Ukraine War Thread

[Mange]

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destroy Ukraine is that it basically said we're going to 'state zero' and all gas contracts signed with Yanukovich are no longer valid; this would tank the already-bankrupt Ukraine.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.

That is blatantly untrue. While some Ukrainian soldiers has went over to the Russian army (some under threats of being arrested otherwise), the vast majority who were forced to leave their bases (instead of fighting a useless fight) as Russia has denied Ukraine to evacuate them in an orderly fashion have done so in a defiant manner. You did not answer Thanas's question: What right does Russia have to the Ukrainian military vessels, as well to civilian assets, that have been seized?

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.

Here we have it again, the rampant exaggerations. Has it occurred to you why there's scepticism towards Russia and why many Ukrainians (as well as others) fought against the Soviets during WWII without being fascists and why the Germans were initially welcomed in for example the Ukraine before the true face of their occupation was showed? It's not like Ukraine, Georgia and some other former Soviet republics freely joined the Soviet Union (which was a Russian phenomena to begin with) but they did so because of invasion, violence or threat or the threat of violence. Heck, even after WWII, the very country for whose freedom the war started found itself under the claws of another dictatorship, as did the other Eastern European countries (with the Baltic states finding themselves occupied and annexed into the very Soviet Union). Many Ukrainians have hardly forgotten about the genocide in the 30s and many minorities have surely not forgotten the ethnic cleansing they were subject to. As I said before, your position is that of a hypocrite as people in Crimea have been beaten and abused by Chetniks (who did that group collaborate with during WWII again?) and Cossacks.

I've said it before: Russia needs to come to terms with its history, but under Putin it's impossible. It's clear now that we once again have a powerful, unpredictable and rogue country as a neighbour.

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.

"Your country" was the result of rampant imperialism. What Saakashvili did wrong was that he fell for the Russian provocations for operations the Russians had planned for a long time in advance and overestimated his Western support.

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.

Blame the Soviet Union's failed economic system before blaming the oligarchs.

[Vympel]

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.

No, the bully in this case had the support of the people of Crimea, who welcomed them by and large, no matter how much the west tries to bullshit about it by telling themselves absurd fairy tales of fearful Crimeans voting the way Russians want them to because of all the scary soldiers. It is that factor, more than any other, that made the Russian moves go so smoothly - if Russia tried such a thing in Ukraine proper, there would be resistance, notwithstanding the fact that Ukraine's defeat in an actual battle is a certainty.

So? The Russians broke far more serious promises

Far more serious? By whose standard?

including the territorial integrity promise they made in the treaty of Bucharest.

Which they broke in 2014. When did the west break its promise? Much, much, much earlier. And as a matter of legality, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty by any means. Its quite a toothless document, actually. It was specifically written so that it wouldn't have the effect of a treaty.

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.

What utter bullshit. If Russia were being treated as a partner, the West would not have aided, abetted and legitimised a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government simply because they found it politically expedient to do so - a coup which saw a virulently anti-Russian, and flagrantly unrepresentative "government" come into power. If Russia was being treated as a partner, the request for trilateral negotiations between Ukraine, the EU and Russia on future agreements would've been accepted, instead of rejected by the EU. Your version of events in this crisis appears to start at the Russian intervention in Crimea and takes absolutely nothing prior to that into account. Its a highly prejudicial and one sided accounting of history.

As for Ukraine joining NATO ASAP, you're telling yourself fantasies if you think that Ukraine wanted to join NATO and it merely held off from fear of upsetting Russia. The question of NATO membership in Ukraine was, is, and remains an unpopular position, because Ukraine, no matter what the western Ukrainians think, is a divided country with divided loyalties. Any attempt to turn it one way or the other will always meet with internal dissent, nevermind external pressure.

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.

As above re: prejudicial and wholly one-sided account of history. The West isn't blameless in this fiasco - they clearly pushed Russia and Russia (shockingly) pushed back. If they want to deal with Russia in a fair manner, they can start with avoiding legitimising anti-Russian coups on Russia's front porch. Russia is not special in refusing to tolerate that behavior.

As to "destroying more countries on a whim" - which countries has Putin destroyed? Georgia still exists, and the separatist regions which were separatist since the Soviet Union fell (i.e. never under Georgia's authority since it became independent) are unsuprisingly - still seperatist. Ukraine? Is retaking a region that never had more than an illusory connection to Ukraine fatal to Ukraine's existence? Clearly not.

That is blatantly untrue. While some Ukrainian soldiers has went over to the Russian army (some under threats of being arrested otherwise), the vast majority who were forced to leave their bases (instead of fighting a useless fight) as Russia has denied Ukraine to evacuate them in an orderly fashion have done so in a defiant manner.

Which Ukrainian soldiers have gone over to the Russian army on threat of arrest? Can you name a single one? When Simon Otrovsky of VICE News (whose reporting is hardly biased in favor of the Russian position) was speaking to a Ukrainian base commander, he matter-of-factly stated that 60 of his 110 men had gone over to the Russian side without any mention of threats of arrest - said commander noted that he and his remaining 50 men were waiting for orders at the time. Also no mention of an arrest threat that I can remember when he said that, either. What's actually happening is that a significant number of troops serving in Crimea are local and have no desire to leave to go fight for a country they have little connection to - plus the Russians are offering more generous pay and pensions.

You did not answer Thanas's question: What right does Russia have to the Ukrainian military vessels, as well to civilian assets, that have been seized?

They have about as much right to seizing Ukrainian ships as they did to seize Crimea, obviously. Are we supposed to be scandalized that the Russians are weakening the coup-appointed government in Kiev by depriving them of their ships? The Russians would say ... Crimea River.

Here we have it again, the rampant exaggerations.

Rampant exaggeration? You're joking, right? The "government" in Kiev is chock full of fascists. That's an undisputable fact. Have you even looked at which politicians hold all the coercive powers in this new government?

http://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-mi ... -far-right

[K. A. Pital]

That is blatantly untrue. While some Ukrainian soldiers has went over to the Russian army (some under threats of being arrested otherwise), the vast majority who were forced to leave their bases (instead of fighting a useless fight) as Russia has denied Ukraine to evacuate them in an orderly fashion have done so in a defiant manner. You did not answer Thanas's question: What right does Russia have to the Ukrainian military vessels, as well to civilian assets, that have been seized?

Russia does not have a right to Ukrainian Navy vessels, of course. They could have been interred as hostile vessels, and returned to Ukraine after the end of hostilities, but no hostilities are to be found. It seems, however, in more than a few cases captains just handed their ships over to Russia or even to some rebel formations who are local, like in Sebastopol.

Here we have it again, the rampant exaggerations.

Which exaggerations? The government is full of neofascists. Just the fact that neofascists are in the government of a victim state (Ukraine) does not somehow make them anything different but neofascists. Your reluctance to call a fascist one doesn't make the fascist less of a fascist. Greece was neofascist, as were many other neofascist states after the war; even some of the old fascists survived - for example, in Spain. In the fight between a fascist state and some other state, or even in a fight between two fascists I'm not going to care if they all just fall of a cliff and die.

