Ukraine War Thread

[Thanas]

That is like calling Hitler's attack on the USSR a correct use of the right to national self defence.

Saying the vote is rigged is a valid objection. Bringing up a German attack on Russia which resulted in the direct genocide of 15 million people is, however, just emotional reactions.

You are an idiot if you think this was the point. The point was that calling it a valid form of self determination if a foreign power has troops on the ground and legitimizes its actions with a rigged vote done while the troops are still occupying the country such a vote is as much a valid form of self-determination as a war of aggression is a valid form of defending against a certain future attack, meaning none at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_India ... ion_of_Goa

I don't think anyone cares that much if it's 50 years or 200 years. Or, frankly, 1000 years in case of Kosovo. You have the power to take something, you take it. International relations are a rule of force, and I said it before - legalism will never be able to stop such events from happening because the whole set-up is rigged towards the UNSC members. Russia can do shit with Crimea, the US can support Indonesian genocide in East Timor or even directly invade Iraq, and so on and so forth.

Are you so blatantly anti-western that you now subscribe to the theory of might makes right? Because if so, then you have no morals at all. You can take something. Doesn't make it legal, legitimate or even neutral. I thought you would be advocating for aggression to be an immoral force.


EDIT:

Are you Putin's mirror? Cause I remember he just said that the nationalists and nazis in the Maidan were paid to by... tadam... the West! I mean, seriously. One can sponsor a rebellion, but people have to walk the last mile themselves.

You yourself claimed it would be impossible to distinguish Russians from Ukrainians. How do you know the pro-russian militia driving Russian military trucks and troops with no flags on them (but frequently admitting to Reporters that they are indeed Russian) are not Krimean-controlled groups? The only way to determine the will of the people would be via a fair and free election, the very thing which Russia has not done and never will do.

[Vympel]

Which no reasonable person can possibly argue with, IMO.

Of course everyone can argue with that. For one, Kosovo was not a landgrab by the west.

That's a red herring. The relevant principle is the legitimacy of a referendum when its contrary to domestic laws of the country in question, and whether its a violation of international law, not whether the region which engaged in the referendum decided to go to Russia as a result.

The only nations they can invade are those that foolishly believed Russia would honor things they promised (like "territorial integrity of the Ukraine" but it is Russia, so they should instead have kept their nukes and went into Nato ASAP) and who are not members of NATO and/or the EU. Not a lot of those nations left.

But you will probably see the West step up their support of nations like Georgia and Moldova etc. Hopefully the EU and Nato offer further expansion eastwards to all who are willing to come (and who are willing to adapt, but the latter requirement might be waived in face of Russia's actions. For Russia cannot be trusted and needs to be contained).

That's a completely insane move and would only further provoke Russia. Russia has made it clear that further NATO expansion up to their borders is a red line, and Western interference in Ukraine is part of what started this current cluster-fuck in the first place. NATO doesn't intend to trade Berlin or Paris for Tblisi, so you're proposing a highly foolish move that would just destroy NATO's credibility. The red line has been drawn, it won't be crossed.

Nails it

One can neither mourn nor cheer Crimea’s split from Ukraine and the Russian annexation Putin declared Tuesday, and there is no need to do either. It is not a tragedy; it is a calamity only for those invested in the post-Cold War order because this order has been to the advantage of the Western powers.

It is a victory for those Russians — very many, it seems — invested in making their nation a prominent pole in a multipolar world. But it is their victory and they are to be left to it.

For me, history has always had a greater claim to a sovereignty all its own than lines drawn on political maps. I see nothing sacred in the latter and much to celebrate in the former, which I understand in the French way — bottom-up history, dense with humanity and human bonds, full of culture, sociology and economics and made of language, engrained practice, locality — altogether “the dailiness of life,” in the poet Randall Jarrell’s phrase.

There are centuries of this history behind the referendum held last weekend, and six decades to support the claim that Crimea is integral to Ukraine. So it comes to preference, and we now know the preferences of almost every Crimean who replied to the referendum’s question. More than 80 percent of them turned out to vote. For them, too, a victory in that they have self-determined.

Something else must be added instantly. It is no good thinking that the vote was somehow forced by the barrels of Russian rifles. The imagery is familiar, time-tested Cold War stuff with obvious truth in a lot of cases. And scarcely would Putin be above intimidation. But it does not hold up this time, if only because there was no need of intimidation.

The plain reality is that Putin knew well how the referendum would turn out and played the card with confidence. Washington and the European capitals knew, too, and this is why they were so unseemly and shamelessly hypocritical in their desperation to cover the world’s ears as Crimeans spoke.

This raises the legality question. There is blur, certainly, but the legal grounding is clear: International law carefully avoids prohibiting unilateral declarations of independence. In any case, to stand on the law, especially Ukraine’s since the coup against President Viktor Yanukovych last month, is a weak case in the face of Crimeans’ expression of their will.

There was a splendid image published in Wednesday’s New York Times. Take a look. You have a lady in Simferopol, the Crimean capital, on her way to something, probably work. Well-dressed, properly groomed, she navigates the sidewalk indifferently between a soldier and a tank.

The shot was taken Tuesday, day of the annexation. No big one, she seems to say.

This is the right position. If there is big stuff in Crimea’s change of status from the point of view of Crimeans, it is that the 2.2 million of them, 60 percent of them Russian, will leave behind a failed state now staring at the prospect of life under the neoliberal austerity regime those at the southern end of Europe love so much they simply cannot get enough of it.

There are perspectives other than those of the Crimeans, of course. “This is an earthquake, and not a four-point earthquake,” a Russianist named Toby Gati told the Times Tuesday. Gati served in Bill Clinton’s State Department and now brokers business deals, correspondent Peter Baker tells us.

Absolutely this is so. It is an earthquake high on the Richter scale for many in the West, but for none more than the strategists and architects of the neoliberal order, the lopsided “globalism” in vogue these past couple of decades. For them, a defeat has come, an outer boundary tested and now requiring retreat.

You are not reading the above thought in the Western media as we speak. You are reading of the “defiant” Putin — this mess gets more ad hominem by the day — of a disrupted post-Cold War stability and “a new, more dangerous era,” of Russian anger and ressentiment (Secretary of State Kerry), of “this dark period” that may or may not last as long as the Cold War itself (Michael McFaul, a former ambassador to Moscow), and “nothing more than a land grab” (the inimitable Joe Biden, who “swept into Poland and the Baltics Tuesday.” Can you beat this phrasing?).

I have explored previously in this space the journalistic phenomenon I term “the power of leaving out.” We have a classic case before us.

I cannot find anywhere an account that rests on the self-evident proposition that as action begets reaction, reaction by definition requires antecedent action. Putin’s speech at the Kremlin Palace Tuesday revealed his boiling reaction to events in Ukraine since Yanukovych was deposed. He stood before all as a man provoked, and in case anyone missed this he did the favor of saying so in spades.

“If you press a spring too hard it will recoil,” Putin said. Entirely apt, pretty good one-sentence summary, including an acknowledgment that he has sprung swiftly at Ukraine, and in angry reaction.

Nothing, no hint of responsibility explained in the news reports and analysis, no causality. There are the merest flicks at the role of unnamed “foreigners,” but only such as to make Putin appear paranoid. Here is my favorite, from the Times coverage of the Putin speech:

“He said that the United States and Europe had crossed ‘a red line’ on Ukraine by throwing support to the new government that quickly emerged after Mr. Yanukovych fled the capital.”

Can you spot the phony chronology? Putin’s gripe predated Yanukovych’s flight by a long way, arising out of the covert meddling of Americans among the friendliest pols in Kiev (and, if history is any guide, probably among the demonstrators in Independence Square, too).

The Ukraine crisis was the final touch, the political piece, in a two-decade campaign to entice westward the country’s vigorously anti-Russian elements. More broadly, we have the advance of NATO up to Russia’s borders, a strategy so provocative and ahistorical that even Tom Friedman thinks it was dumb (or he did for at least one afternoon at the computer not long ago).

[Kane Starkiller]

Nails it? Simply an apologist article that predictably tries to exaggerate the degree to which Western actors influenced the toppling of Yanukovich so that it can substitute Ukraine for "West" so that Russia appears as some kind of encircled underdog.

For all the talk of the terrible NATO expansion the truth is that there was a massive drawdown of forces in Europe and there is no one on the continent that can seriously threaten Russia. Certainly not the NATO members closest to Russia. Attempts to reduce entire countries in Eastern Europe as western pawns with no minds of their own and no genuine animosity towards Russia is merely an attempt to give justification to Russian aggression.

[Vympel]

Nails it? Simply an apologist article that predictably tries to exaggerate the degree to which Western actors influenced the toppling of Yanukovich so that it can substitute Ukraine for "West" so that Russia appears as some kind of encircled underdog.

The Russians got Victoria Nuland on the phone engaged in picking out who her preferred new PM was - and lo and behold, that's who became PM. They gave legitimacy to Banderite assclowns. They've funnelled billions into effecting political change in Kiev to Russia's detriment, and after the coup they rushed to lend legitimacy to a clearly illegitimate government. None of these should be controversial facts.

Ultimately, an unfriendly and illegitimate government seized power in Kiev and endangered Russia's interests, so it moved to secure them. Given Crimea clearly wanted to go to Russia and it should never have been handed over to Ukraine in the first place, I don't feel particularly torn up about it, and I don't see why anyone else does either.

For all the talk of the terrible NATO expansion the truth is that there was a massive drawdown of forces in Europe and there is no one on the continent that can seriously threaten Russia. Certainly not the NATO members closest to Russia. Attempts to reduce entire countries in Eastern Europe as western pawns with no minds of their own and no genuine animosity towards Russia is merely an attempt to give justification to Russian aggression.

