fate

Principles. Morality. Doing what is right without regard to the bottom line

.

Which principles and which morality?
If one principle that the West stands for, is the right to self determination .....
then it could be argued that the right thing to do might be to sponsor a referendum in the Crimea and/or eastern Ukraine .
If the people of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine genuinely want to leave and join Russia then why should the people of the West Ukraine, and of the West stop them?

The notion that territorial integrity means a lot in a region where international boundaries have been fairly fluid for the last 50 years is a little dear. And the notion that the Crimea has an attachment to Ukraine that supercedes its attachment to Russia is fanciful. Even the nature of its political connection to Ukraine is evidence that it has never been a natural amalgamation.

If the West doesn't recognize the genuine popularity for Russian citizenship for peoples of Crimea and western Ukraine, then it is abandoning the principle of self determination. And giving Putin a win.

rickyp wrote:fate

Principles. Morality. Doing what is right without regard to the bottom line

.

Which principles and which morality?

Try to stay focused. The discussion was on why economic sanctions fail. The answer was because some people put money above principle. The rest of your post has nothing to do with my post.

What? I thought the forum was about blaming Obama for the fall of Ukraine.... At least that's what you started out doing... Or did you change your focus after a history lesson?

And I'm still wondering what principles you are bringing up ...?
Why would anyone want to place sanctions on the Russians if they are merely responding to the wishes of the citizens of the Crimea and/or Eastern Ukraine ?
Granted there hasn't been a clear democratic expression of the Crimean people's desire to become part of Russia. Nor that of the eastern Ukraine. But if there is an opportunity for this - I've no doubt the Crimea would vote to become Russian. And not much doubt about Eastern Ukraine...

If they clearly want to become Russian and secede from western Ukraine what role is the west and your sanctions playing? Besides, sanctions are a two edged sword. If Russia cuts off gas exports to Europe ..... who will feel the effects of sanctions first? Good thing winters coming to and end I suppose.
The basic issue here is a resolution of the borders of post Soviet Russia. The borders of the Soviet satellites were drawn in an arbitrary manner that is having a similar political effect to the Sykes Picot accord and its unnatural borders...
And I get that Ukraine isn't the same country demographically is was a hundred years ago. Especially the Crimea, since the Tartars were largely expelled... But dealing with what the region has become over the last thirty years is what has to happen. And maybe Putin has something on his side that makes sense if the principle of self determination matters.
Does it Fate?

Ricky:

And I get that Ukraine isn't the same country demographically is was a hundred years ago. Especially the Crimea, since the Tartars were largely expelled... But dealing with what the region has become over the last thirty years is what has to happen. And maybe Putin has something on his side that makes sense if the principle of self determination matters.
Does it Fate?

There has always been a tension between self-determination and respect for the nation state system. There are so many ethnicities in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa that self-determination without limits can create endless conflict. You have to take these things on a case-by-case basis.

In any case, the issue isn't whether Crimea wants to secede and then merge with Russia. The issue is whether Russia has the right to use force to make that happen in any country that has ethnic Russians. Certainly you wouldn't approve of other countries such as Germany, Rumania, etc. following the same course of action?

If Russia cares so much about self-determination they should let the Sunnis run most of Syria and the Chechnyans have independence.

ray
I

n any case, the issue isn't whether Crimea wants to secede and then merge with Russia. The issue is whether Russia has the right to use force to make that happen in any country that has ethnic Russians. Certainly you wouldn't approve of other countries such as Germany, Rumania, etc. following the same course of action?

No, I'm not saying that Putin has a right to use force the way he has. He's an authoritarian who seems to have a goal of restoring the former Soviets empire...
What I'm saying is that what he's doing is popular in the Crimea. (And Putin is also very popular within Russia). And that given a free choice to decide their fate (Which no one seems to be promoting) the Crimeans would probably choose Russia. Or the same kind of autonomous relationship with Russia that they have enjoyed with Ukraine up till now.
What I'm really saying is that if the Crimeans are generally okay with the occupation and their eventually annexation to Russia, we should be careful about over reacting....
If it wasn't worth going to the wall for South Ossetia, the wall should be avoided today as well.

If it wasn't worth going to the wall for South Ossetia, the wall should be avoided today as well.

This is the fundamental point.

There's such a thing as the Russian sphere of influence which we've always been willing to respect in the past. We may not have liked it, but we pragmatically realised that there was not much we could do about it and ultimatately since we have no vital strategic interests in the Russian near abroad it wasn't worth us getting involved. Why has that changed in this instance ? It's not like we have either the ability or the will to face upo to Russia over Ukraine, and neither is it that we can actually provide the sort of resources to the Ukrainian people that they're going to need to get through their economic crisis. The West, and particularly the EU, has just stoked a crisis that we're not prepared to resolve. that's incredibly irresponsible in my view.