Heck, even after WWII, the very country for whose freedom the war started found itself under the claws of another dictatorship, as did the other Eastern European countries

I always thought World War II was fought by major powers (Russia, Britain, Japan, Germany, US) for their imperialistic interests, and it had a beneficial side effect of stopping a massive ethnocide in China, South-East Asia, Eastern Europe and North Africa executed by the German, Italian and Japanese forces. The more I know.

It's not like Ukraine, Georgia and some other former Soviet republics freely joined the Soviet Union

You are right, except Ukraine of course did not even exist at the time as a nationstate. The Donetsk Republic was liquidated to make Ukraine in the current borders.

As I said before, your position is that of a hypocrite as people in Crimea have been beaten and abused by Chetniks (who did that group collaborate with during WWII again?) and Cossacks.

I never said that I support Chetniks or Cossacks, who are clearly reactionary. Does that require me to support fascists, however? I will never support a fascist; I will never find kind words for a fascist or a nazi. Sorry.

I've said it before: Russia needs to come to terms with its history, but under Putin it's impossible. It's clear now that we once again have a powerful, unpredictable and rogue country as a neighbour.

I said it before, too, that Putin is creating a reactionary clerical autocracy. However, people in the West saw this as building a partner that can be reasoned with. After all, he's capitalist so it's allright. I said below that my position is full support of sanctions against the current government of Russia, and the oligarchs. And?

"Your country" was the result of rampant imperialism. What Saakashvili did wrong was that he fell for the Russian provocations for operations the Russians had planned for a long time in advance and overestimated his Western support.

My country was, with the exception of Georgia and the Baltics, the result of national revolutions. Saakashvili was wrong in trying to reunify the country by force - pretty much the same as Putin does now. Since Abkhazia and Ossetia are ethnically different and fought a civil war in the 1990s to stay separate. Not that all separatism and nationalism makes sense, too. But when separatists attack other separatists and nationalists fight nationalists, supporting the weaker one seems to be logical. Except when there are fascists. Those, obviously, just deserve the rope any day of the year, any time of the day.

Blame the Soviet Union's failed economic system before blaming the oligarchs.

So I should blame the people who provided me with literally almost everything I have now, from being alive to education to free surgeries in hospitals, to free housing? And not the bunch of losers, thieves and criminals who forced me out of my nation? I mean, I understand that the government of the late USSR ran it into the ground, and I have no kind words for these morons too. But I wonder how you can completely avoid blaming openly criminal elements for turning the economy of a continent-sized nation into an oil-cursed ruin, and who run the current autocratic, clerical and capitalist dictatorship. I also wonder how you can't blame people who ran Ukraine for 20+ years and ran it into the ground.

[Kane Starkiller]

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.

Are you saying that 1954 change in internal USSR borders was less legal than any of the borders drawn up in Central Asia and Caucasus? Or inclusion of former German territories into Russian SFSR? I don't see that sanctioning 15 or so people in Russian government is some kind of gigantic crisis in Europe. It's pretty much the least they could do.

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.

There was no actual written agreement AFAIK that NATO won't expand to the east. Nor was it ever realistic to create a real relationship with Eastern European countries without accepting them into NATO. It was tantamount to saying that whenever Russia feels like it you are theirs for the taking. And I still see no compelling argument that Russia has more to fear from NATO than NATO (other than US) has to fear from Russia. What is the balance of nuclear and conventional forces on the European continent?

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.

Whatever demands and criteria EU had they were not accompanied by a threat of military force or economic warfare against Ukraine. It can certainly be argued that "take it or leave it" offer by EU wasn't the smartest thing to do but unless there is "or else..." behind it it cannot be characterized as imperialistic. Ultimately EU has the right to determine the conditions under which it enters into agreements with other parties.

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.

But the fact is irrelevant when discussing what rights the sovereign nation of Ukraine has and whether to characterize current Russian actions as imperialistic.

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.

They could've tried. Whether it would've been successful is another matter entirely. We've seen the trouble they had with Chechnya just a few years later and it wasn't for the lack of trying. There was no guarantee that they could've kept the Warsaw pact or even USSR intact by force and who knows what the effects would've been if they tried. Their decision to let the Eastern Europe and then USSR go wasn't out of altruism but out of weakness and uncertainty of what would happen if they tried. Which is not to say that if there was someone less reasonable than Gorbachev in power he wouldn't have tried.
In any case it's not as if anyone owes something to Russia for letting go of its vassal states without a war. It had no right to hold these states in the first place.

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.

We should take it into account but not let Russia use it as a justification for imperialistic designs upon the country.

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.

As I explained: Russian propaganda is using terms like fascists and neofascists to justify military intervention. You yourself equated Russian and Ukrainian fascists even though in this context it is Russia that is moving aggressively against Ukraine and not the other way around.
Saddam Hussein's regime killed at least 50,000 Kurds during Al-Anfal campaign, it invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait etc. If there is argument to be had that all of that didn't mean 2003 invasion was justified why is there even a slightest discussion over wheter Russia should invade a country that relinquished its nuclear weapons, didn't recognize Kosovo as independent and never made any aggressive moves towards any country?

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

That is what Russians would like Eastern Europeans to believe US plans are sure. The fact of the matter is that Eastern European countries have no way of knowing what Russian plans in case of conflict are: how many warheads are they getting hit with, in what locations, what is the threshold for their usage etc.
Therefore Russian threats that these countries will receive an inordinate amount of nukes if they allow ABM to be built on their territory are null and void: one can only take into account how many warheads Russians technically can deliver not how many they promise or threaten to deliver or not to deliver.
ABM means that Russians need to expend more nukes to achieve the same damage and they directly draw in US into the conflict. For US it increases credibility of its alliance and spreads the Russian arsenal thin.

[Thanas]

It is fucking laughable people would think the EU wants Eastern Europe as damage sponges. It might be a reason, but I am pretty sure it is not in the top 50 reasons.

[K. A. Pital]

We've seen the trouble they had with Chechnya just a few years later and it wasn't for the lack of trying.

Many experts remarked that the First Chechen War was a war between a new post-Soviet Army and an Army still largely organized along Soviet lines (the Chechen forces).

Whatever demands and criteria EU had they were not accompanied by a threat of military force or economic warfare against Ukraine.

Economic warfare is being waged by both Russia and Europe. Ukraine will have to destroy its industries and slash the social sector to even think about entering. Same will happen, albeit slower, under Russia, though.

In any case it's not as if anyone owes something to Russia for letting go of its vassal states without a war. It had no right to hold these states in the first place.

You said Soviet borders as of 1954 are legitimate. I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face if you say the same borders mean shit in the next sentence, Kane. I'm personally of the opinion that borders mean nothing, but that position is at least internally consistent: I oppose Chechnya because it's islamist and reactionary, and not because it is separatist. I support Lithuania, for example, because this state has a good human rights record.

As I explained: Russian propaganda is using terms like fascists and neofascists to justify military intervention. You yourself equated Russian and Ukrainian fascists even though in this context it is Russia that is moving aggressively against Ukraine and not the other way around.

And I have never disputed the fact that Russia's imperialistic and taking over Crimea using force. But I am not sure why this should make me sympathize Ukrainian fascists. Do I consider the US actions in Iraq imperialism, pure and simple? Yes. Does this mean I support Saddam Hussein? No. In fact Saddam deserved every little bit of what happened to him. Iraq didn't deserve the pathetically awful shit that happened to it as a result of invasion as a state, but Hussein and his government deserved it, they had it coming. Just like Ukrainian fascists don't deserve any sympathies.