The countries in Eastern Europe and why they want to join NATO are likely completely irrelevant to Russian calculus. Its up to the major alliance members to decide whether to admit them. Much of this deterioration in relations results from an inability to see how one's actions look to someone else - for example, when you talk about missile defence in Eastern Europe, that's seen as an inherent threat to Russia's nuclear deterrent. And its not just about war. The strategic importance of Crimea is uncontroversial - they simply weren't going to risk losing it to NATO thanks to a bunch of Western ultra nationalists.

Its not pretty, but it is what it is, and western countries do bear a measure of responsibility.

[Kane Starkiller]

The Russians got Victoria Nuland on the phone engaged in picking out who her preferred new PM was - and lo and behold, that's who became PM. They gave legitimacy to Banderite assclowns. They've funnelled billions into effecting political change in Kiev to Russia's detriment, and after the coup they rushed to lend legitimacy to a clearly illegitimate government. None of these should be controversial facts.

Ultimately, an unfriendly and illegitimate government seized power in Kiev and endangered Russia's interests, so it moved to secure them. Given Crimea clearly wanted to go to Russia and it should never have been handed over to Ukraine in the first place, I don't feel particularly torn up about it, and I don't see why anyone else does either.

I've listened to the leaked phone call and there is absolutely nothing sinister about it. They even talk about getting UN involved. Her preferred guy became PM. What does that prove?
Does a country forfeit its right to territorial integrity when its government is violently deposed?

I agree that most likely majority of the population is pro Russian however the referendum was still rushed and that casts doubts on the actual numbers. In any case I don't see the annexation of Crimea as a particularly heinous crime nor do I view it as a change in status quo since Russia already de facto controlled Crimea since 1991.

The countries in Eastern Europe and why they want to join NATO are likely completely irrelevant to Russian calculus. Its up to the major alliance members to decide whether to admit them. Much of this deterioration in relations results from an inability to see how one's actions look to someone else - for example, when you talk about missile defence in Eastern Europe, that's seen as an inherent threat to Russia's nuclear deterrent. And its not just about war. The strategic importance of Crimea is uncontroversial - they simply weren't going to risk losing it to NATO thanks to a bunch of Western ultra nationalists.

Its not pretty, but it is what it is, and western countries do bear a measure of responsibility.

If Russia doesn't care about the wishes of smaller eastern european countries that's a reason more to include them into NATO. Article wants to have it both ways: West should listen to the concerns of Russia but Russia gets its sphere of influence wishes of Eastern Europeans countries be damned. Also I don't believe for a second that Russia wouldn't have taken steps to return those countries to its sphere of influence as soon as it got back on its feet regardless of NATO expansion.

[Vympel]

I've listened to the leaked phone call and there is absolutely nothing sinister about it. They even talk about getting UN involved. Her preferred guy became PM. What does that prove?

That's absurd. What business does an American ambassador have picking out the preferred leader of the government of Ukraine? Of course its sinister. You're simply being naive if you think this was just some sort of random chat. Its the most crass form of king-making imaginable, and it totally ignores US conduct (and the flow of moeny to their so-called "pro-democracy" "NGOs" - yes both of those are sarcasm cuoqtes) in Ukraine for the past decade or more, of which Russia is not ignorant.

Does a country forfeit its right to territorial integrity when its government is violently deposed?

Of course not. Does that matter? If so, why?

I agree that most likely majority of the population is pro Russian however the referendum was still rushed and that casts doubts on the actual numbers. In any case I don't see the annexation of Crimea as a particularly heinous crime nor do I view it as a change in status quo since Russia already de facto controlled Crimea since 1991.

That's my view as well. Its just not a hugely destabilising event.

If Russia doesn't care about the wishes of smaller eastern european countries that's a reason more to include them into NATO.

No, what I meant was that Russia is not worried about the desire of smaller eastern european countries to join NATO, its that their admission is decided by the big powers, and that's what worries Russia - the big powers' attitude. As far as realism goes, there's no national interest to be pursued in allowing Ukraine or Georgia to join NATO. For one, NATO membership has always been intensely unpopular in Ukraine, and that won't change anytime soon - furthermore, Ukraine is a divided country with divided loyalties. Georgia is a basketcase and no one in NATO is going to go to war with Russia and risk nuclear confrontation to protect them - and Russia knows it. France and Germany already said no to this back in 2008.

And another aspect of national interest - its a really fucked up diplomatic decision to anger Russia - whose cooperation you need on a host of pressing issues, so you can have Georgia as an ally. Where's the advantage for the US, France or Germany in such an arrangement? There isn't one.

The problem with people who think NATO expansion shouldn't be threatening to Russia is that they can't see it from the Russian point of view.

*Cold War over

*NATO expands, contrary to assurances given to the Soviets when the Cold War ended

*Russia: why are you expanding? we liberated ourselves from communism, allowed Germany to reunify, pulled out of Eastern Europe - and now you're approaching our borders and talking about missile defence?

*West: Oh its not directed at you, don't worry.

*Russia: Well it certainly fucking feels that way.

Then Russia pushes back, that's used as a justification for NATO's further expansion, and here we are.

Article wants to have it both ways: West should listen to the concerns of Russia but Russia gets its sphere of influence wishes of Eastern Europeans countries be damned. Also I don't believe for a second that Russia wouldn't have taken steps to return those countries to its sphere of influence as soon as it got back on its feet regardless of NATO expansion.

How is it both ways? Of course Russia wants its sphere of influence. Do you think America would tolerate a Russian sponsored revolution in Mexico? The West should let them have it. Its not a critical national interest for any european country for Ukraine or Belarus to be pulled out of Moscow's orbit. Its just not. They should be satisfied with NATO's current size.

[Kane Starkiller]

What evidence do you have she actually picked him out? As opposed saying who she would have preferred? What evidence do you have that anti Yanukovich protests were orchestrated by the US as opposed to being genuine Ukrainian movement?

Conspiracy theories to support overt military action by Russia.

Then why bring up the fact that Ukrainian government was violently deposed as justification for Crimean annexation?

Are you sure about Ukrainian disdain for NATO?

After Russian annexation of Crimea? After significant contingent of pro Russian voters has been eliminated from Ukrainian political process by Putin himself? Obviously in no way do I think that Ukrainian membership in NATO is in the cards any time soon but recent events could easily end up pushing Ukraine into a closer alliance with US.

NATO expansion westwards was about politically reassuring Eastern European countries that they are truly becoming part of the West.

At the same time NATO forces were drastically reduced. Again: I don't buy this narrative of fearful Russia pushing back against European hordes with 1% GDP military encircling it. If Russia doesn't like the loss of influence, too bad. But there is no real physical threat.

World does not consist of US and Russia. As it happens none of the European countries have a designated sphere of influence. Why should Russia have one? Because US has it? (Don't think I haven't noticed yet another attempt to portray Ukrainian revolution as being orchestrated by US rather than being an indigenous revolution though.)

It happens to be critical for Ukrainian and Belarusian interest not to be in Moscows orbit but actually be able to have choices.

If Russia is obsessed with being in Europe what US is North America that is Russian problem. Don't expect me to agree that that is reasonable.

NOTE: I fucked up in my posting and acccidentally edited this post. I've tried to revert it as best I can but I've lost my quotes in the process. Sorry Kane. - Vympel

[Vympel]

Oh fuck! I accidentally hit edit! Sorry Kane, I'll fix it.

[Vympel]

Now that my posting error has duct tape all over it, what I meant to post:

What evidence do you have she actually picked him out? As opposed saying who she would have preferred? What evidence do you have that anti Yanukovich protests were orchestrated by the US as opposed to being genuine Ukrainian movement?

Who said they weren't "genuine"? Who cares if they were? They don't speak for all Ukraine, and never did. That much is obvious. As for evidence, like I said, its an uncontroversial fact that the US has funnelled billions - literally - into Ukraine for well over a decade. Anyone who thinks that US support for the leaders of the coup doesn't translate into clout over picking who should be in charge is simply naive. This isn't a court of law, this is realpolitik. I can refer you to a host of western diplomats who speak of western interference in Russia's backyard as a fact, because that's what it is. And how right it is that Russia gets to allot itself a backyard is completely besides the point.

Conspiracy theories to support overt military action by Russia.

Simply nonsense. Nothing I've said is controversial.

Then why bring up the fact that Ukrainian government was violently deposed as justification for Crimean annexation?

Because it endangered Russia's interests in Ukraine, particularly their access to Crimea. You will recall that Yuschenko coming to power in 2004 didn't result in annexation of Crimea, no matter how much Russia clearly didn't like it - because it wasn't as flagrantly illegitimate, nor was Yuschenko's party at the time absolutely riven with obvious russophobe neo-nazis.

Are you sure about Ukrainian disdain for NATO?

Yes. Polls have borne it out again and again.

After Russian annexation of Crimea? After significant contingent of pro Russian voters has been eliminated from Ukrainian political process by Putin himself? Obviously in no way do I think that Ukrainian membership in NATO is in the cards any time soon but recent events could easily end up pushing Ukraine into a closer alliance with US.

The south-east/east of Ukraine remains significantly pro-Russian - the contingent of Russian voters removed from the political process isn't enough to tip the scales.

NATO expansion westwards was about politically reassuring Eastern European countries that they are truly becoming part of the West.

Which is an insane reason to do anything. NATO isn't a feel-good social club, its a military alliance with serious military obligations.

At the same time NATO forces were drastically reduced. Again: I don't buy this narrative of fearful Russia pushing back against European hordes with 1% GDP military encircling it. If Russia doesn't like the loss of influence, too bad. But there is no real physical threat.

The Russians don't see it that way - they don't buy NATO being a glorified social club.

World does not consist of US and Russia. As it happens none of the European countries have a designated sphere of influence. Why should Russia have one? Because US has it? (Don't think I haven't noticed yet another attempt to portray Ukrainian revolution as being orchestrated by US rather than being an indigenous revolution though.)

