Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Cope]

You didn't actually adress his question though. You're suggesting the US should spend money on what from your perspective surely is altruistic. Even setting aside the argument by Legio in the OP, that it's counter the US interests in other parts of the world, or the arguments presented by me that they're not altruistic in the slightest; you don't even attempt to make the most basic argument as to why. Surely you can do better?

There isn't an argument, only demands that the US continue to shield eastern Europe and the Black Sea from Russian influence/interference. When push comes to shove most people - even those who posture against the US - are happier with American support than without it.

[Cookiegod]

Doing more is not necessarily doing better. I don't see any value in engaging in Heathen Hammer's hypocritically obnoxious approach to this issue as its quite self-observatory.

I guess if no argument for is at hand gainsaying will have to make do. I mean it's not like one needs an argument for military escalation, right? If anything one needs one against!1!!

There isn't an argument, only demands that the US continue to shield eastern Europe and the Black Sea from Russian influence/interference. When push comes to shove most people - even those who posture against the US - are happier with American support than without it.

Who exactly? The 20ish percent still supporting the president or the 10ish percent supporting his main rival, the expresident? Both of which were voted in on the premise that they would deescalate compared to the previous installment. Both of which were so sure on the democratic will of the people they continued on the path of making sure that none of their decisions could be reversed by popular will.

[PointOfViewGun]

We often do have to pick the lesser of multiple evils. Yet, perhaps the biggest failure comes in assuming that USA is the only party in this issue. Getting caught in such petty point contributes what exactly? Not much I guess. I can't see an actual response to my question though. Which makes calls on me ignoring questions rather ironic. What does USA supposed to do with Ukraine exactly?

[Legio_Italica]

All treaties that had been made to reduce the risks of military confrontation and large scale destruction are effectively dead. And the fates of Iraq and Libya make abundantly clear what happens to those who cannot deter aggression with a punishing counterstrike.

Germany/Japan are a more accurate historical example of what happens when a major world power gets completely btfo by America in the way you describe, and I suppose that’s why one might prefer the Iraq/Libya comparison - unless the argument is that Russia is already a barely functional state that’s one high profile assassination away from societal collapse. If only the USSR had been torn down and reconstructed by America in exchange for some bases and trade deals as opposed to collapsing on its own eh?

No, the Russian intentions are to not have a hostile superpower right at its doorstep. It prefers that the conflict in the Donbass region is ended in accordance to the Minsk agreement, which the US and its Ukrainian puppets have no interest in. If Russia had actually wanted to conquer Ukraine, it could have done so easily in early 2015, when after the Ukrainian army had been eviscerated in several cauldrons, there was absolutely nothing left to stop them from going all the way to Kiev.

I mean, you talk about the law of the jungle and then say stuff like this. Whether the doorstep is in Berlin or Kiev, the intention is always allegedly “to not have a hostile superpower right at its doorstep.” What Russia has been doing in Ukraine/Crimea has been called “blatantly against international law” by the international community, so I’m sure we don’t need to go down that road.

The US isn't the one responding, but the one constantly encouraging the regime in Kiev to restart the war against its own citizens. It's the Russians who are scrambling for a response.
Personalising it and pretending the whole country is a monolithic entity with just one person, rather than a state with multiple factions with diverging interests is a common tactic to hide that it's actually directed against an entire people.

Meh. You know me. My argument isn’t that Russia is a victim here. It’s that seemingly aimless US policy is a holdover from a time when the concern was that a failure of containment would directly lead to Soviet tanks rolling into Paris, and the goal was therefore to oppose any and all Russian interests for the sake of it. We’ve got more important things to do, and I certainly wish America were strong enough to take down Russia and China at the same time (all the more glorious if nothing else), but I highly doubt it. At the same time, I’m therefore not arguing Russia is too strong; nearly the opposite - that containment can be achieved through less antagonistic and high profile means, the pursuit of which only makes it clear to Moscow they have no choice but to become a Chinese vassal and hope the Politburo is a less hands-on gardener than the US. Given that China and Russia are neighbors ultimately competing for the same space if nothing else, I don’t think that’s a reasonable hope. I’m just pointing out it’s currently in Russia’s interests to side with anyone potentially strong enough to bring down the US, and that’s partly the fault of outdated US policy.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9D2WBCsHJQY

Not necessarily. At least not now. Russia's been afraid of China since Khrushchev, but these days border issues have been resolved in that Russia simply conceded all disputed terrain, and China and Russia these days do not really have interests that interfere with one another that much. One rare exception is ironically the Ukraine, where the Chinese exploited the crash of the Ukrainian economy to try and acquire as much of its strategically valuable industry as possible. But China too has come to realise that Ukraine isn't exactly a country worth dealing with.

