The Ukraine Crisis

[only a sojourner]

Whet do you think will happen in the Ukraine- a civil war, Russian annexation? The economy in the Ukraine is near default and in order to qualify for IMF and EU assistance there will have to be restructuring and austerity which would likely further destabilize the country? I foresee American- Russian relations declining further.

There is hypocrisy in the US point of view. The US violated the territorial integrity of Iraq on the pretext that there weapons of mass destruction which were never found. In 2003 Libya agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program on the condition it's territorial integrity would be respected. In 2011 it's government was toppled via a no fly zone. These countries were not run by saints but the fact is that their territorial integrity was violated. Although their strongmen are gone both countries remain in disarray. There are other recent examples I can cite as well.

 

[Paradoxum]

Whet do you think will happen in the Ukraine- a civil war, Russian annexation? The economy in the Ukraine is near default and in order to qualify for IMF and EU assistance there will have to be restructuring and austerity which would likely further destabilize the country? I foresee American- Russian relations declining further.

I have no idea what will happen. I'd guess that the craziness will stop here, with the crimea annexation.

There is hypocrisy in the US point of view. The US violated the territorial integrity of Iraq on the pretext that there weapons of mass destruction which were never found.

Did the US annex Iraq? I agree that Iraq makes the US look bad, but I'm not sure it's a clear hypocrisy.

In 2003 Libya agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program on the condition it's territorial integrity would be respected. In 2011 it's government was toppled via a no fly zone. These countries were not run by saints but the fact is that their territorial integrity was violated. Although their strongmen are gone both countries remain in disarray. There are other recent examples I can cite as well.

Libya still has all it's territory though.

 

[only a sojourner]

Nikita Krushchev transferred (gifted) Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Krushchev was Ukrainian. Crimea was originally part of Russia, 70 percent of the population is Russian and Russian is the predominate language. There is little doubt that the majority of the citizens there wish to be part of Russia.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and occupied the country for 10 years.

I am merely pointing out that there is another side to what is happening then what is generally reported in the American media. Despite our supposed impartiality news reporting here does have a slant. Putin is also manipulating events and the Russian media clearly has a bias, which is very evident in English language broadcasts on the Voice of Russia.

 

[Douger]

Ukraine has few if any cards to play. The country is in big big trouble. I don't know how the parties that took over could be so stupid to think they could get away with what they did.
The country is going to pay for the near sighted idiocy of those who drove it down this path.
It's a very sad situation.

 

[Paradoxum]

Nikita Krushchev transferred (gifted) Crimea to the Ukraine in 1954, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. Krushchev was Ukrainian. Crimea was originally part of Russia, 70 percent of the population is Russian and Russian is the predominate language. There is little doubt that the majority of the citizens there wish to be part of Russia.

I thought it was 60% Russian.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and occupied the country for 10 years.

That isn't annexation, and they had a dictator previously anyway. It doesn't look good for the US and allies, but it isn't a clear hypocrisy.

I am merely pointing out that there is another side to what is happening then what is generally reported in the American media. Despite our supposed impartiality news reporting here does have a slant. Putin is also manipulating events and the Russian media clearly has a bias, which is very evident in English language broadcasts on the Voice of Russia.

I read BBC news, so I knew this stuff. I don't think private news is all that trustworthy, since it's about profit, not news. An autonomous publicly funded news like the BBC is much better in my opinion.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Russia is trying to start a civil war in Ukraine so they have an excuse to invade. I think they'll probably invade anyways, but they want to have a token excuse at least.

Obama and Lugar are both to blame for Ukraine not having the means to defend itself from Russian agression.

 

[Paradoxum]

Obama and Lugar are both to blame for Ukraine not having the means to defend itself from Russian agression.

How so? And who is Lugar?

 

[GarfieldJL]

How so? And who is Lugar?

In 2005, then-state senator Barack Obama traveled to the Ukraine with Dick Luger to help convince Ukrainians to give up their weapons in exchange for money. The UK Daily Mail headline two days ago was: ”Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 TONS of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms and 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Ukraine.”

