It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionUkrainian Civil War in progress?(1767 posts) (1767 posts) 
(1767 posts) 
Pages:
1
25
26
27
28
29
50
75
100
118
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: ...and really Russia was guaranteed to intervene,...
It sounds a bit as if they didn't have any other choice, but that wouldn't be true. You can also just choose to do things different. They intervened because they wanted to intervene and thought that they have the right to intervene. They started a war (albeit on a low level) not because they were forced to but because they want it.

And the meldodrama about territorial integrity, well just have a look at all the wars and you see that people are deeply affected by changes of territorial integrity, mostly to the worse. It's an important aspect of all this.

Sure, you could critisize the invasion of iraq by the US and other things can probably be critisized too, but it's not useful because it doesn't make the current events any bit better.

The only real double standard I see is that in all wars media should be more critical, as critical as now or even more critical. US media could/should have been much, much more critical in the past. But what does it mean for now? Not much.
Posted March 07, 2014
Ehhh, gift, transfer, whatever, I was pointing out that it was Russian at some point.

And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close.

I'm not making a moral judgement either way.

You'll know of course that the US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, and when that country experienced an uprising the US said nothing despite the fact that Bahraini govt was massacring, torturing and everything else, in addition to Saudi troops intervening in the country to help the government keep the protestors down. It was pure hypocrisy because they were supporting the Arab uprisings in countries where they didn't have interests, like Syria and Libya.
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Crosmando
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
WhiteElk: i can't help but to wonder if related to this Crimea situation, is the u.s. antagonism of China. Just today His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, gave an opening prayer in the u.s. senate. For days China has been protesting his visit. Now he symbolically participates in our governdent. Maybe it is unrelated, but maybe it's another level to all this. i don't know, but my governdent is nuts. Who knows what it'll do.
avatar
Matruchus: It's not connected. Dalai Lama visits different countries frequently from his Exile in India.
Yes i am aware of Dalai Lama visits. And know he has visited with my nations current president before. lol i follow His Holliness the 14th Dalai Lama on facebook and YouTube, having listened to many hours of his teachings. i've also been following the rhetoric between China and the u.s. regarding his most recent visit. Curious as to the silliness of court both nations play. i was speaking particularly to my nations move of asking Dalai Lama to open a session of u.s. congress. This act is political. The ramifications, intent, and possibilities i do not understand. But i see. Perhaps others here, see other pieces. Maybe we gain a bigger picture by assembling our disparate pieces in forum. i don't know, to learn more was my intent.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: Ehhh, gift, transfer, whatever, I was pointing out that it was Russian at some point.

And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close.

I'm not making a moral judgement either way.

You'll know of course that the US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, and when that country experienced an uprising the US said nothing despite the fact that Bahraini govt was massacring, torturing and everything else, in addition to Saudi troops intervening in the country to help the government keep the protestors down. It was pure hypocrisy because they were supporting the Arab uprisings in countries where they didn't have interests, like Syria and Libya.
The same problem we have in Syria then since Russia has a big naval base there. I wonder when they will invade ?
Posted March 07, 2014
That's probably (one of) the reasons they support the govt there, obviously.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Matruchus: It's not connected. Dalai Lama visits different countries frequently from his Exile in India.
avatar
WhiteElk: Yes i am aware of Dalai Lama visits. And know he has visited with my nations current president before. lol i follow His Holliness the 14th Dalai Lama on facebook and YouTube, having listened to many hours of his teachings. i've also been following the rhetoric between China and the u.s. regarding his most recent visit. Curious as to the silliness of court both nations play. i was speaking particularly to my nations move of asking Dalai Lama to open a session of u.s. congress. This act is political. The ramifications, intent, and possibilities i do not understand. But i see. Perhaps others here, see other pieces. Maybe we gain a bigger picture by assembling our disparate pieces in forum. i don't know, to learn more was my intent.
I know but there is just lack of real information since both media are very biased. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. There probably were pro-western agitators on maidan and western Ukraine. Where as you had and have pro-russian agitators in the east and Crimea. This was just cooked up because of western and russian imperial ambitions.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: Ehhh, gift, transfer, whatever, I was pointing out that it was Russian at some point.

And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close.
Their fleet was in no danger at all. Current lease contract terms specify that it stays there till 2042. And surely they're not protecting the fleet by occupying whole peninsula. Except that officially, they're not there. If population is so much welcomes them, why not move in full force with flying banners? After all, they're protecting the population from radicals-fascists-nato-whatelse. Next thing they take will be Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: Ehhh, gift, transfer, whatever, I was pointing out that it was Russian at some point.

