The Ukraine, of course. It doesn’t take much prescience to see that Putin is already inciting agitation there, and I expect that another phony referendum will follow, and that country, too, will be absorbed into Russia. With his vision of a greater Russia, and the fact that nobody can do anything to stop him (sanctions won’t work, of course), Putin will keep looking for Lebensraum. Military action on the part of the U.S. or NATO is unthinkable, for both sides have nuclear weapons.
Or so Ceiling Cat thinks. CC predicts that the Ukraine will be part of Russia in two months.
I never thought I’d see the Cold War resume in my lifetime.
Is it “The Ukraine” or “Ukraine”? I don’t know which is correct (and how the “the” got started in the first place).
“The Congo”/”Congo” is another odd one (though it is for sure “The Netherlands”).
Just Ukraine.
Wikipedia agrees, or is it “the wikipedia”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine
No- there’s only The Donald – unfortunately…
“Wikipedia agrees, or is it “the wikipedia”?
It is Wikipedia for plural and Wikipedium for singular.
No, wikipediae would be the plural
It could be both if we’re talking about Latin. Either Wikipedia is neuter plural or feminine singular.
Yes, these are things I have in my memory. No, I don’t know where my keys are.
Actually, I think the -pedia part comes from the Greek paideia–(from wikipedia:In the culture of ancient Greece, the term paideia referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the polis.)
Yes, in this case it can mean education and there is a corresponding verb which I believe is related to the word for children in Greek and particularly your boy children. You educate your boy children (that’s how it’s related).
However παιδεία or paideia is feminine singular first declension which makes its plural παιδείαι or paideiai.
I’ve been wondering this, too, and keep meaning to look it up. I was always taught “The Ukraine,” but 0% of articles I’ve read since this latest news began use that form of the name.
During the cold war people would say “the Ukraine” to mean “the Ukrainian SSR”, but now the country is just Ukraine.
It is just like “Yucatan”. No “The”, unless you are talking about “The Yucatan Peninsula” or “The Crimean Peninsula”.
According to wikipedia (so take it fwiw), the Ukrainian government requested in 1993 that the definite article be dropped.
Well, according to Jerry, it will be “The Ukraine” again in a couple of months. I don’t think so. Eastern Ukraine may be absorbed, but they’ll leave Western Ukraine be (for now).
I see Jerry clarified further down in this thread and our views appear to coincide on this.
It’s “Ukraine” for the country and “the Ukraine” for the region.
There is no equivalent to the word “the” in Russian/Ukrainian. The use of “the Ukraine” in English dates back to the time Ookrayeena (as it is pronounced) was a region (“near the edge/border”) in the Russian empire. I can see why the “the” began to be used, but I don’t think it should be used.
This is the case with all Slavic languages, if I remember correctly. They don’t use definite or indefinite articles.
I have Slovak friends who have been living in the UK for 15+ years and are practically native English speakers, but they still sometimes get caught out with “a” or “the”, especially when writing.
more likely withOUT the “a” or the “the”…;-)
I have a native Russian wife who trips up on the same bits of English, despite being a trained teacher (and so presumably pedagogically trained to stress these things).
(And just for complication, though she’s ethnically Russian, she grew up in (the) Ukraine, where half of her live.)
It’s going to be a mess. Very likely a very bloody one. What is it about people?
“What is it about people?”
“We bear the stamp of our lowly origin.”
– Charles Darwin
I hope that you’re going to apologise to the next Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutang, and faecal bacterium that you meet for denigrating their mutual ancestors with us like that.
Yes, bravo to your tart turn of sarcastic phrase. I gather that Darwin also owes an apology. 😉
Not to mention some people saying The Barbados…
I do hope you’re wrong on Ukraine, CC (my Ukrainian friends say Ukraine with a little more emphasis on the second syllable. So many talking heads seem to say Yoo’kraine these days).
Hmmm, I, for one, was surprised that I saw a lull in the Cold War in my lifetime and that the lull lasted as long as it did.
One note: in the old USSR days, Crimea WAS a part of Russia until Khrushchev put it with Ukraine in 1954.
So, some might see this move as “righting an old wrong.”
That is how some people saw Germany’s move into Sudetenland and Austria in 1938.
I think that there is a difference here: a Soviet leader did this transfer while it was still an “in the same country” transfer.
Nevertheless, I don’t see this as a sign that they will take aim at the rest of the Ukraine as the rest of Ukraine wasn’t a part of Russia in the old USSR days.
