M
mlz
Guest
Lord have mercy and help Your Church!!! ( help my brothers and sisters in Christ please!!!)
mlz
mlz
- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
What’s the required quorum? According to dozens of news sources, the parliament that ousted him had a quorum - just barely, but if you have even the minimum quorum, it’s valid. And they exceeded it.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The attitudes taken here are shockingly intemperate. For a view which is far less reductionist and with far less of an agenda to push, I suggest that everybody should read Kissinger’s rather fair analysis of the situation. To suggest that Putin is clearly a villainous thug (I guess our collective amnesia in the West has conveniently stricken from the public discourse that Putin inherited an oligarchical and nuclear-armed state on the brink of collapse from Yeltsin, and that things have only improved since the nadir of the Yeltsin years), and that NATO is the virtuous protagonist (again, it is stricken from the public discourse that NATO’s militarily expansionist policies are needlessly aggressive towards Russia, and are likely the primary cause of Putin’s aggressive retaliatory measures in Ukraine and Georgia) is a completely unhelpful reduction of the political reality.
If the EU and NATO had Ukraine’s best interests in mind, the EU would not be attempting to restrict its easy access to Russian energy and industrial services (something even the most biased news sources admit would hurt Ukrainian industry, though in typical fashion, they attempt to spin hurting domestic industry into a necessary precondition for “progress”), nor would NATO be attempting to expand into Ukraine. I strongly agree with Kissinger’s assessment that to have guaranteed that Ukraine would not be made into a NATO member, that Crimea’s autonomy would be respected, and that Russia’s access to Sevastopol would be unrestricted in return for a guarantee that Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty would be respected would have gone a long way towards creating a compromise to stabilize the situation. Sadly, this has not happened.
If the EU and NATO had Ukraine’s best interests in mind, the EU would not be attempting to restrict its easy access to Russian energy and industrial services (something even the most biased news sources admit would hurt Ukrainian industry, though in typical fashion, they attempt to spin hurting domestic industry into a necessary precondition for “progress”), nor would NATO be attempting to expand into Ukraine. I strongly agree with Kissinger’s assessment that to have guaranteed that Ukraine would not be made into a NATO member, that Crimea’s autonomy would be respected, and that Russia’s access to Sevastopol would be unrestricted in return for a guarantee that Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty would be respected would have gone a long way towards creating a compromise to stabilize the situation. Sadly, this has not happened.
J
josie_L
Guest
Putin is an autocratic thug, ex KGB, gang loving friend of a fiend who is putting the whole world at risk because he is a megalomaniacal hypocritical ***.
P.S. I hope that my description of Putin is clear enough to everyone (Kissinger included).
P.S. I hope that my description of Putin is clear enough to everyone (Kissinger included).
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I wonder why nobody ever calls Yeltsin, who sent tanks in on a democratically elected parliament, who engaged in wide-spread voter fraud, who liquidated soviet assets and handed them over to oligarchs, and who illegally created the “presidential” Constitution which is currently in force in Russia any of the above names. Yet Putin who has not sent tanks in on a democratically elected parliament, who has not liquidated former assets of the Soviet union to create an oligarchy, and who exercises his presidential powers within the limits of the Constitution of 1993 left to him by Yeltsin (and as expanded in 1997, also under Yeltsin), he is automatically all of the above. In fact, so long as he acts within the lawful bounds of the 1993 Constitution, it would be inaccurate to describe him as an autocrat, as an autocrat by definition admits no higher authority than himself.Putin is an autocratic thug, ex KGB, gang loving friend of a fiend who is putting the whole world at risk because he is a megalomaniacal hypocritical ***.
P.S. I hope that my description of Putin is clear enough to everyone (Kissinger included).
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Just read it (I assume you mean this one).
Kissinger must know a lot of Ukrainians because his analysis of their temperament is exactly what I’ve come to see (reminds me of the Scots).