It was supported and legitimised by the US And Europe. I didn't say it was "orchestrated", there's a difference.

And now we're down to brass tacks - spheres of influence. Why should Russia have one? Because it says so, and the influence and force it can bring to bear on its near abroad is greater than the influence and force its opponents can do to oppose it - as Crimea clearly demonstrates. It is what it is - diplomacy isn't about what "should" or "shouldn't" be in accordance with some ethereal principles, its about dealing with reality.

I note you didn't really address what I said about what is and isn't in national interests. Again - is pulling Ukraine and Georgia or Belarus out of Moscow's orbit worth alienating Russia over? For the US, Germany, France etc? The answer is a clear, obvious no.

It happens to be critical for Ukrainian and Belarusian interest not to be in Moscows orbit but actually be able to have choices.

That's too bad for them, unfortunately (though Belarus is a clear ally of Russia, I note).

If Russia is obsessed with being in Europe what US is North America that is Russian problem. Don't expect me to agree that that is reasonable.

That depends on how you define "reasonable". I think its unreasonable to ruin relations with Russia about something that should be totally irrelevant to the national interests of the countries howling about it.

[K. A. Pital]

You are an idiot if you think this was the point. The point was that calling it a valid form of self determination if a foreign power has troops on the ground and legitimizes its actions with a rigged vote done while the troops are still occupying the country such a vote is as much a valid form of self-determination as a war of aggression is a valid form of defending against a certain future attack, meaning none at all.

The validity of the forms of self-determination were never precisely determined in the law. This is why annexation of Goa and separation of Kosovo were possible. None were clean and law-complying to begin with. Note that I did not say any of these incidents are immoral, whereas I clearly said that Russia's oligarchic revanchism is.

Are you so blatantly anti-western that you now subscribe to the theory of might makes right? Because if so, then you have no morals at all. You can take something. Doesn't make it legal, legitimate or even neutral. I thought you would be advocating for aggression to be an immoral force.

I never said it is morally right. I said the legal set-up is a sham which the UNSC members routinely break and might makes right is the de-facto state of things. When I say something is happening, I do not say it is legitimate. I said that the UNSC is a versatile tool used shamelessly to dominate Third World countries by stronger countries (imperialist and subimperialist ones). Does this mean I think it is "legitimate" or "neutral"? What is "neutral" supposed to mean here anyway?

You yourself claimed it would be impossible to distinguish Russians from Ukrainians. How do you know the pro-russian militia driving Russian military trucks and troops with no flags on them (but frequently admitting to Reporters that they are indeed Russian) are not Krimean-controlled groups? The only way to determine the will of the people would be via a fair and free election, the very thing which Russia has not done and never will do.

I meant the people in Donetsk, but of course, there's no way to determine if pro-Russian militia is Russian or Ukrainian. This is what gives Putin deniability, and this tool will be used by both Putin and people with legitimate grievances (I'm sure you wouldn't go too far and deny there are many of those in a bankrupt state that is going to slash its entire social sector to pay the bills as we speak).

But you will probably see the West step up their support of nations like Georgia and Moldova etc.

Give them more guns so that they could attempt to shell Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdniester again?

Hopefully the EU and Nato offer further expansion eastwards to all who are willing to come

But how is this any better than Russia? You are literally saying NATO should expand eastwards. The very same alliance that is directly implicated in several wars of aggression. Or are you of the opinion that Western imperialism is more benigh than the Russian one?

Does a country forfeit its right to territorial integrity when its government is violently deposed?

No. But historically that happened every single time. With Russia too. Also Yugoslavia. China. Well, anyone who was weak enough and had a violent change of government and then was taken apart by rival imperialists. This is what will happen here. Europe will take over the West, Russia will devour Crimea and maybe some more parts if Ukraine simply falls apart and bullets start flying. Not a good scenario, but can happen.

I view it as a change in status quo since Russia already de facto controlled Crimea since 1991.

Not really, but yes, Crimea's autonomy was established early on and Ukraine did want to go to war over it in the early 1990s. If it did, Crimea would probably already be a part of Russia.

[Vympel]

what to say of Putin? Well, he's the autocrat of an oligarchy/kleptocracy. His stoking of eurasianism and ethnonationalism is dangerous. Russia deserves a better leader. But any remotely competent leader would've done what Putin did in this scenario, I believe. Its illegal - yes. But Russia's interests are clear, and the harm inflicted is quite minor in comparison to other armed interventions all over the world. What we term "the West" isn't blameless in this affair - numerous western commentators and diplomats have acknowledged that fact. And where Russian nationalism is on the rise, the West gives cover to neo-Nazis in the new Ukrainian "government". But things need to quieten down. A way to reach an accomodation between all parties is as follows:

1. Ukraine's plainly illegitimate government be relegated to caretaker status only, and take no steps of any significance until new elections are held.

2. Russia's claims to Crimea be left alone, and pointless, retaliatory and ineffective sanctions be ceased. They do nothing to change behavior and will only make the parties levying them look weak, while giving the Russian government more undeserved popular support due to the ratcheting up of a siege mentality. The New Yorker joked that America is going to revoke Putin's netflix account next.

The reality is that it serves no one's interests to fuck relations between Russia and the west over this. It'll hurt everyone and change nothing.

3. Europe and Russia get together with the elected government of Ukraine and basically come to an understanding about the "Finlandization" of Ukraine, as has been proposed in the past.

[K. A. Pital]

Ukraine will never agree to "finlandization" or dual-language status under the current or future government. It is pointless. Let Ukraine just go away and enjoy the vacchanalia of uncontrolled armed nazi mob forming "National Guard" units for a while.

Russian nationalists are simply a very sorry picture right now. Not too many people know that Russian nationalists were, prior to the events, in strong opposition to Putin due to "uncontrolled migration from Central Asia" and, of course, Chechnya ('stop paying to Kadyrov the bandit!'). Now they change colors: "Save Russians in the Ukraine!"

As for me, plague on both of their houses. All nationalists, fascists and nazis should just crawl back to their neanderthal caves. Too long has the world turned a blind eye to the "slide to the right". Let them rule and be merry for a while. Payback will come.

In 1914, Russia was awash with feelings of patriotism, sending million after million into the imperialist war slaughterhouse. Opposition parties at that time couldn't even be heard. Two years later the army was falling apart, units refused to follow orders and the offensives ended with nothing, one year later came the great revolution. Us dissenting voices just have to wait, payback will come with the the post-triumph hangover next year.

[Vympel]

Ukraine will never agree to "finlandization" or dual-language status under the current or future government. It is pointless. Let Ukraine just go away and enjoy the vacchanalia of uncontrolled armed nazi mob forming "National Guard" units for a while.

Russian nationalists are simply a very sorry picture right now. Not too many people know that Russian nationalists were, prior to the events, in strong opposition to Putin due to "uncontrolled migration from Central Asia" and, of course, Chechnya ('stop paying to Kadyrov the bandit!'). Now they change colors: "Save Russians in the Ukraine!"

As for me, plague on both of their houses. All nationalists, fascists and nazis should just crawl back to their neanderthal caves. Too long has the world turned a blind eye to the "slide to the right". Let them rule and be merry for a while. Payback will come.

In 1914, Russia was awash with feelings of patriotism, sending million after million into the imperialist war slaughterhouse. Opposition parties at that time couldn't even be heard. Two years later the army was falling apart, units refused to follow orders and the offensives ended with nothing, one year later came the great revolution. Us dissenting voices just have to wait, payback will come with the the post-triumph hangover next year.

Do you think anything will happen next year, though? It seems unlikely. Not to mention there doesn't appear to be the equivalent of a national catastrophe like WW1 in the offing.

EDIT: I'm reminded again of Robert Gates saying that, when the USSR broke apart, Dick Cheney wanted to break up Russia itself. I don't see how a revolution amongst a country with nukes would be anything other than very, very dangerous - especially with fuckers like Cheney on the outside, hoping to balkanize Russia.

Anyway, from the National Interest, more decent commentary:

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... ?page=show

The violation of this core principle in Ukraine reflects a colossal misjudgment. The illegal action made possible something that could never have been the product of a peaceful electoral victory. Occupying the new government are members of Ukraine’s far right, who have taken on a very handsome portfolio centered on the coercive power of the state: defense ministry, prosecutor, national-security council.

The Western reporters and commentators who have deigned to take notice of this development have been minimizing the significance of the Svoboda Party and Right Sector in the government. They are mistaken. The sequence of events that brought these elements to a powerful position is the very definition of a devil’s bargain, one which the civil-society contingent in both Ukraine and America will live to regret.

What defines the extreme right in the Ukrainian context? I think it should be understood in terms of men who have lived their mental lives preoccupied with atrocious victimization and redemptive acts of violence. The cult of Stepan Bandera, whence Svoboda springs, is all about that. The European project, by contrast, is all about the transcendence of that mode of understanding and existence.

The Russians are phobic about Svoboda and Right Sector, who in turn are phobic about the Russians. The Russians have not faced such a group under any Ukrainian administration of the last twenty-three years. In an election, even a mismanaged and corrupt one, the Russians would in all probability not have faced that prospect in the future. Because of Ukraine’s beautiful revolution, because nine months is an eternity, they now do.

The demonstrations that began in November (after Yanukovych nixed the EU’s offer and went with Russia’s) were entirely peaceful. Svoboda was marginal. The civil-society “let’s join Europe” crowd dismissed the participation of the far right as bothersome, but insignificant, considering their extreme minority status. They had never polled more than 10 percent in national elections; of course they were anathema in the East.

Gradually, their presence enlarged; the crowd surrendered much of its skepticism toward a group that had courage and had faced in common the privations of the camp. The firebombs of Right Sector followed, producing the expected delegitimating counterreaction by the regime; the necessary provocation occurred. Suddenly these paramilitary groups, which had previously been entirely marginal in the politics of this multiethnic nation, have the approval of Maidan and an unassailable claim to the security portfolios of the government. Maidan accorded them legitimacy because it was they who faced down the hated president and at the moment of truth made him go.