There are always differences. But there are stronger similarities here, IMO. In both cases the justification for annexation was/is made on the basis of ethnic solidarity. And there is no end to awful if that becomes an acceptable basis for annexing parts of other countries.
That would spell disaster for refugees.
Even if the people in question want to be annexed?
Yes.
German Austrians were happy to be annexed by Germany, as were the German parts of Czechoslovakia in 1838.
Would that Khrushchev had not made that transfer, for the sake of “The Big(ger) Picture”?
Then Crimea wouldn’t have been part of Ukraine to begin with, hence nothing to “invade”. At least that is my take.
So why not just let them restore the original condition–without the west butting in?
Because of this little annoyance called “International Law”.
Which is so capriciously employed (esp. by the US) it’s a joke.
A NY Times op-ed yesterday by a former U.S. ambassador to Russia works at raking Putin over the coals, mentioning Russian “propaganda” at least twice. (No doubt about that, but when does any U.S. op-ed reference U.S. propaganda?) At the end, he has to acknowledge the U.S.’s insufficiency of “moral authority” (as regards the issue of the U.S.’s own adherence to int. law.)
(As an aside, CBS This Morning is throwing around the word “miracle” regarding the recent Washington state mudslide.)
Our prime minister in Canada said he is in talks about oil restrictions. I swear this is something Canada is in cahoots with the US to supply oil to the West.
Canada named certain Russians who aren’t allowed to come to Canada so Russia named Canadians that aren’t allowed to come to Russia. I wondered if these namings were accompanied with a “so there!” & a tongue sticking out.
The challenge, Diane G., is to strengthen international law and employ it more systematically, not to ignore it in this case because it was ignored in the other case.
The consequences of G W Bush and his cronies crashing into Iraq on obviously false premises did untold damage to the credibility of the US (and “partners”), to say nothing of regular Iraqi people and the still unpunished war crimes. It was a stupid and illegal act. But this is not an sound argument for pretending that Russia annexing Crimea isn’t an illegal and destabilizing act on its own.
“But he did it, too!” doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, get a criminal out of jail for armed robbery.
The point is not that we should ignore this violation of international law because it was ignored in the past. The point is that governments choose to enforce international law where it suits them and that should make us question what is really going on here. This is where Gysi makes some good points, especially around NATO. It would go a long way if there was diplomacy instead of sanctions which everyone knows is just going to escalate things. That diplomacy would have to ensure that Ukraine would not become part of NATO (an antiquated, cold war institution) where missiles could be placed in the country and aimed at Russia. If I had missiles aimed at my country, I might not trust or work with those who were behind those missiles.
Sanctions are one of the tools in the toolkit of diplomacy. When and where to use them is subject to debate, but it is a false choice to suggest diplomacy is the alternative to sanctions.
I’ll wager you were not opposed to the anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa. I don’t know of many liberally-minded people who didn’t support them, assuming they are old enough to have had an opinion at the time.
A comparison with South Africa is a false equivalency. Sanctions are a tool in our toolbox but you use the right tool for the job. Sanctions is the wrong took in this case. It will escalate things and we all know it.
The point, Diana, is that sanctions are part of the tool kit. I was responding to:
That sentence poses a false choice, and simply assumes that sanctions don’t apply (because it will “just escalate things”).
It isn’t clear to me that things will escalate as a result. Sometimes sanctions work, as I think you’ve agreed. They may in fact prevent them from escalating further. Much depends on the intentions of the President of Russia, and neither of us has a particularly good window into Vladimir’s mind.
It’s pretty clear to me that they’ve already failed. So why not try another tool that takes into consideration the history of the whole thing. No, instead the West decides to have historical amnesia and as their sanctions fail, what do they do? Create more sanctions. Gee, this hammer isn’t working for fixing this glass, I could use glue but instead I’ll just hammer harder, that should work!
” . . . and neither of us has a particularly good window into Vladimir’s mind.”
Who needs to, when one has “soul-in-his-eyes” Dubya?
Suggested alternatives?
Saying that sanctions have already failed is rather silly, IMO, since they haven’t really happened. And saying that the “history of the whole thing” hasn’t been considered isn’t helpful. What is the “whole” thing? And how do you know this history hasn’t been considered?
What I hear is special-purpose hand-wringing that does nothing but legitimize an illegal action.
Silly? Russia was kicked out of the G8 and their cabinet ministers forbidden to travel to a bunch of different countries. It didn’t stop Putin at all.