Greece with its regime of the colonels did not deserve an invasion? Perhaps so. That doesn't mean Greek fascists should somehow get my sympathies. The only good fascist is a dead fascist. End of story. The best propaganda is formed from half-truths: the truth is that Ukraine's government is full of fascists. The untruth is that it somehow justifies a landgrab in the place. However, the truth remains: fascists must die, and that's the only thing that should happen to them.

The fact of the matter is that Eastern European countries have no way of knowing what Russian plans in case of conflict are: how many warheads are they getting hit with, in what locations, what is the threshold for their usage etc.

To be fair, for a very long period during the WARPAC and for almost 20 years after that there were no plans and no rockets pointed towards Eastern Europe; it was always thought to be a useless waste of nuclear warheads to attack buffer states which aren't hostile.

ABM means that Russians need to expend more nukes to achieve the same damage and they directly draw in US into the conflict.

It means Russians need to nuke states that otherwise no one even needs to nuke or attack, and for a long period had no plans to do so, and the strategic infrastructure was ill-designed to attack East Europeans. Of course, now it's changing and Russia is forward-deploying tactical mobile nuclear launchers that have a very short flight time and a low flight path to be able to strike against these nations. These aren't impacting the strategic infrastructure in the East, but they require the production of many more mobile launchers that will constitute the primary attack force. Also mobile launchers are harder to detect, so AMB talk is actually forcing the Russian army to modernize its nuclear arsenals rapidly.

It is fucking laughable people would think the EU wants Eastern Europe as damage sponges.

The EU does not want Eastern Europe as damage sponges: the US does, and it has succeeded greatly in advancing these plans.

[Kane Starkiller]

Many experts remarked that the First Chechen War was a war between a new post-Soviet Army and an Army still largely organized along Soviet lines (the Chechen forces).

But the scale is still decisive factor. Tiny Checnhya versus the entirety of Warsaw Pact and large USSR states. The outcome of trying to violently suppress all those nations at that point had an unclear outcome at the very least.

Economic warfare is being waged by both Russia and Europe. Ukraine will have to destroy its industries and slash the social sector to even think about entering. Same will happen, albeit slower, under Russia, though.

It is not economic warfare if the EU refuses to subsidies obsolete industries in exchange for political deference the way Russia does. As for slashing the social sector that is an issue that many EU countries are dealing with internally and not something aimed at Ukraine as part of a struggle with Russia.

You said Soviet borders as of 1954 are legitimate. I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face if you say the same borders mean shit in the next sentence, Kane. I'm personally of the opinion that borders mean nothing, but that position is at least internally consistent: I oppose Chechnya because it's islamist and reactionary, and not because it is separatist. I support Lithuania, for example, because this state has a good human rights record.

Were Warsaw Pact countries part of Russia? They were vassal states. Soviet internal borders were not violated by any of the seceding republics. I happen to disagree that borders mean nothing since we then get to redrawing of borders based on ethnic majority and ultimately population transfers and ethnic cleansing. To replace the integrity of nations based on borders with Stas Bush Goodness Scale is unlikely to lead to a more peaceful international system. To be sure, Crimeas physical isolation and clear borders meant that annexation was relatively painless but in no way is the argument that it was just given away a valid one.

And I have never disputed the fact that Russia's imperialistic and taking over Crimea using force. But I am not sure why this should make me sympathize Ukrainian fascists. Do I consider the US actions in Iraq imperialism, pure and simple? Yes. Does this mean I support Saddam Hussein? No. In fact Saddam deserved every little bit of what happened to him. Iraq didn't deserve the pathetically awful shit that happened to it as a result of invasion as a state, but Hussein and his government deserved it, they had it coming. Just like Ukrainian fascists don't deserve any sympathies.

Greece with its regime of the colonels did not deserve an invasion? Perhaps so. That doesn't mean Greek fascists should somehow get my sympathies. The only good fascist is a dead fascist. End of story. The best propaganda is formed from half-truths: the truth is that Ukraine's government is full of fascists. The untruth is that it somehow justifies a landgrab in the place. However, the truth remains: fascists must die, and that's the only thing that should happen to them.

Why don't Ukrainian "fascists" deserve any sympathies? What have they done not to deserve it? You labeling them as fascists is not exactly enough. Furthermore when you chop of a piece of country you affect all of the inhabitants of the country. Are they all undeserving of sympathy?
Again you engage in cheap propaganda: trying to portray the landgrab as a secondary concern the primary being the "fascists" who must all die even though these "fascists" haven't actually done anything that would merit a death sentence.
Iraq government was such that it is actually very hard to imagine it ending up any other way than it did: in sectarian violence.

To be fair, for a very long period during the WARPAC and for almost 20 years after that there were no plans and no rockets pointed towards Eastern Europe; it was always thought to be a useless waste of nuclear warheads to attack buffer states which aren't hostile.

Says who? And what is the guarantee that rockets won't be retargeted in the future for one reason or another?

It means Russians need to nuke states that otherwise no one even needs to nuke or attack, and for a long period had no plans to do so, and the strategic infrastructure was ill-designed to attack East Europeans. Of course, now it's changing and Russia is forward-deploying tactical mobile nuclear launchers that have a very short flight time and a low flight path to be able to strike against these nations. These aren't impacting the strategic infrastructure in the East, but they require the production of many more mobile launchers that will constitute the primary attack force. Also mobile launchers are harder to detect, so AMB talk is actually forcing the Russian army to modernize its nuclear arsenals rapidly.

Again who guarantees there were no plans and won't be in the future? The situation for Russians is being complicated, that was the point. Anything else like Russian promises and threats that they won't or will target are meaningless. There is no way to check them and effortlessly easy for Russians to simply retarget the missiles at a later date.
On the other hand Russians can't simply churn out nuclear delivery system indefinitely unless they decide to violate START treaty.

[Thanas]

You said Soviet borders as of 1954 are legitimate. I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face if you say the same borders mean shit in the next sentence, Kane. I'm personally of the opinion that borders mean nothing, but that position is at least internally consistent: I oppose Chechnya because it's islamist and reactionary, and not because it is separatist. I support Lithuania, for example, because this state has a good human rights record.

They are as legitimate as the borders Russia greed to post-breakup. Meaning all this hand-wringing about illegally transferred territory is BS as Russia agreed to the new borders in the Budapest treaty.

Greece with its regime of the colonels did not deserve an invasion? Perhaps so. That doesn't mean Greek fascists should somehow get my sympathies. The only good fascist is a dead fascist. End of story. The best propaganda is formed from half-truths: the truth is that Ukraine's government is full of fascists. The untruth is that it somehow justifies a landgrab in the place. However, the truth remains: fascists must die, and that's the only thing that should happen to them.

The truth is that the Ukrainian governemnt has a minority fascist party in it. Whoop de doo, what great threat.