Don’t say that to the Indian nationalists. Poor guys are still pulling for you after all these years. True friends.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sOW2EjFLQls

As for what the goal is, it seems to me antagonisation is the goal. And Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. stand to win either way. The US doesn't want to confront China at the cost of losing control of Europe and views too friendly relations between Russia and Germany as a threat. As such, control over Poland and Ukraine are a superb way of keeping Germany in line.

Europe is kept in line by sheer habit and an unwillingness to do defense spending. Sure, the Russian threat keeps the Cold War framework alive, but Moscow has proven plenty capable of grey zone warfare in Europe with or without a NATO narrative, to the point where the UK has explicitly warned of war with Russia for some reasons independent of the Ukraine/Crimea situation.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/wes...ys-2021-11-13/

[Cope]

Who exactly? The 20ish percent still supporting the president or the 10ish percent supporting his main rival, the expresident? Both of which were voted in on the premise that they would deescalate compared to the previous installment. Both of which were so sure on the democratic will of the people they continued on the path of making sure that none of their decisions could be reversed by popular will.

Not sure how support for one president or another translates into a desire to abandon the longstanding alliance with the US, particularly when the US is picking up the tab. So far as I can tell, despite the ever present complaints, there is no appetite among major political parties in Europe to ditch American support.

[Heathen Hammer]

We often do have to pick the lesser of multiple evils. Yet, perhaps the biggest failure comes in assuming that USA is the only party in this issue. Getting caught in such petty point contributes what exactly? Not much I guess. I can't see an actual response to my question though. Which makes calls on me ignoring questions rather ironic. What does USA supposed to do with Ukraine exactly?

Nobody ignored your question. You asked what US should do about Ukraine and it makes sense to first ask why should US be doing anything about foreign conflict that doesn't directly affect American taxpayer in the process and you replied saying its hypocritical to ask that, kinda setting your whole stance on fire.

[Cookiegod]

We often do have to pick the lesser of multiple evils. Yet, perhaps the biggest failure comes in assuming that USA is the only party in this issue. Getting caught in such petty point contributes what exactly? Not much I guess. I can't see an actual response to my question though. Which makes calls on me ignoring questions rather ironic. What does USA supposed to do with Ukraine exactly?

LOL!
I already stated very clearly from the start what my stance on Ukraine is: Not pushing for war. Not supporting a neonazi antidemocratic and cleptocratic regime. Not try to bully a nuclear power into war.

Now that we've clarified that your question has been answered from the start, let's check up on what your answer to mine is: "Eh, why not."

So again: LOL!

Germany/Japan are a more accurate historical example of what happens when a major world power gets completely btfo by America in the way you describe, and I suppose that’s why one might prefer the Iraq/Libya comparison - unless the argument is that Russia is already a barely functional state that’s one high profile assassination away from societal collapse. If only the USSR had been torn down and reconstructed by America in exchange for some bases and trade deals as opposed to collapsing on its own eh?

Germany and Japan are perfect examples of what happens when the US is still acting in a multilateral framework. Never mind that exhonerating a big bunch of people involved in crimes against humanity isn't something I'd advertise given the point you're trying to make.

I mean, you talk about the law of the jungle and then say stuff like this. Whether the doorstep is in Berlin or Kiev, the intention is always allegedly “to not have a hostile superpower right at its doorstep.” What Russia has been doing in Ukraine/Crimea has been called “blatantly against international law” by the international community, so I’m sure we don’t need to go down that road.

For one, there's no justification for Kosovo that doesn't legitimise Crimean independence as well. Secondly you did no attempt whatsoever to address my question, so I'll ask again:
By what right can the Kievan regime lay claim to Crimea when its entire legitimacy is and was based on the constitution it violated to come into being?
By what reasoning were the Crimeans supposed to feel any loyalty to a regime that on the very document that made the Crimeans owe them anything?