His words are very well thought out, and the only reason why this crisis has escalated to the level it has is because people like him, who actually have an idea what they’re talking about, have not helped. Grandstanding by all, though Obama and Putin in particular (I know Canada’s Harper has been trying his best to grandstand, but no one seems to notice), has only been a hindrance.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Actually the analyses of Rice and Brezhinski at the same site are far more insightful.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/zbigniew-brzezinski-after-putins-aggression-in-ukraine-the-west-must-be-ready-to-respond/2014/03/03/25b3f928-a2f5-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html
washingtonpost.com/opinions/condoleezza-rice-will-america-heed-the-wake-up-call-of-ukraine/2014/03/07/cf087f74-a630-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html
Kissinger makes errors of present fact and history. He contradicts his views that Ukraine should be independent with a highly circumscribed view of what it must do. Overall, it is pretty useless. Same mistake of Chamberlain and Daladier. This is not just about Ukraine. Transnistria? Kazakhstan? Lativa? Georgia - oops, been there,
Yes of course, blame the West first.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think, quite simply, it is because this isn’t about Yeltsin.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Oh my.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Or perhaps Kissinger is simply being realistic rather than taking the shallow approach of hollow moralizing. It would be one thing, of course, for the West to moralize about national sovereignty, if it actually respected that principle itself, which it most certainly does not. Indeed, the only governing principle of Western foreign policy at this point is that the Western powers reserve the right to overthrow your regime at any time, should you have the audacity to place your own national interests ahead of theirs. But one cannot invoke a moral principle in negotiations and expect the other side to capitulate, if the ones invoking the principle do not even follow it. Nor can the Western powers expect their own people to accept their empty moralizing as a justification for war (especially when they are already war weary).
Indeed, calling for military intervention in this case is highly irresponsible, as it will only solidify Russia’s resolve to react against what it interprets as the culmination of NATO’s gradual process of encroaching upon her borders since the fall of the Soviet Union. From Putin’s perspective, the benefits of military action far outweigh the potential costs (as it serves to send a message to NATO to halt its attempt to advance upon Russia’s borders). From the perspective of the Western powers, the opposite is true.
From a realistic standpoint, it would make far more sense to create a compromise, by which the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine and the right of the Ukrainian people for economic self-determination will be respected by Russia, in return for guaranteed Russian access to Sevastopol, a more autonomous Crimea, and the guarantee that NATO will not attempt to expand its military presence into Ukraine (and perhaps even for NATO to withdraw its military presence from some other former Eastern European states). Instead, we are only causing the situation to escalate, and I fear that the result will not be very good for Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty or right to economic self-determination at all. By playing a winner takes all game, we are gambling irresponsibly with Ukraine’s future, and the chances that the outcome will be good seem bleak, given the current economic and social climate in the West.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I do not think that Russia is not also acting against Ukraine’s national interests. Clearly, Russian hegemony is not in Ukraine’s national interests, nor does a solution where the nation will be split in twain between East and West seem feasible or in Ukraine’s best interests. But Russia is acting rationally and pragmatically, insofar as perceiving that its own interests in Ukraine are being threatened, it has made motions to protect its own interests. The West on the other hand is being much more idealistic, and this difference in approach can only spell disaster.Yes of course, blame the West first.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I also object to hollow moralizing. But I do not think that moral principles need to be abandoned.
Rubbish.
Apart from the issue of NATO withdrawals, that was the status quo ante the invasion of Crimea. The idea that we should abandon the Baltics to Russia - really? How cheap a view of freedom. While no none is playing a winner take all game - no move whatsoever has been made against Russia - I think you analysis of the prospects of a conflict is way off the mark in dismissing the capability of the West.
Yes Russia is acting according to some principles of rationality and pragmatism. Just as any criminal enterprise does. The countermeasure is to make it clear that consequences of pursuing the chosen approach will be less optional, rationally and pragmatically, than others that do not involve invasion and seizing of territory from other countries. However that is done, it is important that it is done - unless we really want to look to other the territory of other peoples, hoping only to be free, back to authoritarian Russia, and turn our backs on the fundamental ideas of liberty.
D
dvdjs
Guest
No hollow moralizing here:
risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/authors_columns/Siemens/55763/
risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/authors_columns/Siemens/55763/
M
MrClaims
Guest
The Crimea problem is getting worse everyday… With Putin claiming today that it has become a part of Russian Federation the war is unavoidable I’m afraid…
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t think I’m as well-versed on these matters as you are, but I’ve been thinking much the same … except with more emphasis on the desirability of Yanukovych being officially removed from his presidency.
K
KyrieEleison17
Guest
Like signing truces then immediately proceeding to violate and disregard them? Staying true to your words and agreements is not a basic moral principle?
What about a sitting parliament (or Congress) just taking it upon itself to pick and choose what parts of their constitution the country will or will not be subjected to, even before it could claim anything remotely like a mandate from the population? That does not bode well for Ukraine’s future democracy: that’s a terribly bad habit for a legislature to develop. Now any popular party in the Ukraine knows that if it wants to rearrange the government all it has to do it stage mass protests continually with increasing escalations of lawlessness (everyone’s forgotten that the protesters again and again indulged in such activities like raiding government offices) to effect a regime change. Crimea is on its way out of Ukraine in part because of an obvious disregard for minority rights, exactly what you expect when a country’s constitution and system of law and order is flouted.