And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close.
avatar
AzureKite: Their fleet was in no danger at all. Current lease contract terms specify that it stays there till 2042. And surely they're not protecting the fleet by occupying whole peninsula. Except that officially, they're not there. If population is so much welcomes them, why not move in full force with flying banners? After all, they're protecting the population from radicals-fascists-nato-whatelse. Next thing they take will be Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
Yeah that's probably the reason Moldavia is pushing the EU and Nato to let them in now. If we just think that in Pridnestrovian republic (recognized only by russia and 3 more minion states) 97 people voted on a referendum to become part of Russia several years ago and it was deemed legally binding by Russia.

Sad is only that nobody knows about this in the west (besides politicians obviously).
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Matruchus
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
AzureKite: Their fleet was in no danger at all.
And if the new govt in Kiev unilaterally declared the lease void, and moved forces to occupy the Russian bases?

And I wasn't referring to the bases being in danger directly, just that having a entire chunk of your Navy based in a foreign state on a precarious lease agreement on a port when that country is experiencing political chaos, is not a safe position.

Either way, as I said I'm not seeking to justify anything on moral grounds, just good old realpolitik.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
AzureKite: Their fleet was in no danger at all.
avatar
Crosmando: And if the new govt in Kiev unilaterally declared the lease void, and moved forces to occupy the Russian bases?

And I wasn't referring to the bases being in danger directly, just that having a entire chunk of your Navy based in a foreign state on a precarious lease agreement on a port when that country is experiencing political chaos, is not a safe position.

Either way, as I said I'm not seeking to justify anything on moral grounds, just good old realpolitik.
Well the mistake of the new Ukrainian government was not to reafirm the lease contract between the states after taking power after the putsch against Yanukovich. I think we would not be here at this point if they would have done that at once.
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Matruchus
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: Ehhh, gift, transfer, whatever, I was pointing out that it was Russian at some point.
Well, city where I live was German until 1945. Should I prepare for German invasion?

Also Kalingrad was German until 1945. I hope that they will take it back. I would love to not have Russia as neighbor. It would lower chances for any 'humanitarian mission' from Russia. ;)
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Aver
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
AzureKite: Their fleet was in no danger at all.
avatar
Crosmando: And if the new govt in Kiev unilaterally declared the lease void, and moved forces to occupy the Russian bases?

And I wasn't referring to the bases being in danger directly, just that having a entire chunk of your Navy based in a foreign state on a precarious lease agreement on a port when that country is experiencing political chaos, is not a safe position.

Either way, as I said I'm not seeking to justify anything on moral grounds, just good old realpolitik.
But it's Russia gov't that doesn't recognize new Ukraine gov't. Not vice versa. Either way each side has its own flawed logic. But it is not mere logic working here anymore. Spectating.
Posted March 07, 2014
Last news from Ukrainian Kanal 5 TV - Russian troop buildup on Crimea now at 30.000 troops.

Well at least there might be one good thing coming out of this. Some EU countries started to call out to combine national armies of European countries and form a new EU army -the so called building of European ability to respond and defend itself against foreign incursions.
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Matruchus
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: ... And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close. ...
I always thought the times of Great powers doing whatever they want with others ended with WW I or WW II. What you describe is more like imperialism than what modern coexistence should be like. What was all the talk about "law of nations" about then if it's just "eat or be eaten".

On the other hand I can understand the Russian side being upset about the potential loss of their base. But seizing the whole countryside around it just because you can seems a bit over the top unless you think it is anyway all yours.

In another world they might just have moved their base to somewhere else in the last 20 years.
Posted March 07, 2014
avatar
Crosmando: ... And no, I was saying that they seized Crimea to protect their Fleet, because having naval forces in a leased port in a foreign state is an extremely tenuous position to be in. I won't say whether it was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out that for all the talk of international law and the like these days, when it actually comes down to it the "Great power" logic still applies, powerful states will protect their own interests especially when those interests are so close. ...
avatar
Trilarion: I always thought the times of Great powers doing whatever they want with others ended with WW I or WW II. What you describe is more like imperialism than what modern coexistence should be like. What was all the talk about "law of nations" about then if it's just "eat or be eaten".

On the other hand I can understand the Russian side being upset about the potential loss of their base. But seizing the whole countryside around it just because you can seems a bit over the top unless you think it is anyway all yours.

In another world they might just have moved their base to somewhere else in the last 20 years.
The problem is that in the russian mindset all the former soviet republics still belong to russia. If not physicly then in their sphere of power. But the problem arrose now that Nato is pushing its borders directly to Russian borders now and I can understand their reaction, because of that. The reaction from russias viewpoint is legal since they are protecting their "ancient" lands. But for every other modern country this is insane.
Post edited March 07, 2014 by Matruchus
Pages:
1
25
26
27
28
29
50
75
100
118
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionUkrainian Civil War in progress?(1767 posts) (1767 posts) 
(1767 posts)