Not to mention the behaviour shown by "Automaidan" people to the Antimaidan protestors who were on their way home to Crimea:

For the crime of protesting against the regime change, several were beaten to death.
I suppose not everyone has the right to demonstrate. It's ok for ultranationalists from the western half of Ukraine to impose their will on the rest of the country, even if it's with violence and murder.

How dare the Crimeans take that as a warning of things to come.

Meh. You know me. My argument isn’t that Russia is a victim here. It’s that seemingly aimless US policy is a holdover from a time when the concern was that a failure of containment would directly lead to Soviet tanks rolling into Paris, and the goal was therefore to oppose any and all Russian interests for the sake of it. We’ve got more important things to do, and I certainly wish America were strong enough to take down Russia and China at the same time (all the more glorious if nothing else), but I highly doubt it. At the same time, I’m therefore not arguing Russia is too strong; nearly the opposite - that containment can be achieved through less antagonistic and high profile means, the pursuit of which only makes it clear to Moscow they have no choice but to become a Chinese vassal and hope the Politburo is a less hands-on gardener than the US. Given that China and Russia are neighbors ultimately competing for the same space if nothing else, I don’t think that’s a reasonable hope. I’m just pointing out it’s currently in Russia’s interests to side with anyone potentially strong enough to bring down the US, and that’s partly the fault of outdated US policy.

US interests re Ukraine have been clearly laid out by e.g. Brzezinski a long time before the regime change, and has nothing to do with a fear of Russia rolling west, which by the way hasn't had much substance even in the 40s and 50s.

Don’t say that to the Indian nationalists. Poor guys are still pulling for you after all these years. True friends.

Russia and India still have common interests regarding Afghanistan and defense collaboration. That said I don't see Hindu nationalists pulling for "us" that much, unless of course you're referring to the United States, as India due to its squabbles with the Chinese in the Himalaya are very supportive of the hardline anti China stance of the United States today, much like India's former mildly pro Soviet stance of earlier times was in part informed by the Moscow-Beijing rivalry.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nobody ignored your question. You asked what US should do about Ukraine and it makes sense to first ask why should US be doing anything about foreign conflict that doesn't directly affect American taxpayer in the process and you replied saying its hypocritical to ask that, kinda setting your whole stance on fire.

Asking why US should do anything about Ukraine doesn't really answer what US should do about Ukraine. I didn't say that its hypocritical to ask that specific question as well. I'd appreciate if you could rely on what I actually say. Not a big ask.

LOL!
I already stated very clearly from the start what my stance on Ukraine is: Not pushing for war. Not supporting a neonazi antidemocratic and cleptocratic regime. Not try to bully a nuclear power into war.

Now that we've clarified that your question has been answered from the start, let's check up on what your answer to mine is: "Eh, why not."

So again: LOL!

That doesn't really answer my question and your false attribution of what I answered to you simply shows that you're accommodating a lack of sensible response on your part. You just made it way too obvious. Thank you for that. Saves time.

[Legio_Italica]

Germany and Japan are perfect examples of what happens when the US is still acting in a multilateral framework.

>what is NATO
>what is EU
>what is UN

https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12295.doc.htm

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12223.doc.htm

Never mind that exhonerating a big bunch of people involved in crimes against humanity isn't something I'd advertise given the point you're trying to make.

For one, there's no justification for Kosovo that doesn't legitimise Crimean independence as well. Secondly you did no attempt whatsoever to address my question, so I'll ask again:
By what right can the Kievan regime lay claim to Crimea when its entire legitimacy is and was based on the constitution it violated to come into being?
By what reasoning were the Crimeans supposed to feel any loyalty to a regime that

on the very document that made the Crimeans owe them anything?

What question? The idea Russia annexed Crimea to protect civil rights is too comical to warrant a serious response.

US interests re Ukraine have been clearly laid out by e.g. Brzezinski a long time before the regime change, and has nothing to do with a fear of Russia rolling west, which by the way hasn't had much substance even in the 40s and 50s.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Heathen Hammer]

Asking why US should do anything about Ukraine doesn't really answer what US should do about Ukraine.

It is actually other way around. Typically, you want to know why you do something, before you think of how you will do it. I mean we are reaching the boundaries of formal conventional logic here.