It means Russians need to nuke states that otherwise no one even needs to nuke or attack, and for a long period had no plans to do so, and the strategic infrastructure was ill-designed to attack East Europeans. Of course, now it's changing and Russia is forward-deploying tactical mobile nuclear launchers that have a very short flight time and a low flight path to be able to strike against these nations. These aren't impacting the strategic infrastructure in the East, but they require the production of many more mobile launchers that will constitute the primary attack force. Also mobile launchers are harder to detect, so AMB talk is actually forcing the Russian army to modernize its nuclear arsenals rapidly.

Good, maybe they will overgorge on the defence budget again and collapse even further, aka stupid soviets redux 2.0. Nobody in the west wants to attack Russia. Any such thinking is devoid of reason.

The EU does not want Eastern Europe as damage sponges: the US does, and it has succeeded greatly in advancing these plans.

Yes, because the USA is just waiting for the chance to nuke Russia.

[K. A. Pital]

But the scale is still decisive factor. Tiny Checnhya versus the entirety of Warsaw Pact and large USSR states. The outcome of trying to violently suppress all those nations at that point had an unclear outcome at the very least.

That is true. A large-scale civil war in post-Soviet space was too risky. However, the war was frozen, not really stopped. It continues until this day, flashing in hot spots all over the place.

It is not economic warfare if the EU refuses to subsidies obsolete industries in exchange for political deference the way Russia does. As for slashing the social sector that is an issue that many EU countries are dealing with internally and not something aimed at Ukraine as part of a struggle with Russia.

So it is not economic warfare then when Russia refuses to subsidize failed states and removes discounts for gas? I hold a different opinion: this is economic warfare, this is a doctrine of shock and detruction which will directly result in human suffering and which will not help the industries of the place but rather result in deindustrialization, bankrupcy and mass unemployment, possibly with malnourishment as it happened before in Central Asia, Russia, parts of Ukraine. EU's internal policy of economically annihilating the periphery through the common currency zone and a concerted policy of deindustrialization of the periphery is clearly not aimed only at the existing EU periphery states, but also at all potential newcomers that will serve as nothing but meat, cheap slaves to the Empire, just like Central Asia and Ukraine provide slaves to toil on Russia's construction sites in horrid conditions with low pay... but high enough to encourage emigration from their own countries.

Soviet internal borders were not violated by any of the seceding republics. I happen to disagree that borders mean nothing since we then get to redrawing of borders based on ethnic majority and ultimately population transfers and ethnic cleansing.

This happened in Yugoslavia. Ultimately trying to stay within the internal borders that were legitimate resulted in balkanization, a series of ethnic cleansing, war of all against all and bitterness for decades.

To replace the integrity of nations based on borders with Stas Bush Goodness Scale is unlikely to lead to a more peaceful international system. To be sure, Crimeas physical isolation and clear borders meant that annexation was relatively painless but in no way is the argument that it was just given away a valid one.

Human suffering is very important, whereas legalism has no relation to what is going on inside or outside a nation. I am sorry that you choose to ignore this and subscribe to a purely legalist point of view.

Why don't Ukrainian "fascists" deserve any sympathies? What have they done not to deserve it? You labeling them as fascists is not exactly enough. Furthermore when you chop of a piece of country you affect all of the inhabitants of the country. Are they all undeserving of sympathy?

No; I never said ordinary Ukranians deserve no sympathies. They deserve even more sympathies now that fascists have climbed into power. Even though the loss of Crimea was painless, as that place never really belonged to Ukraine and once was on the brink of war with it already, it does not mean I think Ukrainians don't deserve to be left alone. They do. However, fascists are different. I'm not labelling them, it is their own admission: those are people who are members and founders of national-socialist and fascist political parties. Anyone who belongs to a nazi or fascist party is only good when he dies. That is my position.

Again you engage in cheap propaganda: trying to portray the landgrab as a secondary concern the primary being the "fascists" who must all die even though these "fascists" haven't actually done anything that would merit a death sentence. Iraq government was such that it is actually very hard to imagine it ending up any other way than it did: in sectarian violence.

I wish death to real fascists and nazis, people who belong to an organization whose ideology is a copy of NSDAP. I am sorry, but I cannot help it. I can't stop hating the nazis. Nonetheless I said it before and I will repeat it: Russia should not interfere even if there are open fascists and nazis in the government. I hoped for an independent rebel Crimea.

Says who? And what is the guarantee that rockets won't be retargeted in the future for one reason or another?

There's no guarantees here. NATO isn't a guarantee of anything either. Power blocs tend to disinitegrate after they lose purpose. As Russia will inevitably collapse after its oil industry either becomes irrelevant or resources are depleted, NATO will lose purpose once again. Repurposing it as an imperialistic alliance to tear up weak countries in the Middle East won't work to reduce contradictions inside the organization itself.

There is no way to check them and effortlessly easy for Russians to simply retarget the missiles at a later date. On the other hand Russians can't simply churn out nuclear delivery system indefinitely unless they decide to violate START treaty.

Just as the US simply withdrew from ABMT, terminating the agreement between it and all post-Soviet states, so will Russia withdraw from START if necessary (this won't be necessary until 2017-2018 anyway). It's not effortless to retarget strategic missiles, their very silo locations make some retargeting nigh impossible. On the other hand, a vast and mobile tactical nuclear arsenal is easy to retarget against any bordering nations, so Russia is concentrating on the creation of such an arsenal. I'm not sure this is bad for Europe or Russia; that's merely how things are. I said that the US simply walking out of ABMT was seen as a hostile act in Russia, but I think a new phase of the nuclear race was inevitable anyway.

They are as legitimate as the borders Russia greed to post-breakup. Meaning all this hand-wringing about illegally transferred territory is BS as Russia agreed to the new borders in the Budapest treaty.

Post-Soviet Russia is itself, like all the other post-Soviet states except the Baltics and a handful of others where the referendum was not run, illegitimate since it was formed in clear violation of the pro-unity referendum. But I never said Russia follows the letter of the law. It does not. It just walked out of a treaty, just like other major powers did before, and grabbed a piece of land. What else is there to say?

The truth is that the Ukrainian governemnt has a minority fascist party in it. Whoop de doo, what great threat.

I did not say Ukraine's fascists are a great threat. I said they were fascists and nazis and therefore deserve no sympathy. Is that hard to understand that I cannot even theoretically sympathize with members of Ukrainian SA (Right Sector) and NSDAP (Svoboda), who now hold half the provisional government and control the national security council, since their members hold chairman and vice-chairman positions?

Nobody in the west wants to attack Russia. Any such thinking is devoid of reason.

I never said anyone wishes to attack Russia.

Yes, because the USA is just waiting for the chance to nuke Russia.

No, because the US has strategic deterrence plans that are active even though the US does not wish nuclear war to happen.

[Kane Starkiller]

So it is not economic warfare then when Russia refuses to subsidize failed states and removes discounts for gas? I hold a different opinion: this is economic warfare, this is a doctrine of shock and detruction which will directly result in human suffering and which will not help the industries of the place but rather result in deindustrialization, bankrupcy and mass unemployment, possibly with malnourishment as it happened before in Central Asia, Russia, parts of Ukraine. EU's internal policy of economically annihilating the periphery through the common currency zone and a concerted policy of deindustrialization of the periphery is clearly not aimed only at the existing EU periphery states, but also at all potential newcomers that will serve as nothing but meat, cheap slaves to the Empire, just like Central Asia and Ukraine provide slaves to toil on Russia's construction sites in horrid conditions with low pay... but high enough to encourage emigration from their own countries.