Sorry Sass, but one side (the 'West') may have used soft power to try and win over Ukraine and it's people and politicians...

The other side (Russia) has sent troops into another country's sovereign territory and is using it as a means to annex part of it - Crimeans were supposed to be having a referendum on greater autonomy in a few weeks. That has now changed to a referendum to ratify joining the Russian Federation next weekend.

Why are people so quick to blame the EU for Russian aggression?

Self-determination for a people being ruled by a colonial power--yes Self-determination for groups that are not subject to discrimination or persecution--well, no (or at least not necessarily)The 20th century witnessed the dangers of too much focus on group rights. The focus on individual rights in a nation is what is key, not satisfying groups' wishes to have their own state.
And I am glad to see Dan has stepped back from the realpolitik edge...

freeman, we still need to be realistic. I oppose what the Russians are doing. I have reservations about the way that the Ukrainian government changed last month, what with hardline nationalists being part of the demonstrations.

And even if we agree that the Russians are more wrong, it still remains what to be seen what can actually be done about it.

Agreed.

danivon

Sorry Sass, but one side (the 'West') may have used soft power to try and win over Ukraine and it's people and politicians.

..
This is actually true of Russia too. after the break up of the old Soviet, the West could have embarked on a Marshall Plan for Russia and helped it establish solid democratic and economic underpinnings. Instead the West, after first promising not to expand NATO east preceded to do just that and to pointedly expand their influence into the former Soviet republics... This continued unto now with a unilateral EU package for Ukraine, and significant aid from the US to the Ukraine opposition. Putins offer of a joint solution was shrugged off by the EU...
From Russia's point of view, there was no acceptance of their nation and without the take off of the oil and gas economy Russia would be a rump today..
Western leaders failed to take advantage of the fall of the Soviet and treated Russia as a continuing enemy rather than a defeated enemy who could be helped to its feet as a full fledged democracy. (I'm sure this is somehow Obama's fault and await Fates explanation.)

The other side (Russia) has sent troops into another country's sovereign territory and is using it as a means to annex part of it - Crimeans were supposed to be having a referendum on greater autonomy in a few weeks. That has now changed to a referendum to ratify joining the Russian Federation next weekend.

I know how important correct detail is to you Danivon. So remember that Russia did not have to send troops to the Crimea. They were already there. As a part of the accord that Kruschev made with Ukraine in handing over the Crimea as an autonomous entity within Ukraine - Russia was guaranteed the presence of 25,000 Russian troops .
In that sense it has always been occupied by Russia.
The farce of having troops remove their Russian insignia before having them move into the streets is an indication that Putin does care about appearing legitimate if he can. Which means that there is still the chance that engaging him can have some kind of an effect. It won't get him to move on the Crimean annexation however. Well, in the highly unlikely event that the referendum fails it would be awkward for him, but if the referendum goes 65% or more in fair of the Russian choice....exactly what significant objection can the West have?

rickyp wrote:

The other side (Russia) has sent troops into another country's sovereign territory and is using it as a means to annex part of it - Crimeans were supposed to be having a referendum on greater autonomy in a few weeks. That has now changed to a referendum to ratify joining the Russian Federation next weekend.

I know how important correct detail is to you Danivon. So remember that Russia did not have to send troops to the Crimea. They were already there. As a part of the accord that Kruschev made with Ukraine in handing over the Crimea as an autonomous entity within Ukraine - Russia was guaranteed the presence of 25,000 Russian troops .
In that sense it has always been occupied by Russia.

I think you'll find that deal was ended when the USSR was disbanded, and Crimea, Ukraine and the new Russian Federation negotiated a settlement in the early 1990s, updated in agreements up to the one in 2010.

Yes, there are Russian troops in Crimea. But they are there because of the agreement to keep the Russian Black Sea Fleet base and supporting infrastructure at Sevastopol.

It does appear that troops have moved into Crimea from Russia in the last few weeks, and it is abundantly clear that Russian troops are way outside the base areas and are occupying not just military but civilian facilities across the peninsular. Even if they all started from Sevastopol, it is a clear incursion from agreed Russian sites (leased from Ukraine) into Ukraine proper.

If America decided to use troops from Guantanamo Bay (where they are allowed to be under lease terms) to police parts of Cuba outside the lease area, would you give them much credence for saying "we are allowed to have troops in Cuba"?

