Ukraine

[Emcee77]

I'm surprised at all the sympathy for Putin in this thread. I listened to this on the way home from work on Friday:

Week In Politics: Ukraine, Ariz. Veto And Obama's Task Force : NPR

It's already out of date after the events of this weekend, but note that David Brooks called Russia a "failed state run by a narcissistic autocrat."

There's no reason for Putin to be afraid of NATO except that he doesn't share the values of member nations. Civil rights, human rights, the rule of law ... Putin doesn't care about any of them as much as he cares about his own power. This scholar thinks that his idea of a legacy is a "Eurasian Union" to oppose the European Union:

What It Means When The 'Wolf Cries Wolf': Fascism In Ukraine : NPR

And here's where things get a little bit interesting and complicated because Russia under Vladimir Putin has this idea of building up a rival to the European Union. This rival is going to be called the Eurasian Union, and it's going to be based upon a completely different set of values.

Rather than rejecting the worst of the 20th century, as people in Western Europe see it, rather than rejecting fascism and communism, the idea is to draw elements of fascism and communism, what seems to be most useful. Rather than being liberal and democratic, the idea is to oppose liberal democracy.

And for Putin personally, the Eurasian Union, which is at the moment his pet project and his idea of a legacy, will only be meaningful if it includes Ukraine. And for it to include Ukraine, Ukraine has to be some kind of authoritarian regime that seems to be sufficiently under his control.

I don't think wizards was necessarily that far off when he said that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR. He wants to build up power in a "Eurasian Union," which will allow him to do whatever the hell he wants, and he sees an opportunity to advance that goal by taking control of Ukraine.


Something else to emphasize is the stunning corruption that obtained in Ukraine under Yanukovytch, the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine. It was a kleptocracy that existed to enrich a few oligarchs. Yanukovytch's son is one of the richest men in Ukraine, and no one can explain why. The state was corrupt to its core and that's why it was on the verge of bankruptcy. This is WHY Ukrainians want to orient toward the EU ... the values of EU nations prevent leaders from STEALING FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

I am frequently accused of relativism by my conservative friends, and I am always one to try to see it from the other side, but in this case I really can't. This struggle is corruption and autocracy on one side and freedom and the rule of law on the other.

 

[Emcee77]

Russia is a great power. Ukraine is on Russia's door-step. I'd suggest we have virtually no power to influence the situation there is a positive way.

I tend to agree. I am extremely concerned about what Putin is doing but I really don't know what we can do about it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anyone intelligent enough to explain what the hell is exactly going on there?

Any of this count as intelligent so far?

 

[NDBoiler]

I tend to agree. I am extremely concerned about what Putin is doing but I really don't know what we can do about it.

I say we challenge them with a boxing match, pitting our most scrappy, blue-collar fighter against their most geneticially engineered, roided-up fighter.


We will win, I'm sure of it.

 

[chicago51]

I say we challenge them with a boxing match, pitting our most scrappy, blue-collar fighter against their most geneticially engineered, roided-up fighter.


We will win, I'm sure of it.

I think this speech had just as much to do with ending the cold war:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QRBak_2X3Do" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As this one:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7NjNL4Nsa4Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Emcee77]

Something else that should be in this thread ...

Don't believe the rhetoric of Yanukovytch and his supporters. The opposition to Yanukovych was not "fascist". A small part of the opposition to Yanukovych and the pro-Russia Ukraine was made up of ultra-nationalists or fascists, it's true, but there is a fascist or nationalist element in many countries. The far right or fascist party in France, the Front National, has won 20% of the vote in national elections before, but no one generally calls the French opposition fascist. The protesters were not generally fascist; they were generally seeking to stop Yanukovych from stealing from them.

But don't take my word for it:

Bernard-Henri Levy: Ukraine’s Revolutionaries Are Not Fascists - The Daily Beast

 

[potownhero]

All right on. here. NATO is munching up ex-USSR territories over the last 20 years. If Ukraine goes to the EU, that puts a large NATO Territory 450 miles from Moscow.

The distinction is that the countries that joined Nato did on their own accord. What is happening in the Ukraine right now isn't necessarily a choice.

Note also that the Ukrainian president was impeached by the legislature.

I see Russia doing what's in their best interest. When they've been invaded, it's been through the soft underbelly that Ukraine represents. That said, it doesn't make it right.

One has to ask, what confidence our allies will have in us going forward if we don't back our treaty commitments here.

Looks to be a growing alliance between China and Russia. Trouble ahead.

 

[phillyirish]

I say we challenge them with a boxing match, pitting our most scrappy, blue-collar fighter against their most geneticially engineered, roided-up fighter.