The Russians have called it a coup d’etat, and have been ignored or ridiculed in the West. Unfortunately, they have an excellent case to make on that score. In Russia’s somewhat boorish calculations, its subsequent actions in Crimea doubtless represented a meeting of force with force, and in a roughly proportional manner (for Svoboda was taking over governmental installations in western Ukraine before Yanukovych fell). The better the Russian case is, the more they are likely to feel self-righteous; that is going to influence their conduct.

The West has regarded Russia’s fears and calculations as hallucinatory and condemned Russia for the most brazen act of territorial aggression in modern times. The gap in perspective between Russia and America—increasingly, between Russia and the West—is enormous.

The Russians need to turn away from force and toward diplomacy, but for that to occur they need an interlocutor in the West who acknowledges their grievance. They have none.

Ukraine's far right occupying the cabinet positions that control Ukraine's coercive powers is scary shit indeed. If there is to be a war that springs from crimes against Ukraine's pro-Russian population - it'll come from there.

[Kane Starkiller]

Who said they weren't "genuine"? Who cares if they were? They don't speak for all Ukraine, and never did. That much is obvious. As for evidence, like I said, its an uncontroversial fact that the US has funnelled billions - literally - into Ukraine for well over a decade. Anyone who thinks that US support for the leaders of the coup doesn't translate into clout over picking who should be in charge is simply naive. This isn't a court of law, this is realpolitik. I can refer you to a host of western diplomats who speak of western interference in Russia's backyard as a fact, because that's what it is. And how right it is that Russia gets to allot itself a backyard is completely besides the point.

They don't have to speak for all of Ukraine. Just the majority of the people. Obviously violently toppling a government is not a good thing and this is why elections should be held as soon as possible.
And again with wanting to have your cake and eat it too: west shouldn't interfere in Russsias back yard but don't ask how Russia got its back yard.

Because it endangered Russia's interests in Ukraine, particularly their access to Crimea. You will recall that Yuschenko coming to power in 2004 didn't result in annexation of Crimea, no matter how much Russia clearly didn't like it - because it wasn't as flagrantly illegitimate, nor was Yuschenko's party at the time absolutely riven with obvious russophobe neo-nazis.

They didn't have an excuse you mean. As I said: violent revolution within a country doesn't make its right to territorial integrity null and void. Therefore Russian moves constitute an aggression, as much as that aggression was more a confirmation of Russian de facto control of Crimea. Sure we all understand that Crimea and Sevastopol are strategically important for Russia, it was still an aggression.

Yes. Polls have borne it out again and again.

The support for NATO a few years ago was 25%-30%. What is the support now after annexation of Crimea?

The south-east/east of Ukraine remains significantly pro-Russian - the contingent of Russian voters removed from the political process isn't enough to tip the scales.

Really? Yanukovich won by a margin of less than million votes in 2010. How many Russian oriented voters were removed by Crimean annexation? I would say that assembling pro Russian government will be much harder than it was before.

Which is an insane reason to do anything. NATO isn't a feel-good social club, its a military alliance with serious military obligations.

There were definitely risks associated with NATO expansion, namely credibility since it is not very likely NATO would go to war with Russia over Estonia. On the other hand it demonstrated to Estonia that West is committed to it and it makes Russia think twice about any aggressive military moves towards it.

The Russians don't see it that way - they don't buy NATO being a glorified social club.

NATO isn't a glorified social club. Not counting US and speaking strictly in terms of military size and equipment it also isn't more powerful than it was in 1991 relative to USSR because of the massive drawdown of forces in Europe and because all the NATO newcomers, except perhaps for Poland, don't have a military to speak of. Therefore Russia is lying through its teeth when it says its actions are caused by genuine fears of security due to NATO expansion rather than general loss of influence and power in the region.

It was supported and legitimised by the US And Europe. I didn't say it was "orchestrated", there's a difference.

And now we're down to brass tacks - spheres of influence. Why should Russia have one? Because it says so, and the influence and force it can bring to bear on its near abroad is greater than the influence and force its opponents can do to oppose it - as Crimea clearly demonstrates. It is what it is - diplomacy isn't about what "should" or "shouldn't" be in accordance with some ethereal principles, its about dealing with reality.

I note you didn't really address what I said about what is and isn't in national interests. Again - is pulling Ukraine and Georgia or Belarus out of Moscow's orbit worth alienating Russia over? For the US, Germany, France etc? The answer is a clear, obvious no.

Crimea was a special case: Russian military was already there. Is it in the national interest of US, Germany and France to pull Ukraine out of Russias sphere of influence? Of course it is. The question is only how important it is to them and what price do they have to pay. With the recent events Ukraine pretty much fell into their lap. If it remains pro western that is the end of any Russian attempts to expand its influence eastwards. Clearly no significant sanctions against Russia are on the cards which means that Germany, France and US will keep doing business with Russia while at the same time try to consolidate and support Ukraine as a western oriented country. Relatively limited risks with huge potential gains.

That's too bad for them, unfortunately (though Belarus is a clear ally of Russia, I note).

Well if its bad for them surely you can't be opposed to them trying to change their lot in life if they so choose. Or seeking and accepting outside help.

That depends on how you define "reasonable". I think its unreasonable to ruin relations with Russia about something that should be totally irrelevant to the national interests of the countries howling about it.

Checking in Russias attempts to dominate the region right at Russias borders is actually not irrelevant. It is actually quite a bonus for European countries and somewhat for US. If they have a historical chance to do it, as they have now, why not?

[stormthebeaches]

I would just like to add that all these rants about Ukrainian neo-nazis is quite hypocritical from Russia, seeing how invading other countries on trumped up charges that the Russ- sorry, German minority was being mistreated is exactly how Hitler got started. Not to mention, annexing Crimea will only strengthen said anti-Russia far right groups. After all, it becomes a lot easier to convince people that Russia is out to hurt your country, when Russia has just annexed a good chunk off it in a rigged referendum.

[K. A. Pital]

I would just like to add that all these rants about Ukrainian neo-nazis is quite hypocritical from Russia, seeing how invading other countries on trumped up charges that the Russ- sorry, German minority was being mistreated is exactly how Hitler got started. Not to mention, annexing Crimea will only strengthen said anti-Russia far right groups. After all, it becomes a lot easier to convince people that Russia is out to hurt your country, when Russia has just annexed a good chunk off it in a rigged referendum.

America invaded Iraq, but last time I heard, America is not controlled by real fascists and nazis. On the other hand, Greece's Golden Dawn and Ukraine's Parubiy with Right Sector and Svoboda right behind him are real fascists and real nazis. You are missing the point if you think that fascism is all about invading other countries, it is much more than that. Of course, annexations do strengthen the right, but sometimes they weaken it later (Portuguese fascism collapsed under the weight of colonial wars). In some cases it is best to give the public a taste of fascism for some years if it so desires. It will then spit it out after a while.

Also is it absolutely irrelevant if Russia takes Crimea or not: Russia has commited to economic destruction of the Ukraine by revoking the gas discount that was given for loyalty of Ukraine's leadership, and therefore Ukrainian nationalists will have ammunition and appeal to this when Ukraine's economy implodes even more violently than the current slow rot and death. Ukraine will be economically annihilated and taken apart by greater powers. Welcome to 2014, just like 1914.

Obviously violently toppling a government is not a good thing and this is why elections should be held as soon as possible.

That's why the moved the elections from May to December. After all, legitimacy is important, but giving the neofascists more time in government is priceless.

And again with wanting to have your cake and eat it too: west shouldn't interfere in Russsias back yard but don't ask how Russia got its back yard.

In the same way the United States got Texas. Or all the other land, for that matter.

Therefore Russia is lying through its teeth when it says its actions are caused by genuine fears of security due to NATO expansion rather than general loss of influence and power in the region.

Because putting ABM right next to one's border is just meant to make Russia more secure. I mean, Russia is clearly being an imperialist dickhead, but how does this excuse all the other imperialist dickheads all of a sudden?

[Vympel]

They don't have to speak for all of Ukraine. Just the majority of the people. Obviously violently toppling a government is not a good thing and this is why elections should be held as soon as possible.
And again with wanting to have your cake and eat it too: west shouldn't interfere in Russsias back yard but don't ask how Russia got its back yard.

How Russia got its back yard is irrelevant - it is unquestionably its backyard. Whose back yard is Ukraine, if not Russia? No one of any significant power or influence.

They didn't have an excuse you mean. As I said: violent revolution within a country doesn't make its right to territorial integrity null and void. Therefore Russian moves constitute an aggression, as much as that aggression was more a confirmation of Russian de facto control of Crimea. Sure we all understand that Crimea and Sevastopol are strategically important for Russia, it was still an aggression.

Of course it was aggression. But no, I don't accept "they didn't have an excuse" as the reason why they did nothing in the so-called Orange Revolution. Russia didn't move to take Crimea because its position in Crimea was not under threat. The Ukrainian political process continued as normal (for Ukraine, anyway), Yuschenko's government fell into disrepute, Yankuvoych won in free and fair elections (acknowledged as such by all) several years later, and Russia's access to the Crimea was extended from 2017 through to 2042. The coup endangered all of that. Your chracterisation of Russia as just waiting for an excuse to take back Crimea is just paranoia, and not borne out of 23 years of post-Soviet history.

The support for NATO a few years ago was 25%-30%. What is the support now after annexation of Crimea?

I don't know, do you? But if you think the Russian speaking east would've changed its position to be more pro-NATO, you're wrong. They're a significant portion of the population. Their wishes can't realistically be ignored.