“As a US senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition — weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea,” the Daily Mail wrote.
Obama Gutted Ukraine’s Army: He Has the Same Plan for the USA | www.independentsentinel.com

​

The reason they don't have the weapons to defend themselves is because of Obama, furthermore they had the belief we would honor our agreement to defend them if they were attacked.

Ukraine agreed to the deal with Russia, the USA, France, China and the UK if these powers guaranteed that they would guard the security of the Ukraine. On January 14, 1994, in Moscow, Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk signed The Trilateral Statement detailing procedures to transfer Ukrainian nuclear warheads to Russia for compensation, along with the SS-18 and SS-24 warheads for dismantling.
Obama Gutted Ukraine’s Army: He Has the Same Plan for the USA | www.independentsentinel.com
​

Obama is responsible for the fact that Ukraine has no means to stand up to Russia.

 

[Optimus Fortis]

Maybe Russia doesn't like to be surrounded by the most bellicose nation in world history.

As for Ukraine, if TV shows us people rioting to join the EU, you know the narrative is very suspect and crisis actors have been used. Ukraine used to be a net exporter of products to Russia, now it is going to be a net importer of far superior EU products and Russia will ban Ukrainian imports. Add banker looting otherwise known as IMF austerity which is the transfer of wealth from the poor to the cosmopolitan rich, then it is safe to say that Ukraine is joining the Libya club. Add Gazprom increasing energy prices, it is going to be a cold winter in the Ukraine between firefights.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Did the US annex Iraq? I agree that Iraq makes the US look bad, but I'm not sure it's a clear hypocrisy.

Libya still has all it's territory though.

Its not clear hypocrisy. Its actually worse than hypocrisy.

The US invaded Iraq based on two lies: WMDs and Al-Qaeda having major bases in Iraq.

Iraq had no significant portion of their population being American. Very few people in Iraq supported the invasion. It spawned a 10+ year war which cost thousands of lives. Iraq is, arguably, in worse state than it was 10 years ago.

Ukraine is 60% Russian. Many Crimeans supported the annexation. The annexation was conducted peacefully with no direct casualties. It even included a referendum (although the legitimacy may be questioned). Crimea is probably better off with Russia as Ukraine's economy is going down the toilet.


Putin did Crimea a favor. The US did very few favors for Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter).

The US had no business in Iraq (other than...surprise!..oil). Russia, arguably, has plenty of business in Ukraine and the Crimea: its historical heartland and bordering nation and long-time ally.

Also, the hypocrisy in the US chastising Putin for not supporting the violent coup in Ukraine that deposed the previous pro-Russian president. Since when does the US and EU support violent coups? Oh yea, when it suits their interests.

Can you imagine if Mexico had a violent coup that instilled an anti-American, authoritarian government? How do you think the US would respond? The US would probably immediately decry the new government as illegitimate and possibly respond with troops, sanctions and grant asylum to the previous government.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That isn't annexation, and they had a dictator previously anyway. It doesn't look good for the US and allies, but it isn't a clear hypocrisy.

So as long as the other country has a dictator, the US-EU is free to invade so long as they don't annex? They can go in an kill thousands of civilians and then leave the country in shambles, but hey, its a-ok because the guy was a dictator and they didn't annex. In some ways, there is an argument that it would've been better if they annexed. At least then Iraqis could have some economic and social benefits, plus US citizenship.

But wait, Russia is not allowed to protects its interests in a bordering nation, long time ally and their historical heartland that just suffered a violent, undemocratic coup?


It may not be hypocrisy, but...oh wait. No I think it kind of is hypocrisy. At the very least, it is very, very inconsistent. So goes the world, I guess.

 

[cow451]

Russia would like to keep Crimea and have a friendly Ukraine. It makes economic sense. I really don't think Putin is so stupid to think he can invade and occupy Ukraine without ending up with a prolonged situation that may make older Ruskies remember Afghodforsakenstan.

Then again he might be that stupid.

And, for the dumbster argument about Obama crippling the Ukrainian military...... Ukraine having nukes would be an even stronger excuse for Russia to step in to "safeguard" the WMD.