If Russia stopped subsidising eastern Ukrainian industries or selling gas at discount I doubt anyone would look upon those actions as the current annexation of Crimea or reserving the right to invade Ukraine if there is "instability". However EU was never engaged in selling anything to Ukraine at a discount or in large scale subsidies of its industries unlike Russia. So whereas EUs refusal to engage in preferential treatment of Ukrainian industries is a continuation of a long standing policy Russian sudden 180 turn on Ukraine is clearly linked to the political developments in Ukraine and clearly aimed at destabilizing Ukraine.

This happened in Yugoslavia. Ultimately trying to stay within the internal borders that were legitimate resulted in balkanization, a series of ethnic cleansing, war of all against all and bitterness for decades.

It began with Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina all holding referendums of which all passed. However it still wasn't clear that this was legal according to Yugoslav constitution. Republic had the right to secede however all republics had to agree that a republic was allowed to secede. Serb minority in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina refused the recognize the referendum and in turn decided to carve out a piece of territory wherever they were the majority (not 99% but 50% and above) which escalated into a war. While you could say that seceding republics started it first it was Serbs who escalated the conflict from still a political process involving republics into open violence aimed at redrawing borders based on local ethnic majorities.

Human suffering is very important, whereas legalism has no relation to what is going on inside or outside a nation. I am sorry that you choose to ignore this and subscribe to a purely legalist point of view.

It is precisely because ignoring legality leads to human suffering is that I think it is important. Ultimately at this point I don't think that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine because the population would likely not support it anymore than I think Kosovo should be returned to Serbia. At a certain point animosities between ethnicities trump any legal argument but that shouldn't be the starting point.

There's no guarantees here. NATO isn't a guarantee of anything either. Power blocs tend to disinitegrate after they lose purpose. As Russia will inevitably collapse after its oil industry either becomes irrelevant or resources are depleted, NATO will lose purpose once again. Repurposing it as an imperialistic alliance to tear up weak countries in the Middle East won't work to reduce contradictions inside the organization itself.

Eastern Europeans haven't exactly joined NATO to invade Middle East. Their primary concern is Russia. Obviously if Russia desintegrates Eastern Europe won't require the alliance anymore.

Just as the US simply withdrew from ABMT, terminating the agreement between it and all post-Soviet states, so will Russia withdraw from START if necessary (this won't be necessary until 2017-2018 anyway). It's not effortless to retarget strategic missiles, their very silo locations make some retargeting nigh impossible. On the other hand, a vast and mobile tactical nuclear arsenal is easy to retarget against any bordering nations, so Russia is concentrating on the creation of such an arsenal. I'm not sure this is bad for Europe or Russia; that's merely how things are. I said that the US simply walking out of ABMT was seen as a hostile act in Russia, but I think a new phase of the nuclear race was inevitable anyway.

This all remains to be seen. Depending on the size of the ABM shield Russia may consider that START is still useful.

[Mange]

Selling gas at discounted prices was also one of the terms of the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet and the Kharkiv Agreements, but with the Hitlerite attitude to treaties, the first treaty is effectively dead and Russia has of course broken the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances as well. Also, one can't come and say that "an abnormality" has been "fixed" as Russia's ambassador jabbered about on BBC as such nonsense isn't recognized by international law and the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 was fully legal, Russia has recognized those borders and made a commitment of respecting and protecting those borders, refrain from using force or the threat or force and not use economic pressure on the country. Well, we all see what Russia's words are worth and I hope it'll find itself isolated as long as Putin is running the country (and I frankly don't believe there will be any more presidential elections worth its name as long as he's sitting there).

For all the talk of "protecting" the Russian minority, it seems to me as if it's not more than a blatant land grab to secure the Black Fleet base. I'm also wondering what Putin and his minions think, not only of the Donbas-area, but Odessa as well.

[K. A. Pital]

If Russia stopped subsidising eastern Ukrainian industries or selling gas at discount I doubt anyone would look upon those actions as the current annexation of Crimea or reserving the right to invade Ukraine if there is "instability". However EU was never engaged in selling anything to Ukraine at a discount or in large scale subsidies of its industries unlike Russia. So whereas EUs refusal to engage in preferential treatment of Ukrainian industries is a continuation of a long standing policy Russian sudden 180 turn on Ukraine is clearly linked to the political developments in Ukraine and clearly aimed at destabilizing Ukraine.

Russia has actually done this before to make other nations join its customs union. The discounts were negotiated by a government that Russia considered allied. Change of government - change of business conditions. The prices have to be set anew every 3 months or so, but even though it's perfectly legal this constitutes economic warfare.

However it still wasn't clear that this was legal according to Yugoslav constitution. Republic had the right to secede however all republics had to agree that a republic was allowed to secede. Serb minority in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina refused the recognize the referendum and in turn decided to carve out a piece of territory wherever they were the majority (not 99% but 50% and above) which escalated into a war. While you could say that seceding republics started it first it was Serbs who escalated the conflict from still a political process involving republics into open violence aimed at redrawing borders based on local ethnic majorities.

I am not saying secession was the primary reason, but if you secede, you automatically grant the rights to counter-secede. Yugoslavia learnt that in a very bloody way, and I guess many nations will learn it still. Also, of course running secession referendums is generally non-constitutional within the greater nation-state framework. Usually to prevent secession laws are put in place that prohibit secession without the agreement of other regions, making secession impossible de-facto. However, UN legalese which simultaneously upholds two mutually incompatible concepts (self-determination of nationalities and territorial intergity of states) makes such events inevitable.

At a certain point animosities between ethnicities trump any legal argument but that shouldn't be the starting point.

I agree. In this case, however, they almost went to war 20 years ago and neither side forgot about this.

Eastern Europeans haven't exactly joined NATO to invade Middle East. Their primary concern is Russia. Obviously if Russia desintegrates Eastern Europe won't require the alliance anymore.

Exactly.

This all remains to be seen. Depending on the size of the ABM shield Russia may consider that START is still useful.

How can START be useful if it handicaps you in a fight where the opponent just ignored a treaty they signed with you and shat over the agreement you had? In this case the natural idea is to treat all agreements with said state as temporary and subject to change. This is exactly how Europe and US treat Russia: all agreements are temporary and not to be honoured. So no wonder after US 'upholding' of treaties Russia is treating the US in the very same fashion: as a partner for temporary agreements that may not be honoured in the future by either party.

Well, we all see what Russia's words are worth and I hope it'll find itself isolated as long as Putin is running the country (and I frankly don't believe there will be any more presidential elections worth its name as long as he's sitting there).

Well, if there were wide sanctions, Putin's regime would collapse as in 10 years it did nothing to free Russia from the resource appendage position it occupies. But sanctions are minimal and all they'll make is turn Russia into a Chinese satellite. Not the worst outcome, as I already thought about this.

[Thanas]

Stas, if you get your hands on the new Spiegel this week, it apparently quotes a 18 page Russian dossier which does prove that the crimean puppet of Putin is a member of the Russian mafia.