Really? Yanukovich won by a margin of less than million votes in 2010. How many Russian oriented voters were removed by Crimean annexation? I would say that assembling pro Russian government will be much harder than it was before.

Yanukovych was a leader tainted by the events of 2004 back in 2010, and he still won. You're fooling yourself if you think his personal performance in the 2010 elections is a reliable indicator of the pro-Russian position in Ukraine in perpetuity.

There were definitely risks associated with NATO expansion, namely credibility since it is not very likely NATO would go to war with Russia over Estonia. On the other hand it demonstrated to Estonia that West is committed to it and it makes Russia think twice about any aggressive military moves towards it.

Its a great deal for Estonia, its true. How is it a good deal for the rest of NATO?

NATO isn't a glorified social club. Not counting US and speaking strictly in terms of military size and equipment it also isn't more powerful than it was in 1991 relative to USSR because of the massive drawdown of forces in Europe and because all the NATO newcomers, except perhaps for Poland, don't have a military to speak of. Therefore Russia is lying through its teeth when it says its actions are caused by genuine fears of security due to NATO expansion rather than general loss of influence and power in the region.

Nonsense. Neither Rusisa - nor any other country- is going to assess its security situation with respect to a military alliance up against its borders purely by way of a here and now assessment of the military strength of its members. Its got to think about the future as well. The inability to see the situation from Russia's point of view perpetuates these tensions - the USSR disbanded itself and withdrew from Europe, and yet for some reason a military alliance continues to come ever closer to its territory - while the leader of that alliance has since 2002 promoted missile defence that could conceivably harm Russia's deterrent in the future. Of course that's threatening.

Crimea was a special case: Russian military was already there. Is it in the national interest of US, Germany and France to pull Ukraine out of Russias sphere of influence? Of course it is. The question is only how important it is to them and what price do they have to pay. With the recent events Ukraine pretty much fell into their lap. If it remains pro western that is the end of any Russian attempts to expand its influence eastwards. Clearly no significant sanctions against Russia are on the cards which means that Germany, France and US will keep doing business with Russia while at the same time try to consolidate and support Ukraine as a western oriented country. Relatively limited risks with huge potential gains.

Not really, no. Ukraine hasn't fallen into their lap- its run by an illegitimate government that is riven with dissent in the east, and Russia maintains a complete economic stranglehold via energy supplies that cannot (despite uncommercial fantasies about American gas being promulgated by bloviating idiots) be replaced. Further, the risks aren't limited. The west depends on Russian cooperation on a host of pressing international issues, including Syria and Iran. Russia has already indicated that it will use force to ensure Ukraine doesn't leave its influence. The Crimea "demonstration" lays out how far they're willing to go if pressed. Further attempts to draw Ukraine into the Western fold will be met with Russian opposition, and the risk of permanent damage to the relationship with Russia. That relationship is simply more important than Ukraine. Therefore, it is not in their interests to keep pressing the issue.

Well if its bad for them surely you can't be opposed to them trying to change their lot in life if they so choose. Or seeking and accepting outside help.

Sure - within reason, so long as it doesn't precipitate a major international crisis because of dilettante fools with no appreciation for geopolitics making deals that will destabilise the region. Russia's power in this regard is an undeniable and immutable fact on the ground. Any attempts to do an end run around it, without accomodating its concerns, are doomed to fail and risk releasing chaos.

Checking in Russias attempts to dominate the region right at Russias borders is actually not irrelevant. It is actually quite a bonus for European countries and somewhat for US. If they have a historical chance to do it, as they have now, why not?

That's a highly prejudicial construction, and again, indicative of the mindset whereby only the opponent is ever in the wrong. The Russians can quite justifiably say that it is the West that is trying to dominate the region right at Russia's borders. But no, there's no compelling national interest for Europe or the US in Ukraine, and never was. "Hurts Russia" is not an end in and of itself, and this "zero-sum game" mentality is fundamentally wrong.

[Kane Starkiller]

That's why the moved the elections from May to December. After all, legitimacy is important, but giving the neofascists more time in government is priceless.

I haven't heard anything about that. In any case simply declaring them neofascists in hopes they will be equated with actual fascists of WW2 who actually killed millions is nothing but cheap propaganda in the context of justifying Russian aggression and possible further aggression on Ukrainian territory.

In the same way the United States got Texas. Or all the other land, for that matter.

We are talking about sovereign nations acting independently from Russia. Texas has nothing to do with this since no one has questioned Russian right to territorial integrity.

Because putting ABM right next to one's border is just meant to make Russia more secure. I mean, Russia is clearly being an imperialist dickhead, but how does this excuse all the other imperialist dickheads all of a sudden?

Defending your ally against a possible nuclear strike is not an imperialist dickhead move in and of itself. Nor is there any realistic hope of country like Romania ever being secure from Russian nuclear strike. If Russia can't accept the world in which it can't turn eastern Europe to ash completely effortlessly but has to work for it a bit then there is only one imperialist dickhead I can see.

How Russia got its back yard is irrelevant - it is unquestionably its backyard. Whose back yard is Ukraine, if not Russia? No one of any significant power or influence.

When you say unquestionably do you mean in moral or practical terms? If moral terms then I don't accept it. If practical then clearly not true since Ukraines orientation is being decided as we speak.

Of course it was aggression. But no, I don't accept "they didn't have an excuse" as the reason why they did nothing in the so-called Orange Revolution. Russia didn't move to take Crimea because its position in Crimea was not under threat. The Ukrainian political process continued as normal (for Ukraine, anyway), Yuschenko's government fell into disrepute, Yankuvoych won in free and fair elections (acknowledged as such by all) several years later, and Russia's access to the Crimea was extended from 2017 through to 2042. The coup endangered all of that. Your chracterisation of Russia as just waiting for an excuse to take back Crimea is just paranoia, and not borne out of 23 years of post-Soviet history.

It is not paranoia since it was demonstrated quite clearly in recent events. Russia was satisfied with Crimea being Ukrainian as long as it was actually Russian. As soon as there was a a possibility that it could actually become Ukrainian they annexed it. It was aggression pure and simple and nothing that Ukrainian government has done justifies it.

I don't know, do you? But if you think the Russian speaking east would've changed its position to be more pro-NATO, you're wrong. They're a significant portion of the population. Their wishes can't realistically be ignored.

I doubt that parts of Ukraine that are pro Russian and inhabited by Russians will change their minds obviously. That doesn't mean external policy of the country should be dictated by the minority. I fully expect Russia will make further moves aimed at destabilization of the east, maybe even invade. If it does it will be another act of aggression this time far more serious and heinous.

Yanukovych was a leader tainted by the events of 2004 back in 2010, and he still won. You're fooling yourself if you think his personal performance in the 2010 elections is a reliable indicator of the pro-Russian position in Ukraine in perpetuity.

Yanukovich won 12,848,528 votes in 2004 rerun election and 12,481,266 votes in 2010 elections. Substract Crimean votes (if they truly are 96% pro Russian as in referendum) and you have problems for a pro Russian option. Nothing is certain of course. About 30% of voters didn't vote so the question is how they break down.

Its a great deal for Estonia, its true. How is it a good deal for the rest of NATO?

Not as good as for Estonia that's for sure. But it's always a question of exposing yourself to the other side versus size and in depth defense.

Nonsense. Neither Rusisa - nor any other country- is going to assess its security situation with respect to a military alliance up against its borders purely by way of a here and now assessment of the military strength of its members. Its got to think about the future as well. The inability to see the situation from Russia's point of view perpetuates these tensions - the USSR disbanded itself and withdrew from Europe, and yet for some reason a military alliance continues to come ever closer to its territory - while the leader of that alliance has since 2002 promoted missile defence that could conceivably harm Russia's deterrent in the future. Of course that's threatening.

I disagree. Localy Russia vastly outstrips the strengths of any combination of Eastern European countries now and in the future. Creating a common economic and political space in Europe also requires physical security for its members hence NATO expansion. Again: there is no conceivable military threat to Russia. What Russia dislikes is the loss of influence and domination over half of Europe.

Not really, no. Ukraine hasn't fallen into their lap- its run by an illegitimate government that is riven with dissent in the east, and Russia maintains a complete economic stranglehold via energy supplies that cannot (despite uncommercial fantasies about American gas being promulgated by bloviating idiots) be replaced. Further, the risks aren't limited. The west depends on Russian cooperation on a host of pressing international issues, including Syria and Iran. Russia has already indicated that it will use force to ensure Ukraine doesn't leave its influence. The Crimea "demonstration" lays out how far they're willing to go if pressed. Further attempts to draw Ukraine into the Western fold will be met with Russian opposition, and the risk of permanent damage to the relationship with Russia. That relationship is simply more important than Ukraine. Therefore, it is not in their interests to keep pressing the issue.

As I said: there won't be any real sanctions to Russia since Ukraine isn't that critical. At the same time Russia won't unilateraly stop providing Europe with energy since that money is critical for Russia. There will however be support for the current Ukrainian government. Whether that will succeed or whether Russia might ultimately annex parts of eastern Ukraine or regain control over the entire Ukraine remains to be seen. In any case Russia needs a friendly West more than West needs a friendly Russia so neither side will escalate this into open economic warfare even as they both fight for influence in Ukraine.
What also cannot be ignored are the feelings of Ukrainians themselves. If there is an actual pro western sentiment among the majority of the Ukrainian population this will make the job for Russia extremely hard and that much easier for the west.

Sure - within reason, so long as it doesn't precipitate a major international crisis because of dilettante fools with no appreciation for geopolitics making deals that will destabilise the region. Russia's power in this regard is an undeniable and immutable fact on the ground. Any attempts to do an end run around it, without accomodating its concerns, are doomed to fail and risk releasing chaos.

How are they immutable when there is an anti Russian government in Kiev? Clearly not all has been said with regards to Ukraine.