The farce of having troops remove their Russian insignia before having them move into the streets is an indication that Putin does care about appearing legitimate if he can. Which means that there is still the chance that engaging him can have some kind of an effect. It won't get him to move on the Crimean annexation however. Well, in the highly unlikely event that the referendum fails it would be awkward for him, but if the referendum goes 65% or more in fair of the Russian choice....exactly what significant objection can the West have?

Well, I think it's about pretending that they are locally formed militia rather than actual Russian troops. Clearly there is the intent to 'look' legitimate with a new Crimean government elected (with guns in the chamber, which didn't even happen in Kiev), a majority for independence in the chamber (even if a few MPs are missing and the gunmen could come back) and a referendum (with the votes being counted by pro-Russians). In the same way that Mugabe cares about legitimacy, I guess.

But there is a big question - if 65% vote for transfer to Russia, what does that mean for the 35% who don't? Given what happened to the Tatars a couple of generations ago, can they be confident their rights will be upheld under Russia?

danivon

But there is a big question - if 65% vote for transfer to Russia, what does that mean for the 35% who don't? Given what happened to the Tatars a couple of generations ago, can they be confident their rights will be upheld under Russia?

I'm sure they are going to be unsettled.
Is Putin as bad as Stalin who expelled the Tartars? I'm going with no. Stalin was in a league or two above Putin when it comes to despotism.
With the exception of the brutal war in Chechnya his behaviours have been authoritarian and anti democratic but he hasn't started murdering his own citizens or setting up Gulags...
And his Ossetian and Crimean moves have been popular with most of the citizens of the regions....
By the way, the West hasn't reacted to the rebellion in Chechnya quite the same way as the occupation of Ukraine. I wonder if the Tartars, Muslims, were still the majority in the Crimea if the West would have the same concerns that are expressed now...

I actually have some ties to the region and my ancestors (well my Great Grandfather) left what is now Ukraine, but only a short distance from Crimea back in 1905. The family had been settled in Ukraine as a German speaking colony from Prussiafor 7 generations, but were increasingly persecuted by Cossacks, Ukrainians and Russians. If the stories are to be believed, mostly the Cossacks. The family that remained went through misery in WWI and WWII as, being German speaking, their allegiances were constantly questioned. As far as i know the last of my distant Russian relations were killed or sent to Siberia in WWII.
The plight of the ethnic minority is ever the same...
The evil that was Stalin just made the ethnic minority not just minority in a region but in the country as a whole. That the Tartars have, to some extent, returned to the Crimea since the fall of the Soviet is, perhaps, witness that there has been an evolution towards greater acceptance of minorities in Russia.
At least we should hope so, and hope that the Tartars can live peacefully.
(As long as they aren't gay I guess. To be a gay tartar in Russian Crimea, now that would be tough. )

rickyp wrote:That the Tartars have, to some extent, returned to the Crimea since the fall of the Soviet is, perhaps, witness that there has been an evolution towards greater acceptance of minorities in Russia.

umm... You mean Ukraine?

danivon wrote:If Obama was the proximate cause of the problems in Ukraine, you may have a point. But he is not, and there is far more to it than the US policy.

I am not cheerleading, on the contrary - can you possibly look at the issue without bringing your ODS into it? This is about Ukraine, Russia, the EU...

Hmm, is the WaPo editorial board getting close to a bad case of ODS?

Obama doesn’t grasp Putin’s Eurasian ambitions

. . .

The Obama administration and its European allies have been too slow to grasp that Mr. Putin is bent on upending the post-Cold War order in Europe and reversing Russia’s loss of dominion over Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Worse, some in and outside of Western governments may be feeding Mr. Putin’s imperialism by rushing to concede “Russian interests” in Eurasia. President Obama and Mr. Kerry are among those who have said they recognize such “interests” in Ukraine. But the fact that there are ethnic Russians in a country should not give Mr. Putin’s regime a privileged say in its affairs. The idea that areas populated by Russians must be ruled or protected by Moscow is less the ideology of the 19th century, as Mr. Kerry would have it, than of the 1930s.

Is Obama the "proximate cause?"

No, but did he open the door by promising Medvedev that Putin could count on "more flexibility" after the election?

Yes.

Has anything Obama has done given Putin any reason to think he (Obama) could not be cowed?

No.

Does Putin respect Obama?

I think the answer is clear.

Bullies don't respect weakness. Obama has exhibited all the strength of an newborn baby--and as much tenacity. Until someone he respects does something, Putin will continue his bluster.