 

[AirPo]

Russia would like to keep Crimea and have a friendly Ukraine. It makes economic sense. I really don't think Putin is so stupid to think he can invade and occupy Ukraine without ending up with a prolonged situation that may make older Ruskies remember Afghodforsakenstan.

Then again he might be that stupid.

And, for the dumbster argument about Obama crippling the Ukrainian military...... Ukraine having nukes would be an even stronger excuse for Russia to step in to "safeguard" the WMD.

Execpt they would have a chance at finding some.

 

[Paradoxum]

In 2005, then-state senator Barack Obama traveled to the Ukraine with Dick Luger to help convince Ukrainians to give up their weapons in exchange for money. The UK Daily Mail headline two days ago was: ”Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 TONS of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms and 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Ukraine.”

“As a US senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition — weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea,” the Daily Mail wrote.
Obama Gutted Ukraine’s Army: He Has the Same Plan for the USA | www.independentsentinel.com

​

The reason they don't have the weapons to defend themselves is because of Obama, furthermore they had the belief we would honor our agreement to defend them if they were attacked.

Ukraine agreed to the deal with Russia, the USA, France, China and the UK if these powers guaranteed that they would guard the security of the Ukraine. On January 14, 1994, in Moscow, Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk signed The Trilateral Statement detailing procedures to transfer Ukrainian nuclear warheads to Russia for compensation, along with the SS-18 and SS-24 warheads for dismantling.
Obama Gutted Ukraine’s Army: He Has the Same Plan for the USA | www.independentsentinel.com
​

Obama is responsible for the fact that Ukraine has no means to stand up to Russia.

Do you know what the reason was for wanting Ukraine to give up some of it's weapons?

Looking back, perhaps it wasn't a great idea... it's easy to look back and say that.

Its not clear hypocrisy. Its actually worse than hypocrisy.

The US invaded Iraq based on two lies: WMDs and Al-Qaeda having major bases in Iraq.

I didn't know Al-Qaeda was part of the justification.

Iraq had no significant portion of their population being American. Very few people in Iraq supported the invasion. It spawned a 10+ year war which cost thousands of lives. Iraq is, arguably, in worse state than it was 10 years ago.

Ukraine is 60% Russian. Many Crimeans supported the annexation. The annexation was conducted peacefully with no direct casualties. It even included a referendum (although the legitimacy may be questioned). Crimea is probably better off with Russia as Ukraine's economy is going down the toilet.


Putin did Crimea a favor. The US did very few favors for Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter).

You can try to argue that Iraq was worse (especially with the benefit of hindsight), but that's a different point from it being clear hypocrisy.

I suppose it depend if you consider nuclear weapons to be a real reason we went to war, or if it was just an excuse. If it really was the reason, though incorrect, it doesn't seem like a crazy reason to go to war. I don't have a strong opinion on Iraq.

With Crimea however, I don't believe that Putin really thought Russians needed protecting. It was just an excuse to invade. Maybe Crimea should become Russian, but there are legitimate ways of doing that.

The US had no business in Iraq (other than...surprise!..oil). Russia, arguably, has plenty of business in Ukraine and the Crimea: its historical heartland and bordering nation and long-time ally.

How is that a reason to invade? It's no better to assault an old friend than a stranger. In some ways it's worse.

Also, the hypocrisy in the US chastising Putin for not supporting the violent coup in Ukraine that deposed the previous pro-Russian president. Since when does the US and EU support violent coups? Oh yea, when it suits their interests.

There was violence, but I didn't think the Ukraine revolution was that violent.

The US and EU should support countries moving towards good principles.

Can you imagine if Mexico had a violent coup that instilled an anti-American, authoritarian government? How do you think the US would respond? The US would probably immediately decry the new government as illegitimate and possibly respond with troops, sanctions and grant asylum to the previous government.

The Ukraine doesn't have an authoritarian government though. I have no idea how the US would react though.

So as long as the other country has a dictator, the US-EU is free to invade so long as they don't annex? They can go in an kill thousands of civilians and then leave the country in shambles, but hey, its a-ok because the guy was a dictator and they didn't annex. In some ways, there is an argument that it would've been better if they annexed. At least then Iraqis could have some economic and social benefits, plus US citizenship.