That's a highly prejudicial construction, and again, indicative of the mindset whereby only the opponent is ever in the wrong. The Russians can quite justifiably say that it is the West that is trying to dominate the region right at Russia's borders. But no, there's no compelling national interest for Europe or the US in Ukraine, and never was. "Hurts Russia" is not an end in and of itself, and this "zero-sum game" mentality is fundamentally wrong.

There is only one side talking about spheres of influence and brotherly nations and historical inseparability and only that side is engaging in zero sum mentality. Hurt Russia and Keep Russian Imperialstic goals in check are two different things. Russia is by far the most secure country in Europe and its demands for deference on its borders are naked imperialism nothing more. The West consists of many nations and no nation is claiming Eastern Europe or Ukraine as a special zone of interest the way Russia does. Therefore Russia is quite clearly in the wrong as it demands special limitations on what countries in its periphery are allowed to do.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not declaring them neofascists because neofascists did not invade Russia and kill millions. In fact neofascists in Greece, Chile, Indonesia have not killed a single Russian. Nonetheless they are neofascists, and it is pointless to claim otherwise.

Romania wants to annex the entirety of Moldova, but Russia does not really threaten to bomb Romania because of that. Russia can nuke Eastern Europe easily, ABM or not. It is only the United States for whom Europe will serve as a giant nuclear sponge, who might feel more secure with ABM. For Eastern Europe it is useful, the warning time is too small.

You asked how Russia got its backyard - the answer us for hundreds of years Ukraine and Russia were not separate states but one. Ukraine only exists thanks to the bolshevik idea of creating national republics and vesting them with sovereign power. The Russian Empire, much like the US, did no such thing, and regions were simply consumec into Russia wholesale, or left as colonies in case of Poland and Finland. Ukraine was no colony but Russia proper.

[Vympel]

When you say unquestionably do you mean in moral or practical terms? If moral terms then I don't accept it. If practical then clearly not true since Ukraines orientation is being decided as we speak.

If we were talking morals then every country in the world would mind its own business and there would be no great powers lording it over anyone else. That's not the case. I'm speaking in practical terms. As for Ukraine's orientation, I predict nothing significant will change. People thought the 2004 Orange Revolution was the end of Russian influence in Ukraine too, remember? Turns out it wasn't.

It is not paranoia since it was demonstrated quite clearly in recent events. Russia was satisfied with Crimea being Ukrainian as long as it was actually Russian. As soon as there was a a possibility that it could actually become Ukrainian they annexed it. It was aggression pure and simple and nothing that Ukrainian government has done justifies it.

? How does what you just said contradict my argument? You asserted that the Russians were just "waiting for an excuse" to take Crimea. Now you've turned around and agreed with me, which is that Russia saw no need to take Crimea so long as it wasn't endangered - which is clearly true. These two things are mutually exclusive positions, they can't both be true.

As for nothing the Ukrainian government doing justifiying the taking of Crimea, that's true. Fortunately, as far as "aggression" goes this was one of the friendliest, most well run and painless acts of aggression in human history. So the moral outrage is a bit - well - comical. Bonus points since Crimea rightly belongs to Russia anyway, for what 200 years of history is worth vs the illegal (even by the standards of the USSR) dictates of Khruschev.

I doubt that parts of Ukraine that are pro Russian and inhabited by Russians will change their minds obviously. That doesn't mean external policy of the country should be dictated by the minority. I fully expect Russia will make further moves aimed at destabilization of the east, maybe even invade. If it does it will be another act of aggression this time far more serious and heinous.

That depends on the circumstances. We have Svoboda turning its Banderite street thugs into a "national guard" now. They'd be useless against the Russian Army, but they'd be great at suppressing dissent in the East. If that happens, the Russian army moving in to crush them and depose the government isn't the most heinous thing imaginable.

Yanukovich won 12,848,528 votes in 2004 rerun election and 12,481,266 votes in 2010 elections. Substract Crimean votes (if they truly are 96% pro Russian as in referendum) and you have problems for a pro Russian option. Nothing is certain of course. About 30% of voters didn't vote so the question is how they break down.

Well I don't see how that really changes what I said. If anything the vote reflects Yanukovych's narrow base of support following the events of 2004.

Not as good as for Estonia that's for sure. But it's always a question of exposing yourself to the other side versus size and in depth defense.

What do you mean? Are you saying they allowed Estonia / Lithuania and Latvia to join NATO to provide an "in depth" defence against Russia? If so, why would anyone assume Russia wants to attack NATO, post USSR breakup?

I disagree. Localy Russia vastly outstrips the strengths of any combination of Eastern European countries now and in the future. Creating a common economic and political space in Europe also requires physical security for its members hence NATO expansion. Again: there is no conceivable military threat to Russia. What Russia dislikes is the loss of influence and domination over half of Europe.

Why are you only talking about a combination of Eastern European countries? We're talking about their admission into NATO, aren't we? In which case the question is not Russia vs them, but Russia vs all of NATO, which is clearly a losing battle for Russia. This is clearly a threat to Russia.

The problem is here that you assume that Russia wants to attack Eastern Europe but refuse to countenance the idea that Russia fears an attack from NATO. And "there is no conceivable military threat to Russia" is simply counterfactual. US efforts at missile defence continue. Missile defence is a danger to Russia's deterrent. We know that the US and its allies would love nothing more than to formet a "colour revolution" within Russia itself. These are all threats.

As I said: there won't be any real sanctions to Russia since Ukraine isn't that critical. At the same time Russia won't unilateraly stop providing Europe with energy since that money is critical for Russia. There will however be support for the current Ukrainian government. Whether that will succeed or whether Russia might ultimately annex parts of eastern Ukraine or regain control over the entire Ukraine remains to be seen. In any case Russia needs a friendly West more than West needs a friendly Russia so neither side will escalate this into open economic warfare even as they both fight for influence in Ukraine.
What also cannot be ignored are the feelings of Ukrainians themselves. If there is an actual pro western sentiment among the majority of the Ukrainian population this will make the job for Russia extremely hard and that much easier for the west.

Back in 2008, I posted an article from Kommersant which I didn't take too seriously at the time. It was a purported conversation between Putin and Dubya. Its contents are prescient.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 61701.html

President Vladimir Putin hinted at last week's NATO summit in Romania that Russia would work to break up Ukraine, should the former Soviet republic join the military alliance, Kommersant reported Monday.

Putin "lost his temper" at the NATO-Russia Council in Bucharest during Friday's discussions of Ukraine's bid to join NATO, Kommersant cited an unidentified foreign delegate to the summit as saying.

"Do you understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state!" Putin told U.S. President George W. Bush at the closed meeting, the diplomat told Kommersant.

After saying most of Ukraine's territory was "given away" by Russia, Putin said that if Ukraine joined NATO it would cease to exist as a state, the diplomat said.

Putin threatened to encourage the secession of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where anti-NATO and pro-Moscow sentiment is strong, the diplomat said, Kommersant reported.

...

France, Germany and several other NATO members opposed putting Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward NATO to avoid provoking Russia, and the alliance postponed consideration of their eventual membership.

I think given this year's events, we can take this article to be accurate. If the west of Ukraine does want to go west, then it appears they will be doing so without the east.

How are they immutable when there is an anti Russian government in Kiev? Clearly not all has been said with regards to Ukraine.

Because the anti-Russian government in Kiev got a bit of their country torn off. I didn't say Russian power over Ukraine was absolute, but it exists, and isn't going anywhere. Hence chaos.

There is only one side talking about spheres of influence and brotherly nations and historical inseparability and only that side is engaging in zero sum mentality.

How are Russia's actions in Ukraine indicative of a zero-sum mentality? Its interests were clearly endangered and it acted to defend them. Regardless of the morality or legality of those actions, these weren't some pointless attempt to thumb its nose at the West.

Hurt Russia and Keep Russian Imperialstic goals in check are two different things. Russia is by far the most secure country in Europe and its demands for deference on its borders are naked imperialism nothing more. The West consists of many nations and no nation is claiming Eastern Europe or Ukraine as a special zone of interest the way Russia does. Therefore Russia is quite clearly in the wrong as it demands special limitations on what countries in its periphery are allowed to do.

Russian Imperialism? You're joking, right? We're going to lambast Russia for "imperialism" for refusing to countenance the possibility of Ukraine - a border area of Russia and not even a fictional state until the USSR, becoming hostile? When it let all of Eastern Europe go? That's not an "empire" by any means. The west's imperialism is both more apparent, more egregiously presumptuous, and obviously, objectively more violent. Its not Russia that forcibly dismembered Serbia, that was NATO. Its not Russia that destroyed Libya, it was NATO. Its not Russia that destroyed Iraq, it was America. The way nations conduct themselves in their past affiars is remembered by other nations, like Russia, who aren't part of the hypocritical Freedomizer club. Its actions like the above that make the assertion that Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO all the more comical.

In any event, Russia being "in the wrong" by a moral principle about nations not being dominated by others is immaterial. Russia's attitude is a reality and its not going anywhere. Since Russia is too powerful to be attacked or marginalized, the only option is diplomacy and accomodation.

[Kane Starkiller]

I am not declaring them neofascists because neofascists did not invade Russia and kill millions. In fact neofascists in Greece, Chile, Indonesia have not killed a single Russian. Nonetheless they are neofascists, and it is pointless to claim otherwise.

But you are equating the two with "pox be on both their houses". Ukraine didn't invade Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine. You are attempting to claim they are all equally bad because they are fascists even though Ukrainian government hasn't actually done anything comparable to what Russia has done.

Romania wants to annex the entirety of Moldova, but Russia does not really threaten to bomb Romania because of that. Russia can nuke Eastern Europe easily, ABM or not. It is only the United States for whom Europe will serve as a giant nuclear sponge, who might feel more secure with ABM. For Eastern Europe it is useful, the warning time is too small.