Has the West promised at least the people of Ukraine that they will not be forced to accept austerity programs and other “restructuring”? Or do we still require new converts to prostrate themselves and abandon basic moral principles and their dignity to the idol of neoliberal economic theory and pass through the fire before being fully admitted into the club? Have their citizens been assured their bank accounts will not be raided and plundered to finance their present and future debt, which will no doubt explode in the years ahead? Have we promised that economic integration will be conducted in such a way that doesn’t result in mass sweeps of people being left unemployed and told to sit and wait because someday things will get better and someday they will have a shot at a decent job?
And where did the EU find these tens of billions of dollars for the Ukraine but had nothing but empty pockets when the Greeks needed it? Or how is it Western Europe, which suffers from such an alarmingly high unemployment rate among its young people (a terrible category for a country to neglect giving that being young with little or nothing to lose its not a recipe for social and political stability) have, notwithstanding, money enough to float the shortfalls of the Ukrainian government but can’t find the money to invest in the needs of their own citizens to provide them with the chance of a dignified life in their own countries?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Unlikely.
The West doesn’t have the resolve to go to war over this, Ukraine doesn’t have the power. The issue will soon be forgotten and Crimea will show up on future maps as “Claimed by Ukraine, administered by Russia”.
K
KyrieEleison17
Guest
Quebec according to international law only needed 50%+1 of the popular vote in a referendum to secede from Canada and become an independent state.
Personally, I do not disagree with that in principle except I would prefer something more like 53% or 54%, because 1 vote frankly makes the legitimacy of the referendum highly susceptible to criticism since in any major election there are always problems with counting (whether human or technical error) or instances where dead folks cast some ballots. Hinging the legitimacy of your state on a single vote sounds a little risky.
The referendum in Crimea sealed Crimea’s secession and only a referendum could undo or fundamentally alter it: there’s nothing more powerful than a popular referendum except people’s basic or human rights. The rest of this process is mere formality. There was overwhelming support of the local population to secede from Ukraine. Reversing or negating that fact will require a great deal of lying or shear sophistry.
If anything, you might see in the future a Crimea that seeks greater and greater autonomy while seeking, notwithstanding, to balance its regional political and economic realities. But any Ukrainian “claim” to Crimea is completely bogus at this point. The new authorities in Kiev are almost entirely to blame for this: at no point did they do themselves any favours in this regard.
Those of us who studied how the Soviets consolidated their power and authority know full well that they constantly rearranged and imposed arbitrary political divisions with little to no regard for the facts on the ground or, rather, with the aim of neutering or negating those facts by imposing artificial ones, which makes it harder for local populations to organize around natural leaders and the like. This is a classic strategy of any revolutionary inspired government that is often paranoid about the sentiments of the wider population toward the central regime. This is why so many former SSRs went through such painful internal conflicts and may still go through them. The hope is that this is accomplished more or less peacefully.
So far there’s no real risk of war emerging from the Ukraine in spite of the dramatic events that have unfolded. It’s all playing out more or less peacefully.
Frankly, what unfolded as a precedent in Crimea is likely to be a far better one than that which unfolded in Kiev. Consider the problems Western Europe especially is increasingly facing with high unemployment and the like. If Kiev is taken as a legitimate precedent for change than you could see attempts to unseat sitting governments in Western Europe. All you have to do to unseat a government based on the Kiev precedent is:
- cite a widely unpopular decision made by the government, combined with
- serious accusations of corruption.
Now given all the austerity rhetoric coupled with so many cuts in social spending this could brew a recipe for disaster, especially if its seen that those directing it politically are highly indebted to private interests that are perceived as benefiting from the results or arrangement to the great detriment of the general population.
S
Scythian
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
This referendum is a joke, a sham, a travesty, and that is not mere sophistry, i.e., you do not invade a country, take over its institutions, barricade its Ukrainian military bases, institute a new government that favours a pro-Russian union with the help of “pro-Russian” gunmen, i.e., Russian soldiers, put through a referendum that will favour Russia either way it goes, and then disregard the 42% of people who are not Russian ethnics by not placing a ballot choice that will allow them to remain in the Ukraine AS IS. Holy moly, what more evidence do you need that this was an orchestrated annexation of Crimea and not a valid referendum??
P.S. Hitler managed to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia without much violence either, but we all know what happened after that, don’t we?
J
josie_L
Guest
I think it was Chamberlain who tried to convince Churchill of the same thing with regard to Hitler.
- Status