It's probably not always okay, or wise.

But wait, Russia is not allowed to protects its interests in a bordering nation, long time ally and their historical heartland that just suffered a violent, undemocratic coup?

Nope. An invasion of a dictatorship should be based on the liberty and rights of the citizens, and/or the necessary defence of one's or others. Russia has no good reason to invade.

The revolution may be undemocratic at the moment (though it was by the people, not the military), there are elections coming... so it isn't as if it's anti-democracy.

I don't totally get why Russia is threatened by the EU and NATO. It would be good if they reformed and joined the EU in the future, but it isn't as if we would force them. And NATO wouldn't attack Russia for no reason... Russia has nukes anyway.

It may not be hypocrisy, but...oh wait. No I think it kind of is hypocrisy. At the very least, it is very, very inconsistent. So goes the world, I guess.

Well I suppose we disagree. I could be convinced otherwise.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Russia would like to keep Crimea and have a friendly Ukraine. It makes economic sense. I really don't think Putin is so stupid to think he can invade and occupy Ukraine without ending up with a prolonged situation that may make older Ruskies remember Afghodforsakenstan.

Then again he might be that stupid.

And, for the dumbster argument about Obama crippling the Ukrainian military...... Ukraine having nukes would be an even stronger excuse for Russia to step in to "safeguard" the WMD.

Obama was getting rid of their small arms, not their nukes...

In any case Putin considers Ukraine to be part of the Russian Empire, he probably doesn't care what the Ukrainian people think.

 

[only a sojourner]

An assault by the Kiev government on protesters and groups in Donetsk and other cities in Eastern Ukraine that have seized government buildings, built barricades, etc, may be imminent. There is a possibility of significant casualties and mass arrests.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

An assault by the Kiev government on protesters and groups in Donetsk and other cities in Eastern Ukraine that have seized government buildings, built barricades, etc, may be imminent. There is a possibility of significant casualties and mass arrests.

Anybody who criticized the Russian govemernment for its treatment of dissidents... what are you going to say if the regime in Kiev sends in the troops?

 

[mindlight]

Maybe Russia doesn't like to be surrounded by the most bellicose nation in world history.

As for Ukraine, if TV shows us people rioting to join the EU, you know the narrative is very suspect and crisis actors have been used. Ukraine used to be a net exporter of products to Russia, now it is going to be a net importer of far superior EU products and Russia will ban Ukrainian imports. Add banker looting otherwise known as IMF austerity which is the transfer of wealth from the poor to the cosmopolitan rich, then it is safe to say that Ukraine is joining the Libya club. Add Gazprom increasing energy prices, it is going to be a cold winter in the Ukraine between firefights.

My understanding is that it is the Eastern provinces that have a market in Russia. EU membership by contrast would probably wipe out their chance of Russian trade. Both Ukrainians and Russians in the Eastern provinces have a vested interest in a Russian invasion. Whereas the West is more likely in the long run to benefit from EU membership being less industrial anyway.

 

[Kalevalatar]

My understanding is that it is the Eastern provinces that have a market in Russia. EU membership by contrast would probably wipe out their chance of Russian trade. Both Ukrainians and Russians in the Eastern provinces have a vested interest in a Russian invasion. Whereas the West is more likely in the long run to benefit from EU membership being less industrial anyway.

Only, foreign trade (and investments) doesn't need to be either-or, quite the opposite. Diversification and maximizing opportunities are the words. Mature EU economies like Finland cultivate important economic partnerships both with Russia, the single largest trade partner of Finland, and the EU. Why limit oneself to only one market when you can have two or more? And Russian market happens to offer huge potential future growth, unlike the EU, which in turn offers stability. Ukraine, like Finland, is well positioned to exploit both the EU and Russian markets. As a political infant, Ukraine just needs to grow up first and learn to appreciate her advantages and opportunities.

 

[interpreter]

Moscow is the great harlot who sits on 7 hills and many waters (5 seas). The Revelation advises Christians to come out of her, and that is what the majority of Ukrainian Christians are trying to do.