If there is a referendum in Moldova and majority of the population wants to accede to Romania then there is no problem. If Romania tries to invade and forcibly annex Moldova then there should be a military intervention against Romania. But the chances of this happening are next to nonexistent.
Eastern Europe will obviously never be able to fully defend from a Russian attack (a fact you might want to remember next time you speak about encirclement by the mighty European forces) but existence of an ABM shield will complicate matters for Russia and escalate the issue in case of an attack. That is the best these countries can hope fore short of simply acquiescing to any Russian demand.

You asked how Russia got its backyard - the answer us for hundreds of years Ukraine and Russia were not separate states but one. Ukraine only exists thanks to the bolshevik idea of creating national republics and vesting them with sovereign power. The Russian Empire, much like the US, did no such thing, and regions were simply consumec into Russia wholesale, or left as colonies in case of Poland and Finland. Ukraine was no colony but Russia proper.

I know the history. Whatever the history Ukraine is now a sovereign state with its own national identity that separated in a referendum which was fully legal and without foreign troops occupying it. Either Russia respects sovereign rights of other countries or it is engaging in imperialism.

If we were talking morals then every country in the world would mind its own business and there would be no great powers lording it over anyone else. That's not the case. I'm speaking in practical terms. As for Ukraine's orientation, I predict nothing significant will change. People thought the 2004 Orange Revolution was the end of Russian influence in Ukraine too, remember? Turns out it wasn't.

Russia will always have some measure of influence over Ukraine since they are neighbors. Russia has a measure of influence over Germany. The question is how much. Enough to stop Ukraine from gradually moving closer to west?

? How does what you just said contradict my argument? You asserted that the Russians were just "waiting for an excuse" to take Crimea. Now you've turned around and agreed with me, which is that Russia saw no need to take Crimea so long as it wasn't endangered - which is clearly true. These two things are mutually exclusive positions, they can't both be true.

As for nothing the Ukrainian government doing justifiying the taking of Crimea, that's true. Fortunately, as far as "aggression" goes this was one of the friendliest, most well run and painless acts of aggression in human history. So the moral outrage is a bit - well - comical. Bonus points since Crimea rightly belongs to Russia anyway, for what 200 years of history is worth vs the illegal (even by the standards of the USSR) dictates of Khruschev.

I didn't mean that since 2000 Putin went to bed praying that Ukraine would make a rash move so he can invade Crimea. I mean that Russia never accepted Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea and that any Ukrainian moves to the west would result the way they did. In other word whether it was "neo-fascists" in power or hippies Ukrainian move closer to west results in annexation of Crimea with official excuse being whatever they could think of. It was not a genuine reaction to supposed prosecution of the Russians.
Crimea was legally Ukrainian every bit as Kaliningrad was Russian. Who asked anyone in USSR what republic they want to live in when borders were drawn? For all the cries of nationalism and fascism Russian propaganda sure loves to point out that Khrushchev was a Ukrainian as if that somehow invalidates the internationally recognized Ukrainian borders.
Also just because Russian forces in Crimea was so overwhelmingly powerful compared to local Ukrainian forces that they could overtake it without a shot fired doesn't make it OK. Not even if your new attorney general is Natalia Poklonskaya. Well OK maybe a little.

That depends on the circumstances. We have Svoboda turning its Banderite street thugs into a "national guard" now. They'd be useless against the Russian Army, but they'd be great at suppressing dissent in the East. If that happens, the Russian army moving in to crush them and depose the government isn't the most heinous thing imaginable.

If we have a situation of ethnic cleansing in the East that changes the situation obviously.

Well I don't see how that really changes what I said. If anything the vote reflects Yanukovych's narrow base of support following the events of 2004.

He supposedly got 15 million votes and then 12 million votes in the rerun. Was the decrease due to people being disappointed in him or because he faked the numbers in the first place? Even if it was 15 million pro Russians effectively lost something around 1.5 million votes if the referendum results are broadly accurate.

What do you mean? Are you saying they allowed Estonia / Lithuania and Latvia to join NATO to provide an "in depth" defence against Russia? If so, why would anyone assume Russia wants to attack NATO, post USSR breakup?

I mean they allowed Estonia to join so that if and when Russia gets back on its feet it doesn't bully Estonia back into its sphere of influence. Which it could easily do because had the NATO rejected Estonia then Estonia would know that it really has no choice but to accept any demand Russians made of them. This way Estonia is part of NATO and Russians can't easily bully it and in case of increase in hostilities it provides NATO with a forward position in which to build up their forces. The flipside is that the more east one goes the less likely large NATO memebers will want to go into a war over a country.

Why are you only talking about a combination of Eastern European countries? We're talking about their admission into NATO, aren't we? In which case the question is not Russia vs them, but Russia vs all of NATO, which is clearly a losing battle for Russia. This is clearly a threat to Russia.

The problem is here that you assume that Russia wants to attack Eastern Europe but refuse to countenance the idea that Russia fears an attack from NATO. And "there is no conceivable military threat to Russia" is simply counterfactual. US efforts at missile defence continue. Missile defence is a danger to Russia's deterrent. We know that the US and its allies would love nothing more than to formet a "colour revolution" within Russia itself. These are all threats.

I am only talking about a combination of Eastern European countries since they were the ones involved in the mighty NATO expansion. Their combined strength is insignificant and they are far more threatened by Russian then vice versa. Hence their desire to join NATO is far more justified than Russias desire to keep them out of NATO.
US missile defence means that Russians won't be able to obliterate Eastern Europe completely effortlessly. Eastern Europe still has no way of damaging Russia militarily.
Russian paranoia/propaganda about "color revolution" doesn't give it any justification to treat countries at its borders as pawns. NATO was perfectly morally in the right for reassuring Eastern European countries by allowing them to join in NATO.

I think given this year's events, we can take this article to be accurate. If the west of Ukraine does want to go west, then it appears they will be doing so without the east.

If Russia does invade Ukraine and forcibly annexes more territory it will hardly be a surprise.

Because the anti-Russian government in Kiev got a bit of their country torn off. I didn't say Russian power over Ukraine was absolute, but it exists, and isn't going anywhere. Hence chaos.

Sure ultimately Russians can outright invade Ukraine. But that doesn't change the fact it lost political influence.

How are Russia's actions in Ukraine indicative of a zero-sum mentality? Its interests were clearly endangered and it acted to defend them. Regardless of the morality or legality of those actions, these weren't some pointless attempt to thumb its nose at the West.

I didn't say it was pointless. I said it was a zero sum game for the Russians. They refuse to give either Ukraine or Belarus the ability to pick and choose the agreement between various international entities: US, EU, Germany etc. They view it as their vassal states that ultimately have to check with them before doing anything. In other words zero sum imperialists.

Russian Imperialism? You're joking, right? We're going to lambast Russia for "imperialism" for refusing to countenance the possibility of Ukraine - a border area of Russia and not even a fictional state until the USSR, becoming hostile? When it let all of Eastern Europe go? That's not an "empire" by any means. The west's imperialism is both more apparent, more egregiously presumptuous, and obviously, objectively more violent. Its not Russia that forcibly dismembered Serbia, that was NATO. Its not Russia that destroyed Libya, it was NATO. Its not Russia that destroyed Iraq, it was America. The way nations conduct themselves in their past affiars is remembered by other nations, like Russia, who aren't part of the hypocritical Freedomizer club. Its actions like the above that make the assertion that Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO all the more comical.

In any event, Russia being "in the wrong" by a moral principle about nations not being dominated by others is immaterial. Russia's attitude is a reality and its not going anywhere. Since Russia is too powerful to be attacked or marginalized, the only option is diplomacy and accomodation.

In the same paragraph you express your shock that I could regard Russian actions as imperialism but then go on to use the phrase "a border area of Russia". This is imperialistic terminology. Countries have borders. They don't have border areas. Unless they are being imperialistic. Should I pat Russia on the back for "letting Eastern Europe go"? They were economically falling apart and peoples in Warsaw pact and within USSR were getting restless. It's not as if they were magnanimously operating from the position of strength when they let them go.
I don't even know what kind of argument you are making when you say Ukraine was a "fictional state" until USSR. No country in the world existed since the dawn of time. What difference does that make?
US has had its share of invasions but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Vympel]

Russia will always have some measure of influence over Ukraine since they are neighbors. Russia has a measure of influence over Germany. The question is how much. Enough to stop Ukraine from gradually moving closer to west?

At the very least, enough to stop all Ukraine moving closer to the West, I'd say.

I didn't mean that since 2000 Putin went to bed praying that Ukraine would make a rash move so he can invade Crimea. I mean that Russia never accepted Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea and that any Ukrainian moves to the west would result the way they did. In other word whether it was "neo-fascists" in power or hippies Ukrainian move closer to west results in annexation of Crimea with official excuse being whatever they could think of. It was not a genuine reaction to supposed prosecution of the Russians.

Fair enough I agree with that.

Crimea was legally Ukrainian every bit as Kaliningrad was Russian. Who asked anyone in USSR what republic they want to live in when borders were drawn? For all the cries of nationalism and fascism Russian propaganda sure loves to point out that Khrushchev was a Ukrainian as if that somehow invalidates the internationally recognized Ukrainian borders.
Also just because Russian forces in Crimea was so overwhelmingly powerful compared to local Ukrainian forces that they could overtake it without a shot fired doesn't make it OK. Not even if your new attorney general is Natalia Poklonskaya. Well OK maybe a little.

Well, that's exactly the Russian's point - the "gift" of Crimea to Ukraine was of dubious legality, and noone asked the Russian SFSR if it was ok. Practically, it made no difference since the notion that the Ukrainian SFSR was a seperate country from the Russian SFSR - and every other part of the USSR - was, as everyone knows, a total legal fiction. Until the USSR broke up. So its no surprise that the Russians have had little regard for Crimea's legal status in this whole affair. As a matter of history, they have a strong, arguable territorial claim. Its not one I would ever support if they used a violent, coercive invasion to press that claim, since getting shitloads of people killed for a landgrab is morally bankrupt, but given how peaceful it was, its just not something that's worth plunging Europe into crisis over.