[stormthebeaches]

I'm going to wade into this and say that I do not understand the comparisons to Kosovo at all. Kosovo was allowed to become independent nations can annex the territory of other nations as long as they have a rigged referendum in the territory they occupy? How does that work? And don't give me the will of the people argument since this referendum was a complete farce. When news channels opposed to joining Russia are shut down, when armed, masked men are threatening people opposed to the reunification and when international observers are not allowed into the country, and when the referendum does not provide the option of maintaining the status quo, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate assessment of the desires of the people in the region. Also, the previous poll in 2001 shows that only about a quarter of the population wanted to rejoin Russia. Make of that as you will.

Now onto some individual quotes:

Which they broke in 2014. When did the west break its promise? Much, much, much earlier. And as a matter of legality, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty by any means. Its quite a toothless document, actually. It was specifically written so that it wouldn't have the effect of a treaty.

The Budapest Memorandum is far more binding than any agreement that NATO wouldn't expand eastward. There is no written agreement of the later, for one thing.

What utter bullshit. If Russia were being treated as a partner, the West would not have aided, abetted and legitimised a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government simply because they found it politically expedient to do so - a coup which saw a virulently anti-Russian, and flagrantly unrepresentative "government" come into power.

As above re: prejudicial and wholly one-sided account of history. The West isn't blameless in this fiasco - they clearly pushed Russia and Russia (shockingly) pushed back. If they want to deal with Russia in a fair manner, they can start with avoiding legitimising anti-Russian coups on Russia's front porch. Russia is not special in refusing to tolerate that behavior.

What evidence do you have that the West was behind the "coup" (good neutral terminology there ) in Ukraine? And giving the evidence posted by Stas Bush and Edi about how corrupt and full of oligarchs the old Ukraine government is, I'm not sure that supporting it would have been a good move.

As to "destroying more countries on a whim" - which countries has Putin destroyed? Georgia still exists, and the separatist regions which were separatist since the Soviet Union fell (i.e. never under Georgia's authority since it became independent) are unsuprisingly - still seperatist.

You used the exact same terminology on the previous page (destroying Libya and Iraq? Both those countries still exists). To turn around and bash Thanas for using the exact same wording that you have been using makes you a massive hypocrite.

They have about as much right to seizing Ukrainian ships as they did to seize Crimea, obviously. Are we supposed to be scandalized that the Russians are weakening the coup-appointed government in Kiev by depriving them of their ships? The Russians would say ... Crimea River.

This is so stupid. You do not have the right to annex territory and seize possessions of another country because that country had a violent change in government. Furthermore, such actions will strengthen the new government because gives them the perfect ammunition to use to argue that Russia is out to hurt Ukraine. And on a side note, will this territory be returned when the "coup-appointed government" falls? How will it be determined when the "coup-appointed government" falls? When the elections are held this year? Or does their have to be another violent change in government (a coup, to use your terminology)?

This happened in Yugoslavia. Ultimately trying to stay within the internal borders that were legitimate resulted in balkanization, a series of ethnic cleansing, war of all against all and bitterness for decades.

Yugoslavia was broken up because the country collapsed into a genocidal civil war. Ukraine has not so, and I do not see any evidence that it would have done so, meaning that the comparison between the two is deeply flawed.

No; I never said ordinary Ukranians deserve no sympathies. They deserve even more sympathies now that fascists have climbed into power. Even though the loss of Crimea was painless, as that place never really belonged to Ukraine and once was on the brink of war with it already, it does not mean I think Ukrainians don't deserve to be left alone. They do. However, fascists are different. I'm not labelling them, it is their own admission: those are people who are members and founders of national-socialist and fascist political parties. Anyone who belongs to a nazi or fascist party is only good when he dies. That is my position.

That fascists have gained positions of power does not justify launching a pre-emptive strike. If they do bad things you should oppose them but attacking them on principle reeks of thought crime. Furthermore, seizing the Crimea is the worst thing you could do if you want to oppose the fascists because it gives the fascists the perfect ammunition. Convincing people that Russia wants to hurt your country becomes a lot easier when Russia has just annexed a portion of it.

I wish death to real fascists and nazis, people who belong to an organization whose ideology is a copy of NSDAP. I am sorry, but I cannot help it. I can't stop hating the nazis. Nonetheless I said it before and I will repeat it: Russia should not interfere even if there are open fascists and nazis in the government. I hoped for an independent rebel Crimea.

Well, at least there's something we can agree with. I personally feel that Crimea should have bee put on a referendum under international monitors, rather than Russian military occupiers.

[Vympel]

I'm going to wade into this and say that I do not understand the comparisons to Kosovo at all. Kosovo was allowed to become independent nations can annex the territory of other nations as long as they have a rigged referendum in the territory they occupy?

Who says it was rigged? There's no evidence of rigging that I'm aware of. The Kosovo example is demonstrative because it shows that there is precedent for recognition of secession by referendum. Period. The annexation after the secession is irrelevant.

How does that work? And don't give me the will of the people argument since this referendum was a complete farce. When news channels opposed to joining Russia are shut down, when armed, masked men are threatening people opposed to the reunification and when international observers are not allowed into the country, and when the referendum does not provide the option of maintaining the status quo, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate assessment of the desires of the people in the region. Also, the previous poll in 2001 shows that only about a quarter of the population wanted to rejoin Russia. Make of that as you will.

What I make of it is that you are casting about for spurious excuses to pretend that the referendum could've ever had a different result in the circumstances:

A. Who gives a shit about a poll in 2001? That was 13 years and two revolutions ago, the last of which saw the preferred government of Crimea get deposed by fascist Russophobes in an unconstitutional manner. And before which, there was no real possibility of Russia making it a reality, which would be a pre-requisite.

B. There's no evidence that "armed, masked men" intimidated anyone into voting differently, or had any effect on the results at all (how could they? it was a secret ballot).

C. International observers? They did bring in international observers - the only ones who didn't come were those ordered not to go because the referendum was being treated as illegal by their political masters. You could argue such observers were biased, but its getting to be quite the massive conspiracy.

D. As to media dominance, you're drawing a very long bow if you think that having some Ukrainian tv channels blurting out their own counter-propaganda would've changed the views of the populace, and media dominance has certainly never delegitimised the results of other elections.

E. The "no status quo" complaint is probably the most pointless. Not voting at all is equivalent to a vote for the status quo. If turnout had been less that 50% the status quo would've automatically remained. So you can treat the ~80% turnout as evidence that ~20% of the population was against it. That's a healthy figure and it mostly reflects the makeup of Crimea.

The Budapest Memorandum is far more binding than any agreement that NATO wouldn't expand eastward. There is no written agreement of the later, for one thing.

Sure, if Russia is only obligated to feel aggrieved by the breach of legal agreements. They are not. I corrected the record on the Budapest Memorandum only because the claim it is a "treaty" is false.

What evidence do you have that the West was behind

I didn't say they were "behind" it and I'll thank you not to strawman me to make your argument easier. I said they aided, abetted, and legitimised it. Those are very different things.

the "coup" (good neutral terminology there ) in Ukraine?

It was a coup, by any definition. How was it not?

And giving the evidence posted by Stas Bush and Edi about how corrupt and full of oligarchs the old Ukraine government is, I'm not sure that supporting it would have been a good move.

