefs in process. Moreso at Afghanistan, with the only difference that local way of life did prevail and there was no option left but to eventually retreat.

From the same viewpoint, Russia - mostly peacefully - returned the region with strong Russia-supporting majority (that one is certain, even pre-crisis polls show very strong support for Russia there) that were being pushed into EU (which they didn't want) by new government, which was supporting Western Ukraine regions' wishes while disregarding wishes of the East.

For deeper insight into Ukraine West-East rift, see http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf and http://rt.com/news/164076-ukraine-poll-east-west/

Which viewpoint is correct?

Both sides are actually so accustomed to their own viewpoint that they don't even consider some questions.

Are countries allowed to interfere into affairs of other countries while sharing NO border, common history or culture whatsover? Just because there is some universal "global law", which contry being invaded may have never accepted?

Are countries with common history and shared ethnicity allowed to value wishes of people more than laws and treaties?

Is it ok to replace "wrong" way of life (too much focus on religion, dictatorship-like rule, gender inequality, etc.) with your own (which may have even more faults from the outside observer)? With no respect whether the people in question are ready for "new way of life" or even want it?

Is it ok to be the one making decisions just because you're the most affected by outcome of said decisions (in other words, "the one with greater responsibility has the greater right to decide?") Is it ok for neighbouring, affected-by-crisis power to defy outside power that has ZERO domestic responsibility about some country - even if all people in said country die, they won't even feel it domestically?

The answers are all different.

The problem is, for all the Western understanding and respect for individual freedoms, it's hard to understand that some cultures operate on completely different principles, be them religious, collective-oriented, ideological or philosophical.

That's why Russian general public has different opinion. Not because they are scared of Putin or secretly weep for "the glory of USSR", but because their worldview - while more Western-like than Eastern-like - still has some key differences.

edited 13th Sep '14 10:03:48 AM by kilremgor

Lots of cool discussion questions there, which I dont have time to respond to, right now. I will just quickly say "Two wrongs dont make a right" and leave it at that.

Full disclosure, I think the US invasion of Iraq was stupid, illegitimate and a terrible mistake. So now you can understand my attitude toward Russia right now a little better.

edited 13th Sep '14 10:07:59 AM by demarquis

What happened in Crimea was both a forced puppet regime change (the guy who got in power by the armed men only got 4% of the votes in the 2010 elections) and an annexation. Whether or not the local people supported the annexation is also a dubious claim going from 4% support to Russian unification in 2010 to 90% four years later is unheard of.

As for annexations they a such a rarity in the post war international and only two Asian states got away with it so far (both involving decolonization). The last time an illegal annexation happened was in 1991 by Iraq against Kuwait, which shows you how much international standing USA lost thanks to the recent Iraq war. Before that there was Indonesia which annexed East Timor, but that got resolved in the 90s. The last time an illegal annexation happened in Europe during peace time was in 1938.

Reading up more on foreigners fighting for the fighters and Kiev. Even Europeans (Russians) are fighting for both sides. Read up on a European volunteer who fought for the rebels 'cause he didn't like Western support for Kiev.

There was an uprising in between those 2 times (2010 and 2014), one which radically changed the political landscape. It is completely believable that this could result most Russian crimeans favouring union with russia over EU membership.

edited 13th Sep '14 3:51:54 PM by Stripes-the-Zebra

But not 90 percent. That's one thing I never got when people try to steal elections, why give yourself such a high number?

IIRC, the referendum only gave the options of "leave Ukraine" or "join Russia" with no opportunity to vote for the status quo anyway. So we can't know for sure how many Crimeans would have voted to stay in Ukraine since they were never given the chance. And that's before we get into the, er "procedural issues" with the referendum.

Or the useful idiots Putin got to "observe" it.

edited 13th Sep '14 4:19:59 PM by Achaemenid

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28951324

More info on the nationalities and types of fighters who joined with either Kiev or the separatists.

Words cannot describe the stupid.

Pretty sure most of the Spanish Republicans who weren't Stalinist shills are turning in their graves...

A moving article about MH17

Some of the pro-socialists are shaking their heads at that comment as well.

You should see some of those foreigners fighting for the rebels organizing support for Assad and condemn the West for trying to bring down Russia. They see Kiev as fascist and praise Russia for being the last line of defense against globalization.

"4% for reunifiation" is just an Ukrainian lie. All those polls are biased.