We will win, I'm sure of it.

Interestingly enough, Vitali Klitchsko, the just retired Heavyweight champion and probably one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, is running for the Ukrainian presidency in 2015 (He is pro Euro in case you wondering).

 

[chicago51]

Something else that should be in this thread ...

Don't believe the rhetoric of Yanukovytch and his supporters. The opposition to Yanukovych was not "fascist". A small part of the opposition to Yanukovych and the pro-Russia Ukraine was made up of ultra-nationalists or fascists, it's true, but there is a fascist or nationalist element in many countries. The far right or fascist party in France, the Front National, has won 20% of the vote in national elections before, but no one generally calls the French opposition fascist. The protesters were not generally fascist; they were generally seeking to stop Yanukovych from stealing from them.

But don't take my word for it:

Bernard-Henri Levy: Ukraine’s Revolutionaries Are Not Fascists - The Daily Beast

I think people think the wrong thing when they think fascist. The term fascist doesn't mean Italy or Nazi Germany which I know comes to my head. It is just a term meaning the merger of corporate and state interest. Yes fascism is extremism, I would certainly say it is a bad thing but it doesn't always mean what was happening in Nazi Germany.

It really means corporatism. Sort of a weird far far right way of thinking that the goal of the state (government in general) should be to do what is best for the corporations.

 

[phillyirish]

The distinction is that the countries that joined Nato did on their own accord. What is happening in the Ukraine right now isn't necessarily a choice.

Note also that the Ukrainian president was impeached by the legislature.

I see Russia doing what's in their best interest. When they've been invaded, it's been through the soft underbelly that Ukraine represents. That said, it doesn't make it right.

One has to ask, what confidence our allies will have in us going forward if we don't back our treaty commitments here.

Looks to be a growing alliance between China and Russia. Trouble ahead.

Not that anyone is ever going to invade Russia anytime soon, but this is just false unless you counting the mongols ~800 years ago. Hitler invaded along the entire Russian border. Napoleon invaded through Poland. And Even Poland in the early 17th century captured moscow though Smolensk along the North-Central border.

 

[Emcee77]

I think people think the wrong thing when they think fascist. The term fascist doesn't mean Italy or Nazi Germany which I know comes to my head. It is just a term meaning the merger of corporate and state interest. Yes fascism is extremism, I would certainly say it is a bad thing but it doesn't always mean what was happening in Nazi Germany.

It really means corporatism. Sort of a weird far far right way of thinking that the goal of the state (government in general) should be to do what is best for the corporations.

Well, it can mean different things to different people. One glib way of putting it is to say that in a fascist state, business owns government, whereas in a communist state, government owns business.

But Yanukovych, when he says the protesters are made up of fascists, is talking about Nazi-ish fascists, ultra-nationalists, people who believe in the superiority of the Ukrainian people and nation. What I'm trying to point out is that, while there were some such people among the protesters, it is inaccurate and misleading to call the protesters generally fascist, whatever that word means to you, or generally anything except outraged at the fact that Ukraine's government has institutionalized the practice of stealing from its people.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

OK so where I get confused in all of this is that IF Russia is supporting the President of Ukraine, who exactly is getting pissed off an calling for other nations to help expel the Russians?

That's the old president. He gone -- exiled in Crimea. Russia's sending in troops to "support" him and other pro-Russians, but everyone thinks this is just sort of a ruse to annex Crimea and the Black Sea ports (including Sevastopol). Russia literally rents these ports right now, and losing them would be huge.

 

[IrishinTN]

Has anyone else seen an eerily similar path with Putin to Hitler?

Hitler's early career was a soldier and then an intelligence officer asked to infiltrate the DAP (Nazi Party)

Putin's early career was a soldier and then head of Russian intelligence agency.

Hitler's rise to power aided by economic collapse that lead to emergency state allowing easier change from democratic rule to authoritarian state by using fear to vote to change countries constitution.

Putin's rise to power aided by USSR collapse and fear of Westernization. Says he will change constitution if necessary. So far parliament has allowed everything he's wanted without a need to do so.

1936 Olympics in Germany highlight Hitler a "revitalized Germany" touting him as a great world leader.

2014 Olympics in Russia highlight Putin and revitalized "Russia" heralding him as a great world leader.

1938 Hitler chosen as Time's Man of the Year.

2007 Putin chosen as Time's Man of the Year.

Both men are known to "silence" vocal opponents with prison or worse.

Both men built up military war production to buoy economy while producing arms in spite of treaties promising not to.