You don't need to support it. But it was the elected government and any fair dealings would've had to have taken it into account. The February 21 agreement being followed would've prevented this crisis from exploding. The opposition enacted a coup, the west acted like it didn't exist and just recognised the coup government instead.

You used the exact same terminology on the previous page (destroying Libya and Iraq? Both those countries still exists). To turn around and bash Thanas for using the exact same wording that you have been using makes you a massive hypocrite.

How is the situation in Libya and Iraq post bombing/invasion even remotely comparable to Georgia or Ukraine? Are you on crack?

This is so stupid. You do not have the right

I didn't say they had the right. Have you even been paying attention to what I've been saying? Of course Russia didn't have the "right" to do either. Big whoop? Its happened. What now?

Furthermore, such actions will strengthen the new government because gives them the perfect ammunition to use to argue that Russia is out to hurt Ukraine. And on a side note, will this territory be returned when the "coup-appointed government" falls? How will it be determined when the "coup-appointed government" falls? When the elections are held this year? Or does their have to be another violent change in government (a coup, to use your terminology)?

Of course not. I thought that was obvious. Maybe they'll give some of the ships back - after all by 2017 or so they'll have six new Pr 11356M frigates and six new Pr 636 SSKs based in the Black Sea, so they may not need the clapped out ships they took from Ukraine. But who knows.

[mr friendly guy]

Those saying Kosovo doesn't count is just using special pleading on why its ok when the West does it.

Seriously. Obama criticised Putin for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity. Kosovo's declaration of independence violated Serbia's territorial integrity. Obama didn't say its only wrong to violate someone's territorial integrity when you annex that area afterwards. Even if he did one has to ask for justification before just accepting it on face value.

Kosovo demonstrated that it was acceptable (to a lot of Western nations) that right of self determination outweigh territorial integrity. In which case critics of Russia's actions should confine themselves to "the vote was rigged" arguments only and not whine about territorial integrity. After all, if the vote wasn't unfair, its ok to violate territorial integrity according to the Kosovo example.

BTW - Russia doesn't have the right to do what it did. However once the West let the genie out of the bottle with Kosovo, its a bit late to complain about it when Russia now does it for its geopolitical advantage.

[mr friendly guy]

http://rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

Ok Putin's moutpiece here, but it would be pretty blatant. I find it hilarious in a dark humour way.

Essentially Yulia Tymoshenko in a leaked conversation said she is ready to grab a machine gun and shoot that motherfucker in the head. Presumably she means Putin, who most probably knows how to use a machine gun. According to her twitter account she doesn't deny saying that, but she does deny the more controversial part of the speech, that is they should "nuke" (even though Ukraine doesn't have nukeds) the Russians living in Ukraine. Presumably it means she wants to kill them really bad.

The problem with her, is that the former deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense council of Ukraine, Nestor Shufrych, who she had the conversation with denied it ever took place. In essence one side is saying that most of the conversation is true except for the monstrous part which the Russians edited in, and the other said the whole conversation never happened. Someone is lying here, which means that the two didn't have time to get together and come up with a consistent story.

Presumably Ukrainian speakers would be able check whether Shufrych denied it easily enough, and can read Tymoshenko's twitter account, and it would have to be easily verifiable for those who know the language.

[Thanas]

I'm going to wade into this and say that I do not understand the comparisons to Kosovo at all. Kosovo was allowed to become independent nations can annex the territory of other nations as long as they have a rigged referendum in the territory they occupy?

Who says it was rigged? There's no evidence of rigging that I'm aware of. The Kosovo example is demonstrative because it shows that there is precedent for recognition of secession by referendum. Period. The annexation after the secession is irrelevant.

Actually, there were plenty of reports which showed ballot boxes were counted before the voting even opened and other such things. Besides, the burden of proof lies on the occupying power to show that it was fair. By refusing to let in neutral observers, the Russians failed that chance and as such nobody can really say that it was a fair referendum because there is no proof it was.

C. International observers? They did bring in international observers - the only ones who didn't come were those ordered not to go because the referendum was being treated as illegal by their political masters. You could argue such observers were biased, but its getting to be quite the massive conspiracy.

Bullshit. The OSCE observers (which are the only neutral ones there are) were refused entry.

Sure, if Russia is only obligated to feel aggrieved by the breach of legal agreements. They are not. I corrected the record on the Budapest Memorandum only because the claim it is a "treaty" is false.

Of course it is a treaty. It merely is not named such but that has no bearing on its legal definition.

Those saying Kosovo doesn't count is just using special pleading on why its ok when the West does it.

BS. Call me back when the west invades a country and then, while under armed occupation, conducts a "referendum" that legitimizes it. Kosovo was indigenous and homegrown when they declared sovereignty on their own, the same cannot be said for Russia's illegal landgrab.

[Vympel]

Actually, there were plenty of reports which showed ballot boxes were counted before the voting even opened and other such things. Besides, the burden of proof lies on the occupying power to show that it was fair. By refusing to let in neutral observers, the Russians failed that chance and as such nobody can really say that it was a fair referendum because there is no proof it was.

Reports from whom? Show me. Kind of nixes a suggestion the observers are all biased, if they're from observers and not some bullshit artist who wasn't even there. And your claims on OSCE observers are inaccurate.

Bullshit. The OSCE observers (which are the only neutral ones there are) were refused entry.

False. Check your facts. OSCE election observers were invited by Crimean authorities and the invitation was refused because the Crimean authorities did not have the authority to invite them. So much for the OSCE being neutral - you're conflating OSCE military observers being refused entry with election observers.

The OSCEs response to the invitation set out below is instructive to any claims that this is a "neutral" organization, by the way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... AP20140310

Apparently, respecting Ukrainian sovereignty is more important than observing a referendum. I wonder if that's the attitude they took to Kosovo.

Of course it is a treaty. It merely is not named such but that has no bearing on its legal definition.

No, that's making shit up. The Budapest Memorandum is just that - a memorandum. It is a mere political agreement. It's not a treaty. Period.

For a simple litmus test, check whether the US Congress ever ratified it. They did not, nor were they ever asked to. Because they never thought it would get through. Hence it remained a mere political agreement.

BS. Call me back when the west invades a country and then, while under armed occupation, conducts a "referendum" that legitimizes it. Kosovo was indigenous and homegrown when they declared sovereignty on their own

With the exception of the extremely helpful 78 day bombing campaign from a foreign military alliance that is, which created the conditions for that referendum to take place in several extremely-helpful-to-the-separatists ways.

the same cannot be said for Russia's illegal landgrab.

Nothing of what you've said distinguishes Kosovo from Crimea in any really relevant way to rebut the allegation of special pleading. The Crimeans voted in a referendum. How the referendum came about - or its ultimate effect - is absolutely irrelevant. I could go on at length about how the Kosovo independence came about too - that it was enabled by naked military aggression facilitated by propaganda against purely one side in a civil war, for example. The violence that begat the Kosovo declaration is surely more serious than anything Russia did in Crimea. Its still irrelevant to the point that the only relevant principle is whether a declaration of independence that is contrary to the law of the national government can be recognised. Clearly, they can, because its happened before.