He supposedly got 15 million votes and then 12 million votes in the rerun. Was the decrease due to people being disappointed in him or because he faked the numbers in the first place? Even if it was 15 million pro Russians effectively lost something around 1.5 million votes if the referendum results are broadly accurate.

There's no doubt the pro-Russian bloc will be weaker because of this, but not irreperably so - the west and central Ukraine still needs to deal with them.

I mean they allowed Estonia to join so that if and when Russia gets back on its feet it doesn't bully Estonia back into its sphere of influence. Which it could easily do because had the NATO rejected Estonia then Estonia would know that it really has no choice but to accept any demand Russians made of them. This way Estonia is part of NATO and Russians can't easily bully it and in case of increase in hostilities it provides NATO with a forward position in which to build up their forces. The flipside is that the more east one goes the less likely large NATO memebers will want to go into a war over a country.

Fair enough.

I am only talking about a combination of Eastern European countries since they were the ones involved in the mighty NATO expansion. Their combined strength is insignificant and they are far more threatened by Russian then vice versa. Hence their desire to join NATO is far more justified than Russias desire to keep them out of NATO.
US missile defence means that Russians won't be able to obliterate Eastern Europe completely effortlessly. Eastern Europe still has no way of damaging Russia militarily.
Russian paranoia/propaganda about "color revolution" doesn't give it any justification to treat countries at its borders as pawns. NATO was perfectly morally in the right for reassuring Eastern European countries by allowing them to join in NATO.

When you join NATO, how insignificantly powerful you are ceases to be relevant because you are now an outpost of the entire Alliance. So long as one takes NATO's obligations seriously (i.e. lets assume that France really will risk Paris for the sake of Estonia), that is true. But as for NATO being morally right, that depends on what morals you're talking about. They promised the Soviets, in pulling out of Eastern Europe, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to take their place. They broke that promise, and the Russians haven't forgotten it.

If Russia does invade Ukraine and forcibly annexes more territory it will hardly be a surprise.

I don't think they will unless there's some sort of massive provocation in the east of some sort. Unlike Crimea, it'll be really violent, and despite Russia's nefarious reputation, they're not for extreme violence in their foreign excursions. Even the counter attack into Georgia was remarkably restrained, especially given their dearth of precision weapons.

I didn't say it was pointless. I said it was a zero sum game for the Russians. They refuse to give either Ukraine or Belarus the ability to pick and choose the agreement between various international entities: US, EU, Germany etc. They view it as their vassal states that ultimately have to check with them before doing anything. In other words zero sum imperialists.

I don't think that's the appropriate use of the word "zero sum". In any event, by your standards the EU too are imperialists. They refused to allow Yankuvoych to retain ties with Russia in making the deal with the EU. A tripartite arrangement with Russia was rejected. Now that the crisis is blown up, there are recriminations in Brussels that making the Ukraine choose between the EU and Russia was a mistake.

In the same paragraph you express your shock that I could regard Russian actions as imperialism but then go on to use the phrase "a border area of Russia". This is imperialistic terminology.

No its not, its a statement of historical fact - it was just an area of Russia, and became a country - in a purely fictional sense - when the USSR was in power.

Countries have borders. They don't have border areas. Unless they are being imperialistic. Should I pat Russia on the back for "letting Eastern Europe go"? They were economically falling apart and peoples in Warsaw pact and within USSR were getting restless. It's not as if they were magnanimously operating from the position of strength when they let them go.

Everyone should. The USSR could've still violently suppressed the lot of them, and its Warsaw Pact puppet governments would've loved nothing more to do so as well.

I don't even know what kind of argument you are making when you say Ukraine was a "fictional state" until USSR. No country in the world existed since the dawn of time. What difference does that make?

No, Ukraine wasn't a fictional state until the USSR. It was just a part of Russia, and the Ukrainian SSR was called a country, but in reality was just an administrative unit of the USSR. The point I'm making is that history matters, and good diplomats take that into account.

[K. A. Pital]

But you are equating the two with "pox be on both their houses". Ukraine didn't invade Russia, Russia invaded Ukraine. You are attempting to claim they are all equally bad because they are fascists even though Ukrainian government hasn't actually done anything comparable to what Russia has done.

Greece is a small country and did not invade anyone, but it was ruled by neofascists. Saddam Hussein's regime was fascist, although he did not invade anyone in 2003 and was himself invaded. I'm missing the bit where a country's small size automatically makes it not fascist.

Eastern Europe will obviously never be able to fully defend from a Russian attack

Of course not: its a nuclear sponge. Sponges are meant to absorb warheads, not defend themselves from attacks.

Either Russia respects sovereign rights of other countries or it is engaging in imperialism.

The latter, of course.

[Thanas]

That this is not about protecting the Russian minority but instead about pursuing some pipe dream and destroying the Ukraine state as much as possible is quite evident in the seizure of the Fleet by Russian forces. What right does Russia have to Ukrainian ships?

Greece is a small country and did not invade anyone, but it was ruled by neofascists. Saddam Hussein's regime was fascist, although he did not invade anyone in 2003 and was himself invaded. I'm missing the bit where a country's small size automatically makes it not fascist.

You are missing the point, which is once again that at the time of Russian aggression there was nothing that could be construed as active actions aimed at killing the Russian minority. There was no threat to their lives or their livelihood. Heck, not even the language law got passed.

Well, that's exactly the Russian's point - the "gift" of Crimea to Ukraine was of dubious legality, and noone asked the Russian SFSR if it was ok. Practically, it made no difference since the notion that the Ukrainian SFSR was a seperate country from the Russian SFSR - and every other part of the USSR - was, as everyone knows, a total legal fiction. Until the USSR broke up. So its no surprise that the Russians have had little regard for Crimea's legal status in this whole affair. As a matter of history, they have a strong, arguable territorial claim. Its not one I would ever support if they used a violent, coercive invasion to press that claim, since getting shitloads of people killed for a landgrab is morally bankrupt, but given how peaceful it was, its just not something that's worth plunging Europe into crisis over.

This is bullshit of the highest order you are pushing here. If the Ukrainians had resisted, they would have lost, so they did not. By that standard, a powerful bully can take everything he wants as long as the other has no means of resisting. It is morally bankrupt.

When you join NATO, how insignificantly powerful you are ceases to be relevant because you are now an outpost of the entire Alliance. So long as one takes NATO's obligations seriously (i.e. lets assume that France really will risk Paris for the sake of Estonia), that is true. But as for NATO being morally right, that depends on what morals you're talking about. They promised the Soviets, in pulling out of Eastern Europe, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to take their place. They broke that promise, and the Russians haven't forgotten it.

So? The Russians broke far more serious promises, including the territorial integrity promise they made in the treaty of Bucharest. Without it the Ukraine would have nukes and Russia would not dare to act this way. In hindsight, the Ukraine should have given a figs leaf about Russia and joined NATO ASAP. The moral of this whole story is quite simple - one has to guard against Russia and view it as a threat, instead of a responsible partner.

You know, before this whole episode I thought it might just be possible to deal with Russia in a fair manner and that supporting Georgia and other places in the east was nonsense. Now I think it might actually be necessary just to prevent Putin from destroying more countries on a whim.

[K. A. Pital]

That this is not about protecting the Russian minority but instead about pursuing some pipe dream and destroying the Ukraine state as much as possible is quite evident in the seizure of the Fleet by Russian forces. What right does Russia have to Ukrainian ships?

Um, Thanas, a much better indicator that Russia is about to destroy Ukraine is that it basically said we're going to 'state zero' and all gas contracts signed with Yanukovich are no longer valid; this would tank the already-bankrupt Ukraine. Ships of the fleet aren't so clear cut - many Ukrainian units simply mutineed and went over to the Russian army. Can't blame them.

You are missing the point, which is once again that at the time of Russian aggression there was nothing that could be construed as active actions aimed at killing the Russian minority. There was no threat to their lives or their livelihood. Heck, not even the language law got passed.

I never said that the government of Ukraine intended to kill the Russian minority. Where'd you get that from? I said it's chock-full of nazis and neo-fascists.

This is bullshit of the highest order you are pushing here. If the Ukrainians had resisted, they would have lost, so they did not. By that standard, a powerful bully can take everything he wants as long as the other has no means of resisting. It is morally bankrupt.

Ukraine, actually, could've gotten much more if they had resisted.

So? The Russians broke far more serious promises, including the territorial integrity promise they made in the treaty of Bucharest. Without it the Ukraine would have nukes and Russia would not dare to act this way.

Without it, Ukraine's imminent collapse with nuclear weapons would've actually forced the West to jointly occupy the place together with Russia.

In hindsight, the Ukraine should have given a figs leaf about Russia and joined NATO ASAP. The moral of this whole story is quite simple - one has to guard against Russia and view it as a threat, instead of a responsible partner.

Ukraine should have stayed nuclear, that's true. Being a nuclear power, it could protect itself against both power blocs.

You know, before this whole episode I thought it might just be possible to deal with Russia in a fair manner and that supporting Georgia and other places in the east was nonsense.

Unresolved territorial disputes in the former USSR will not be over any time soon. I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but after the violent and bloody self-destruction of my country, it is chock-full of wannabe Napoleons. This stretches from big countries like Russia all the way to Georgia. Fundamentally Putin and Saakashvili are the same - nationalism, reunification of 'russian' / 'georgian' lands, by force if necessary, and delusions of grandeur.

Want to stop it? Stop buying Russian gas and oil. Arrest the assets of Russian oligarchs right now. Oh wait that didn't happen in 25 years they were raping my country, so fat chance it ever wiil.