I didn't say that its hypocritical to ask that specific question as well. I'd appreciate if you could rely on what I actually say. Not a big ask.

Just wanted to highlight the hypocritically obnoxious argument that you're relying on.

You literally claimed that asking why should American taxpyer be concerned about Ukraine is "hypocritically obnoxious argument" without actually pointing out why, hence why we disregarded your post as gainsaying, since it didn't bear any arguments to add to the debate.

[Cookiegod]

Never mind that exhonerating a big bunch of people involved in crimes against humanity isn't something I'd advertise given the point you're trying to make.

I mean... I'm not the one referring to post war Germany here, am I?
https://www.businessinsider.com/form...6-10?r=US&IR=T

Never mind that there's a nigh infinite number of examples as to how the US treats countries when it isn't interfered with by equals.

What question? The idea Russia annexed Crimea to protect civil rights is too comical to warrant a serious response.

This question: By what right can the Kievan regime lay claim to Crimea when the entire legal basis of Crimea being part of Ukraine was the Ukrainian constitution, which the new regime violated from the very moment it came into being?

By what reasoning did the Crimeans owe any loyalty to an unconstitutional entity made up of far right extremists who committed a massacre on Crimean counter protesters in the course of seizing power from the democratically elected constitutional government by force?

Should be easy enough if you have a case, so surely no gainsaying is necessary?

[Legio_Italica]

Huh? The independence referendum itself violated the Ukrainian constitution and international law and is recognized as part of Ukraine, according to pretty much everybody but Russia, so idk why you bother to bring that up while reeeing about multilateralism. If Moscow doesn’t want Ukraine to have Crimea, I guess they shouldn’t have unilaterally merged it with Ukraine in the 50s. Irony’s a Crimea river.

This has nothing to do with “Crimean sovereignty.” Putin wants it “back.” Plain and simple.

Putin recounts an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss how to extricate deposed president Viktor Yanukovych, who had fled a pro-Western street revolt in the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

“We ended at about seven in the morning,” Putin says. “When we were parting, I said to my colleagues: we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia.”

Four days after that February 2014 meeting, unidentified soldiers took over the local parliament in Crimea and deputies hurriedly voted in a new government. The Ukrainian province was then formally annexed by Moscow on 18 March, triggering international condemnation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-seize-crimea

[PointOfViewGun]

It is actually other way around. Typically, you want to know why you do something, before you think of how you will do it. I mean we are reaching the boundaries of formal conventional logic here.

Sometimes maybe, sometimes maybe not. That, however, still doesn't invalidate what I pointed out or what I asked earlier. You're trying way too hard to deflect this.

You literally claimed that asking why should American taxpyer be concerned about Ukraine is "hypocritically obnoxious argument" without actually pointing out why, hence why we disregarded your post as gainsaying, since it didn't bear any arguments to add to the debate.

That's not what "literally" means, and "gainsaying" is not even applicable to what you're describing. Using fancy terms, especially at such a fundamentally false manner, doesn't validate a claim.

[Heathen Hammer]

Huh? The independence referendum itself violated the Ukrainian constitution and international law and is recognized as part of Ukraine, according to pretty much everybody but Russia, so idk why you bother to bring that up while reeeing about multilateralism. If Moscow doesn’t want Ukraine to have Crimea, I guess they shouldn’t have unilaterally merged it with Ukraine in the 50s. Irony’s a Crimea river.

This has nothing to do with “Crimean sovereignty.” Putin wants it “back.” Plain and simple.

Crimeans and Novorussians never really had a say on whether they want to be part of Ukraine and follow its constitution, nor is international law a real thing nor does "international recognition" matter in real life.

Sometimes maybe, sometimes maybe not. That, however, still doesn't invalidate what I pointed out or what I asked earlier. You're trying way too hard to deflect this.




That's not what "literally" means, and "gainsaying" is not even applicable to what you're describing. Using fancy terms, especially at such a fundamentally false manner, doesn't validate a claim.

Lol. Why is it so hard to answer the question of why should American taxpayer care about what Russia does with Ukraine?

[PointOfViewGun]

Lol. Why is it so hard to answer the question of why should American taxpayer care about what Russia does with Ukraine?

I don't know. You think its as hard as answering what US should do about Ukraine?

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't know. You think its as hard as answering what US should do about Ukraine?