There were a lot of polls with far different results back then, thanks to Google history search:

http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/547383/ (27% pro-unification, 70% "pro-independent Ukraine", not a poll per se since no methodology is given, + pro-Ukrainian deputy speaking random numbers; but still 27>4)

ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/opros-80-zhiteley-kryma-za-vossozdanie-edinogo-gosudarstva-s-rossiey.html (80% pro-unification, poll, 2011)

http://wek.com.ua/article/65087/ (94% Ukrainians with favourable opinion of Russia in the South, 16% pro-unification of WHOLE Ukraine (in the whole Ukraine) with Russia, poll, 2012)

etc.

it can be easily seen that all polls show different numbers - but overall, Crimea was mostly pro-unification. Only in Ukrainian officials' speeches it was not, and if that lie gets repeated by the West, it does not become true. 4% is not supported anywhere, basically, even pro Ukrainian sources claim ~20-30%.

And finally, the final argument for Russian public is that a lot have relatives there and/or have visited Crimea before and after "annexation" - and general public support cannot be denied. After all, what is experienced firsthand is easier to believe than some random numbers written by biased party.

Of course, there is no 90% support, but general majority (>60%) was pro-Russian reunification both before and during the crisis. Or, at least, if all firsthand experiences are not considered valid proof, it's something far more than 4% - at least 30%.

edited 13th Sep '14 11:42:33 PM by kilremgor

That 4% is based on the 2010 Crimean election result of the political party known as Russian unity, the same party who got into power after the not-Russian green men staged a coup in Crimea. So the number is not a lie.

And I also see you're trying to white wash annexation by using quotes around it, sad really. It was an illegal act nothing less.

That number IS a lie. Technically, it's debatable whether the number itself is fabricated, given widespread election fraud (see various Ukrainian elections scandals, hell, nearly all of them had claims of massive fraud, be it 2004 presidential or recent Klichko election), but it's not really important.

The lie is about comparison of totally different situations and numbers.

Voting, or not voting for some party that claims to "unite with Russia" does NOT in any way equal wishing/not wishing to "unite with Russia". Especially when leader of said party has very muddy background and no plan to actually "unite" whatsoever (and he and most of his followers were quickly pushed aside after annexation - they actually took power because they were the only ones willing to do that in the beginning).

If you're trying to claim that referendum was "wrong" because support impossibly rose from 4% to 90%, then 4% is totally out-of-context number that has ZERO relevance. referendum was about joining Russia, not about voting for political party, and actually joining Russia had 27-80% (depending on source) favor in Crimea - see post above. And those 27-80% were pre-crisis numbers, it's reasonable to expect they grew after events in Kiev.

As for "whitewashing", well, no. Of course annexation was illegal, nowhere in my post I contested that. What I contested is idea that general public was against annexation and referendum was totally fraudulent, overriding opinion of majority in Crimea. That idea is plain wrong - most locals did support the annexation, even if that support wasn't in 90%+ range - it was about 60%+ IMO.

And that of course doesn't make annexation legal - it just makes it "supported by majority of local population".

edited 14th Sep '14 3:41:31 AM by kilremgor

It looks to me like the two of you are in violent agreement with each other.

@ Achaemenid

There was the option to remain part of Ukraine with de-facto autonomy

@ Jack o Lantern

Yeah 90% is a stretch, but an absolute majority is most definitely not.

edited 14th Sep '14 9:24:06 AM by Stripes-the-Zebra

According to the Ukrainian defense minister, Nato has begun supplying them with weapons.

Crimean critics cry foul over election. Acording to several residents, people in Crimea are being forced to sign up for United Russia,Putins party.

edited 14th Sep '14 1:44:22 PM by JackOLantern1337

Well, Crimea is no different from Russia proper then. Interested in that tidbit about Brezhnev's grandson.

edited 14th Sep '14 1:46:42 PM by Achaemenid

I didn't see that.

edit: It takes some nerve for the Russian communist party to talk about forced signups.

edited 14th Sep '14 2:11:26 PM by JackOLantern1337

Andrei Brezhnev is actually from a different Communist Party. He leads something called the Communist Party of Social Justice, which he founded in 2002. The "official" Communist Party - ie, the undead form of the party that ruled the USSR - is the unrelentingly awful Communist Party of the Russian Federation. They're ideologically fairly close to Putin - whilst they disagree with him economically, they share his reactionary vision of Russia. They're also pretty anti-semitic as well. RationalWiki actually use them to illustrate the "horseshoe theory" - they're "extremely socially conservative, being anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, anti-liberal, nationalistic, and constantly championing "tradition values", not unlike a certain party in the USA."

They're led by Gennady Zyuganov, a former CPSU apparatchik. It must be hell inside his head.

edited 14th Sep '14 2:26:55 PM by Achaemenid