Falklands In Light Of Crimea Rhetoric

[ben]

No objections on the Board to ex KGB agent Putin intervening in Crimea?

All that had been said was that the West has probably severely miscalculated with regard to Ukraine, specifically its importance to Russia (this is not a matter of judgement, just that it's most doubtful the EU/US would have pushed their line on Ukraine had they anticipated this response), not passing judgement on Russia's conduct.

I'd certainly quibble with saying - as caliexpat did - that "Russia is completely justified in her actions", that's a bit over the top. There's quite a bit of actions over there that one would have to justify. Russia is hardly a clean player here.

Whether in domestic politics with his oligarchs, or on the world stage with the US, Putin seems to offer a simple bargain: respect my turf, and I will respect yours. We'll help you with Afghanistan; don't lecture us about human rights in Chechnya. Don't enter politics against me, and I won't look into how you make your money. Khodorkovsky, Iraq, Syria etc are just what happens when he feels this arrangement isn't being held to.

 

[Caliexpat]

I'd certainly quibble with saying - as caliexpat did - that "Russia is completely justified in her actions", that's a bit over the top.

Of course Russia is not a clean player, nobody is saying that. Putin is no saint. However in this particular case, Russia is 100% justified because of their already existing historical interests in Crimea and the fact that the new Ukrainian govt. is illegitimate. The West is clearly acting as the aggressor in this situation and Putin has responded in kind. If anything, his decision to only secure Crimea was a muted one. He could have gone for the entire eastern half of Ukraine.

The Ukraine sits so squarely in the sphere of influence of Russia that to interfere with her mechanics is the equivalent of attacking Russia directly. Again, it would be the equivalent of Russia orchestrating a regime change in Canada or Mexico. The US would be furious and would respond with swift force to secure any military installations or interests that might be in jeopardy.

 

[Gringoboy]

Many believe Obama's actions, or lack of, put him in the same drawer as Chamberlain's 'peace in our time'.
If the hawks on Fox News are to be believed, he's the weakest US president since well, I don't know when.

 

[EdRooney]

Of course Russia is not a clean player, nobody is saying that. Putin is no saint. However in this particular case, Russia is 100% justified because of their already existing historical interests in Crimea and the fact that the new Ukrainian govt. is illegitimate...

The Ukraine sits so squarely in the sphere of influence of Russia that to interfere with her mechanics is the equivalent of attacking Russia directly. Again, it would be the equivalent of Russia orchestrating a regime change in Canada or Mexico. The US would be furious and would respond with swift force...

Caliexpat,

While I feel your intentions are in the right place, there are a few major problems with what you're saying. You make thoroughly valid points saying that the EU and Nato are directly threatening Russian interests, and that Ukraine no longer has a legitimate government. But then you use these reasons to justify an invasion, just as the US has used them to conduct its invasions/interventions. There are thus two ways to look at your points:

1. Either you are a jingoistic North American who is looking to justify illegal US actions by having other countries (Russia) legitimate them by doing the same thing.

or

2. You are looking to offset US wrongs with Russian wrongs.

I assume #2 is a better description of your position, but either way, what you have completely thrown out is international law. The fact is that while the problems you correctly pointed out are quite acute, there are established channels for dealing with Nato's unlawful interference that do not involve invading the territory of a sovereign country.

The justifications you gave for the Russian invasion are the same ones that have been given for almost every illegal intervention: in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel in the Golan Heights, Turkey in Cyprus, the US in Cuba, the Philippines etc. etc. Our interests are threatened, we have to protect our expatriates, blah blah blah. So essentially what you're saying is that the US is the gold standard for how countries should act; the US manufacturers these lame excuses to skirt international law and invade countries, so everyone else should too. But in fact it's the opposite; it's a case study of an immoral and illegal international player.

You are very right to point out that the Russians should be extremely wary of Nato on their incredibly shrinking periphery defences, but simply joining the aggressors club is not only morally unjustified, but it's also poor strategy, since when push comes to shove Russia's only possible defence will be to have the international community protect its sovereignty against the more powerful West.

 

[Big Al]

The West is engaged in a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the Russian bear. The cold war never really ended. What's happening in the Ukraine is clearly a case of the West being the aggressor and engineering a regime change in a country that is vitally important to Russia and squarely in her sphere of influence - not to mention that it sits on her border.

I love how the Ukraine was originally set to accept a $15 billion loan from Putin which was immediately increased to $35 billion as soon as the new govt. took power. I guess the IMF figured that $15 billion wasn't enough to turn the Ukraine into a debt slave country who will be fleeced of her assets and turned into another Greece.

Russia is completely justified in her actions. How would the US feel were Russia to engineer a regime change in Canada, Mexico or Puerto Rico and install a new leader who was buddy buddy with the Kremlin. And to top it all off, this is not the first time in recent memory that something similar has occurred. In 2008, Georgian forces attacked Russian posts in South Ossetia, a move that had NATO's fingerprints all over it. Even now, NATO is in discussions with Georgia for it to be granted membership.

Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers

http://www.theguardi...hton-urmas-paet

%100 agree with Caliexpat, very well said.

 

[Gringoboy]

I think comparisons with the Falklands are erroneous.
They were/are a sovereign British territory in the same way as Crimea is sovereign territory of Ukraine.
The main difference here is that the Falklands were not populated with Argentine sympathisers.
If Galtieri had succeeded and staid put, held a referendum (highly unlikely), rigged it and then declared the islands Argentine in perpetuam, it would have ended up with what we have now.
Thankfully, the United Kingdom ejected the Argentine occupiers as we all know; but what is happening in Ukraine sets a very dangerous precedent and the dictator Putin, knows he will get away with it due to Obama's weakness as Commander in Chief of The Free World.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I think comparisons with the Falklands are erroneous.
They were/are a sovereign British territory in the same way as Crimea is sovereign territory of Ukraine.
The main difference here is that the Falklands were not populated with Argentine sympathisers.
If Galtieri had succeeded and staid put, held a referendum (highly unlikely), rigged it and then declared the islands Argentine in perpetuam, it would have ended up with what we have now.
Thankfully, the United Kingdom ejected the Argentine occupiers as we all know; but what is happening in Ukraine sets a very dangerous precedent and the dictator Putin, knows he will get away with it due to Obama's weakness as Commander in Chief of The Free World.

So, should Obama declare war on Russia and send as many troops as possible to defend Ukraine?

 

[Gringoboy]

Not saying that for one minute.
As others have said, the cold war never really finished and it's been spy vs spy ever since.
But many have asked why the USA hasn't made a show of force at the very least.
Meanwhile, Putin laughs his socks off.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Not saying that for one minute.
As others have said, the cold war never really finished and it's been spy vs spy ever since.
But many have asked why the USA hasn't made a show of force at the very least.
Meanwhile, Putin laughs his socks off.

So, drop a strategic nuclear device on the tundra then?

 

[internationalguy]

I don't think that a conflict that might trigger WW3 is in any way funny.

Are you hysterical? WW3 ....not a chance.