Hitler takes Sudentenland claiming need to "protect German citizens" and then Austria without firing a shot.

Putin takes Ukraine claiming need to "protect Russian citizens" and already did the same with the Crimea, even if he only "rents" the ports.

How long until he says "we need breathing room"? I don't know. As a history major and junkie, it just seems things are way too similar between these two people and he will keep pushing it until something happens to stop him. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an assassination attempt (real or contrived) to further bolster support for him and continue to give him authoritarian powers.

Just seems like history trying real hard to repeat itself.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Will anyone think this is a "loss" for EU/NATO if Russia annexes Crimea and the Ukrainian people's anger sends Ukraine "west" faster and more enthusiastically? I would count that as a win 10/10 times. This can boil down to Putin getting his national defense objective checked before they went west anyway.

Russia will have Crimea and honestly that could make the region stabler over time. Nobody wants a Russia with a chip on its shoulder. We know the Russians were nervous about losing those ports in 2017 and that situation wasn't going to end well.

 

[NDBoiler]

Has anyone else seen an eerily similar path with Putin to Hitler?

Hitler's early career was a soldier and then an intelligence officer asked to infiltrate the DAP (Nazi Party)

Putin's early career was a soldier and then head of Russian intelligence agency.

Hitler's rise to power aided by economic collapse that lead to emergency state allowing easier change from democratic rule to authoritarian state by using fear to vote to change countries constitution.

Putin's rise to power aided by USSR collapse and fear of Westernization. Says he will change constitution if necessary. So far parliament has allowed everything he's wanted without a need to do so.

1936 Olympics in Germany highlight Hitler a "revitalized Germany" touting him as a great world leader.

2014 Olympics in Russia highlight Putin and revitalized "Russia" heralding him as a great world leader.

1938 Hitler chosen as Time's Man of the Year.

2007 Putin chosen as Time's Man of the Year.

Both men are known to "silence" vocal opponents with prison or worse.

Both men built up military war production to buoy economy while producing arms in spite of treaties promising not to.

Hitler takes Sudentenland claiming need to "protect German citizens" and then Austria without firing a shot.

Putin takes Ukraine claiming need to "protect Russian citizens" and already did the same with the Crimea, even if he only "rents" the ports.

How long until he says "we need breathing room"? I don't know. As a history major and junkie, it just seems things are way too similar between these two people and he will keep pushing it until something happens to stop him. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an assassination attempt (real or contrived) to further bolster support for him and continue to give him authoritarian powers.

Just seems like history trying real hard to repeat itself.

Great points, and I hope like heck you are wrong.

 

[NDBoiler]

Will anyone think this is a "loss" for EU/NATO if Russia annexes Crimea and the Ukrainian people's anger sends Ukraine "west" faster and more enthusiastically? I would count that as a win 10/10 times. This can boil down to Putin getting his national defense objective checked before they went west anyway.

Russia will have Crimea and honestly that could make the region stabler over time. Nobody wants a Russia with a chip on its shoulder. We know the Russians were nervous about losing those ports in 2017 and that situation wasn't going to end well.

See the post right above yours and what complacency breeds.

IrishinTN made a great list of points showing how the same attitude, although unintentional as it was at the time, ultimately led to WWII. I understand that Putin may not have aspirations of world domination, etc., but just remember that "the road to failure is paved with good intentions".

 

[IrishinTN]

Will anyone think this is a "loss" for EU/NATO if Russia annexes Crimea and the Ukrainian people's anger sends Ukraine "west" faster and more enthusiastically? I would count that as a win 10/10 times. This can boil down to Putin getting his national defense objective checked before they went west anyway.

Russia will have Crimea and honestly that could make the region stabler over time. Nobody wants a Russia with a chip on its shoulder. We know the Russians were nervous about losing those ports in 2017 and that situation wasn't going to end well.

A valid question but my concern would be if he is willing to stop there or not. I think not.

 

[Corry]

Worth a look. It has the most up to date info I could find. [live] /r/UkrainianConflict Live Thread

 

[Rhode Irish]

A valid question but my concern would be if he is willing to stop there or not. I think not.

I definitely agree with Buster, and unfortunately I think your concern is valid, too. Guiding this thing to a relatively smooth landing such as the scenario Buster proposed would take some political finesse the likes of which the world hasn't seen in some time. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which any action on the West's part doesn't escalate matters, but on the other hand I think Putin is legitimately crazy and completely untrustworthy.