The answer to that question is "nothing". Now that we got over this issue, will you finally attempt to rationalize why should American taxpayer care about foreign conflict that doesn't affect him in any way?

[PointOfViewGun]

The answer to that question is "nothing". Now that we got over this issue, will you finally attempt to rationalize why should American taxpayer care about foreign conflict that doesn't affect him in any way?

Would you give Russia free pass to take over any country in Europe? If not, where would you draw the line? First Ukraine? Then Belarus? Maybe Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia too? Poland would surely come next after those.

[Heathen Hammer]

Would you give Russia free pass to take over any country in Europe? If not, where would you draw the line? First Ukraine? Then Belarus? Maybe Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia too? Poland would surely come next after those.

That sounds like Europe's problem. Maybe they shouldn't have recognized USSR's regime's legitimacy in 1920s and did more to help White Army in Russian Civil War. "Not my monkey, not my circus".

[Cookiegod]

Huh? The independence referendum itself violated the Ukrainian constitution

Before that vote was held the constitutional and democratically elected government of Ukraine had already been toppled. The new regime was in direct and unequivocal violation of the constitution, and a constitutional government no longer existed.

So how come that the Crimeans are to be loyal to a government on the basis of a constitution when the government itself is unconstitutional?

No one is even denying the fact that the regime change was unconstitutional.

If Moscow doesn’t want Ukraine to have Crimea, I guess they shouldn’t have unilaterally merged it with Ukraine in the 50s. Irony’s a Crimea river.

Kinda interesting that equating the Russian Federation to the Soviet Union is a thing and none of the Soviet decisions to be accepted, unless they're favourable, at which moment the actions of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev suddenly become sacrosanct. Almost as ironic as pretending Ukraine was somehow oppressed by the Russians in the Soviet Union when not a single leader of the Soviet Union was ethnic Russian except for perhaps Andropov, whose origins are unknown. Everyone else after Stalin (Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Gorbachev, etc.) had Ukrainian roots.

As to how Crimea became a part of Ukraine, I've already pointed them out to you earlier:

Crimea had since the very beginning of the 90s shown a strong desire to be part of Russia, rather than the Ukraine. There was also a strong legal argument that the gifting of Crimea to Ukraine was never legal to begin with, as Khrushchev did not have the legal authority to do so and as only 13 out of 27 members of the presidium of the supreme council was present. It did not even mention Sevastopol, which administratively was not part of Crimea.

Khrushchev gifted the oblasts to his own home with very little legality. As the Soviet Union was much more about authority than legality, and as such divisions were purely administrative, that didn't really matter and everyone just rolled with it.

As an aside while we're at it: The entire southwest of modern day Ukraine did not have any Ukrainian identity until they were made part of it by Lenin. They did not constitute part of traditional Ukrainian lands, but were rather the mostly depopulated wild steppes previously under Crimean Tatar control. All the cities were thus founded post conquest by the Russian tsars, and populated with settlers from all over Russia and also from abroad, including Germany. The people do not have a strong relationship to the Ukrainian nation, and every single election since the fall of the Soviet Union reflected this. The hardcore nationalist areas of Ukraine, especially Lvov, have a completely different history that for a long time was under Polish and then Habsburg rule.

To pretend that the entire people of Ukraine is some monolithic entity scared of some big angry Russian bear is thus also demonstrably wrong. Hence why the Kievan puppet state keeps resorting to authoritarianism even far outside the warzone to maintain power.

[Legio_Italica]

No one is even denying the fact that the regime change was unconstitutional.

I’ll consider this strawman a concession there’s no further comment on the fact Putin’s desire to “return” Crimea to Russia has nothing to do with Crimean sovereignty, the illegal referendum, or that the multilateral international community recognizes Crimea as a part of Ukraine.

Kinda interesting that equating the Russian Federation to the Soviet Union is a thing and none of the Soviet decisions to be accepted, unless they're favourable, at which moment the actions of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev suddenly become sacrosanct.

Oh wow another strawman.

Khrushchev gifted the oblasts to his own home with very little legality. As the Soviet Union was much more about authority than legality, and as such divisions were purely administrative, that didn't really matter and everyone just rolled with it.

Sort of like how Putin gifted himself Crimea with very little legality and everyone ultimately had little choice but to roll with it.