The only thing you could possibly hang your argument on is the allegation that the referendum was a sham and the will of the people of Crimea was subverted by fraud - an allegation which absolutely no one who knows anything about Crimea could actually believe.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, the previous poll in 2001 shows that only about a quarter of the population wanted to rejoin Russia. Make of that as you will.

That poll was more than 10 years ago at the height of good relations between Crimea and Ukraine. 10 years prior they were on the brink of war. 10 years later they were on the brink of war again after some really dumb moves by Ukraine's new government, which only helped Putin to steer Crimea away.

And giving the evidence posted by Stas Bush and Edi about how corrupt and full of oligarchs the old Ukraine government is, I'm not sure that supporting it would have been a good move.

Toppling it with the hands of clear neofascists wasn't the wisest move too. It provided all the ammunition Putin could want. But let's say the West is actually almost blameless here. Ukraine's fascists are the creation of it's secret service (SBU), pretty much so.

This is so stupid. You do not have the right to annex territory and seize possessions of another country because that country had a violent change in government.

Uh... I mean, you are right. But coming from the US, that's so rich. You toppled anyone near you whom you didn't like (Latin America). That is common behaviour for imperialist powers.

And on a side note, will this territory be returned when the "coup-appointed government" falls?

No. Crimea will never be returned.

Yugoslavia was broken up because the country collapsed into a genocidal civil war. Ukraine has not so, and I do not see any evidence that it would have done so, meaning that the comparison between the two is deeply flawed.

Comparison is very valid. Yugoslavia's civil war was not genocidal. It involved elements of ethnic cleansing from all sides, but that often occurs in civil war when ethnic tensions are present.

That fascists have gained positions of power does not justify launching a pre-emptive strike.

Uh... Did I say it does? I just said fascists shouldn't be. Simple as that.

I personally feel that Crimea should have bee put on a referendum under international monitors, rather than Russian military occupiers.

Well, Putin's smart move was to use non-aligned paramilitaries as the main force in securing all key infrastructure in Crimea. He knew the population would be loyal (there were no attacks against 'self-defence units' during the entire operation), so he decided to act. Independent Crimea could've worked if there was a joint Russian-European mission, but that's a pipe dream. EU and Russia are not friends and never were.

[Vympel]

http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-crimean-ref ... nt-page-1/

Interesting commentary on Kosovo special pleading.

While looking into the legal precedents, I investigated Kosovo: in 1991 they voted 99% in favor of independence. Only Albania recognized the legality of the referendum. Later, of course, Kosovo did wind up declaring its independence again. Serbia went to the International Court of Justice for an opinion on whether it was legal for Kosovo to separate. The decision was in favor, and is fascinating.

It basically amounts to this: though the declaration of independence was made by people who were in the Assembly of Kosovo, because they did not follow proper legislative procedure, did not use the words “Assembly of Kosovo” in the proclamation, and were not properly published, the proclamation was not illegal, because proclamations of independence are not generally illegal.

They also said that the ruling was a one off, and did not set precedent (sound familiar?)

The error, then, of the Crimeans may have been to have a legislative body, as a legislative body, take the decision and actually have a referendum. If they had done it, not as a legislative body, but as just folks who happen to be in the legislative assembly, without a referendum, then it would have been legal.

All of the above, of course, is pernicious nonsense. Of course many countries do not want regions to leave them, and make it illegal. But it is impossible not to conclude that those who say Crimea joining Russia is illegal are anything but flaming hypocrites if they also said that Kosovo leaving Serbia was legal. The International Court for Justice’s ruling is nothing but special pleading.

I mean - wow. Kosovo didn't even have a referendum. I just assumed it had. The Albanian members of the assembly just declared it - in a manner not actually in accordance with the procedures of their own Assembly, and this was considered legal.

Only in the Bizarro Nonsense world of "if the West approves of it, its kosher" can the Kosovo declaration of independence be considered legitimate and the Crimea declaration cannot.

*It goes without saying, I'm sure, that if Kosovo had done a referendum the independence vote would've been significantly in favor

EDIT: Just heard that Oleksandr Muzychko, a Right Sector leader, has been assassinated in western Ukraine. Scuttlebutt is that it was the SBU, who Muzychko asserted were gunning for him, or the Ukrainian ministry of interior. Good riddance.

(how long before someone blames Russia for it?)

[mr friendly guy]

BS. Call me back when the west invades a country and then, while under armed occupation, conducts a "referendum" that legitimizes it. Kosovo was indigenous and homegrown when they declared sovereignty on their own, the same cannot be said for Russia's illegal landgrab.

I don't see the difference between a) bombing a country until they lose the ability to protect their own sovereignty and b) doing the same thing by sending troops on the ground. Both involve using military force to achieve a particular geopolitical goal.

Nor am I convinced that you can differentiate whether claims of self determination are not genuine, by the fact that a side is only willing to do so after achieving the appropriate diplomatic, military support.

Now I am not a fan of either the Kosovo or Crimea actions, but I am not going to pretend such actions only stink when Russia does it.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not sure how a bloodless annexation of Crimea is somehow worse than Kosovo, where reverse-ethnic cleansing was present and which also involved bombing Serbia's infrastructure and many civilian casualties. From the standpoint of human suffering, Crimea didn't do anything. In fact it may have alleviated human suffering, as Russian pensions and salaries are objectively higher than in the Ukraine.

[Lolpah]

Reports from whom? Show me.

The ballot boxes were transparent, and the ballots unfolded, so you could see the option the voters chose from outside.

[Mange]

The Kosovo example is demonstrative because it shows that there is precedent for recognition of secession by referendum. Period.

Only in the Bizarro Nonsense world of "if the West approves of it, its kosher" can the Kosovo declaration of independence be considered legitimate and the Crimea declaration cannot.

Absolute nonsense. First and foremost, the Crimea was a land grab by another state which Kosovo wasn't. The "referendum" about something that had previously been a non-issue was being held while the territory was under military occupation/control of the very state the referendum was about joining. The referendum was hastily arranged, held under dubious circumstances (with outdated voter lists etc.), without proper monitoring and with people being afraid of speaking their mind and being beaten in the streets by thugs.

And Kosovo was a special case (which was also noted . True, Serbia 2009 was another country than in 1999, but the population had been subjected to ethnic cleansing, massacres and was otherwise excluded. The country was under the ICJ found that Kosovo's declaration of independence didn't violate international law, but it sure didn't say anything about the legitimacy of the state of Kosovo, so that's not the precedent you claim it is (the ICJ also mentions certain circumstances which are not applicable at all to the Crimean annexation). If Albanian troops had marched into Kosovo and a referendum had been held with the result that Kosovo would join Albania (or the parliament had voted in favor for such a move) and it had been declared legal, then the two cases had been comparable.

For a country that stopped U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for unimpeded humanitarian access in Syria because that would "violate Syria's territorial integrity", it sure doesn't mind violating the borders of a neighboring country whose borders Russia has agreed to and pledged itself to defend (but again, the Hitlerite talk of "protecting" Russians and the Hitlerite attitude to treaties and agreements, one can't see Russia as a reliable neighbor or partner).

Your attitude to the events in Crimea and what you've written about Kosovo (one-sided indeed ) puts you on the same level than any "jingoist" in my book.