 

[IrishinTN]

I definitely agree with Buster, and unfortunately I think your concern is valid, too. Guiding this thing to a relatively smooth landing such as the scenario Buster proposed would take some political finesse the likes of which the world hasn't seen in some time, unfortunately. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which we action on the West's part doesn't escalate matters, but on the other hand I think Putin is legitimately crazy and completely untrustworthy.

Totally agreed. Every bit the megalomaniac ready to unravel.

 

[notredomer23]

I definitely agree with Buster, and unfortunately I think your concern is valid, too. Guiding this thing to a relatively smooth landing such as the scenario Buster proposed would take some political finesse the likes of which the world hasn't seen in some time. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which any action on the West's part doesn't escalate matters, but on the other hand I think Putin is legitimately crazy and completely untrustworthy.

I wouldn't call Putin so much crazy. Moreso, stuck in the 1970's and 1980's. He still has a Cold War mentality.

 

[gkIrish]

I think the default answer to the question of whether the US should get involved militarily should always be NO. In an extremely general sense, these are potentially valid reasons to act:

1. American lives are being threatened.
2. Genocide (high threshold)
3. American economic or other interests are threatened in violation of a treaty or other agreement. (and only after other means to rectify the situation have been exhausted).

As always, the risk of losing American lives in the process must be weighed.

I don't see how this situation fits into any of those (yet) so I really hope the President doesn't make any threats to use our military power. I'm not aware of any yet...

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,"

Holy shit. And he managed to say that with a straight face?

 

[wizards8507]

You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.

Right, except Putin JUST DID.

 

[phillyirish]

Will anyone think this is a "loss" for EU/NATO if Russia annexes Crimea and the Ukrainian people's anger sends Ukraine "west" faster and more enthusiastically? I would count that as a win 10/10 times. This can boil down to Putin getting his national defense objective checked before they went west anyway.

Russia will have Crimea and honestly that could make the region stabler over time. Nobody wants a Russia with a chip on its shoulder. We know the Russians were nervous about losing those ports in 2017 and that situation wasn't going to end well.

Not necessarily or automatically a win for Euro. The EU is already struggling as it is. The Ukrainian economy is by far the worst of all the former soviet sates. Seriously their GDP per capita is barley $3000. For Europe that is ridiculously low, less than half the amount of its northern, de-facto dictatorship neighbor, Belarus. Though its likely that both the EU and Ukraine (especially Ukraine) will benefit form merging economic practices, their is a chance that the hardships of the EU could collapse under the added struggles of the Ukraine economic situation. Adding the proposed secession of the Crimea to the Russians, it could only further detriment the Ukrainian/Euro merger successes. Especially Since the Crimea houses two of Ukraine's top 15 cities and its second largest port.
__________________

 

[tussin]

I think the default answer to the question of whether the US should get involved militarily should always be NO.

Yeah... I don't understand how the EU gets steamrolled by Putin, and all of a sudden the talk is what the US is going to do to resolve the situation. How about the EU handles their own issues instead of assuming the US will? They should be able to sidestep this and concede back to Russia an area that was always really theirs (Crimea). I mean, the place is like 80% Russian nationals.

In terms of Putin's motivation, he isn't "crazy." He's no different than any other leader of a modern super-power, and I really can't blame him for capitalizing on political turmoil in a directly neighboring nation. It's a pure power play in the to expand / solidify the political reach of Russia. Hmmm... can I think of any recent US actions with similar motivations?

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[phillyirish]

Yeah... I don't understand how the EU gets steamrolled by Putin, and all of a sudden the talk is what the US is going to do to resolve the situation. How about the EU handles their own issues instead of assuming the US will? They should be able to sidestep this and concede back to Russia an area that was always really theirs (Crimea). I mean, the place is like 80% Russian nationals.

In terms of Putin's motivation, he isn't "crazy." He's no different than any other leader of a modern super-power, and I really can't blame him for capitalizing on political turmoil in a directly neighboring nation. It's a pure power play in the to expand / solidify the political reach of Russia. Hmmm... can I think of any recent US actions with similar motivations?

Actually a slight majority, almost 60%. Then about 12% are Tatar (Muslim) and the rest Ukrainian (or I guess "Ukrainian as a first language" Ukrainian since everyone living in the Crimea is technically Ukrainian).

And Putin is not acting like "any other leader of a moder superpower" (cause there are so many to compare him to, right?) but he is acting like a declining, former second-rate power, doing everything he can to hold onto diminishing influence that his nation has left for a slight chance to return to the stage as a predominant world power. The only way he has the slimmest chance of succeeding at that is by consolidating the power of Commonwealth of Independent states into a centralized authoritative system resembling something the former USSR.