The history is extremely important. I’ve said a few times that this NATO business needs to be straightened out by Gysi has some excellent ideas, which will be ignored. Here is what he says (from the English transcript so the original is much better in German — he’s a very good speaker):
The false premise, Diana, is that people who don’t agree with you haven’t considered history.
As for your Gysi quote, it is a list of goals, not a diplomatic toolkit or strategy. Maybe it means more in German.
I haven’t said people who don’t agree with e haven’t considered history. I said the West hasn’t in creating these sanctions. If they really want to affect change, they would look at what the root cause of the problem is. Instead they just look at punitive measures and I’m pretty sure they know it won’t work. I strongly suspect they don’t want it to…they aren’t stupid.
Well, you’re asserting that “the West” hasn’t considered history but I see no reason to grant you that assertion. I think they (we? Western governments?) very well have. Now they may have placed greater emphasis on some bits of history than others, but that is not unusual. You do this also. We all do. So it is a question of making the best decisions given the circumstances. I think we probably agree on that. Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to think that the problem here is that the “West” has failed because “it” objects to Russia illegally annexing part of Ukraine. The strategy you suggest is not a strategy, but simply a statement of what the west should offer to Russia in exchange for him not invading more of Ukraine. And we’re to avoid sanctions because they have already failed, despite the fact that “the west” is still trying to come to agreement on what they actually will be. To me this is a simply bizarre view.
Maybe you get different news where you are than where I am, but sanctions were applied some time ago. The G7 (since they booted out Russia it’s no longer the G8) are meeting in Europe and discussing even further sanctions involving energy – watch for Canada supplying oil across the Atlantic to Western Europe. I’ve already listed some sanctions that were imposed and you keep saying that they haven’t happened yet. Strange how even Bloomberg is talking about how the sanctions have affected Russia. Here is a primer on the sanctions you say haven’t happened.
What I’m arguing is I don’t believe the West is interested in protecting Ukraine but are looking for a fight with Russia. If they were serious about preventing Russia from advancing on Ukraine further, they’d reach out with diplomatic solutions, many of which I’ve listed (like guaranteeing Ukraine would not join NATO or honestly disbanding this anachronism from the Cold War). You’ve ignored these and claim they are just lists of things but this one thing – this one NATO thing – that would go pretty far in preventing further Russian incursions. I’m not arguing that the West “give up” something. They don’t have it. It costs them nothing by not having Ukraine enter into the anachronism that is NATO. It’s pure diplomacy that would go along way.
Further, the language used by the West is completely inaccurate so that if you didn’t watch the news coverage and see journalists from the West interviewing Russians and Ukranians, you’d think Russia had stormed in raping and pillaging.
I believe the West has failed not because as you say “it objects to Russia illegally annexing part of Ukraine.”, but because it has chosen to make a lot more of something than it needed to and is painting the entire episode as worse than it is and my evidence for this is the West repeatedly ignoring similar violations of international law when it wasn’t convenient for them. In other words, the West isn’t really worried about Ukraine. The West (and really the old NATO) is bent on attacking Russia and in this way they are succeeding in inflaming things in the Crimea.
I’m unsure why you keep putting scare quotes around the West. You really should read those articles I linked to to understand that scare quotes are unnecessary. Further, this historical bias you accuse me of makes no sense to me.
“What I’m arguing is I don’t believe the West is interested in protecting Ukraine but are looking for a fight with Russia.”
Precisely. As a cold war vet, I recognize saber-rattling.
My news is probably not much different than yours. No “primer” is required, thank you.
The sanctions that were applied “some time ago” are relatively small scale things, limits on travel of a few (33) individuals. And perhaps some of these guys have had some assets frozen. That is a little unclear. And the G8-lessOne has met precisely once. In any case, this largely symbolic sanctions have been in place for a very short period of time. To declare that “sanctions have failed” is wildly premature.
(Additional note about the “primer”… the Bloomberg story is about how sanctions will have an affect if they continue and are strengthened. So which is it… do they work or do they not? You can’t have it both ways.)
I have left my comments somewhat free of mandates as to what Western governments should do, in part because I’m not an authority on the situation and I’m not familiar with all of the options. I am convinced, however, that disbanding NATO would be a terrible idea. Ask some Polish citizens or maybe Latvians if they think that’s a good idea.
I put scare quotes around “The West” because I find it exceedingly simplistic to represent the situation as you do. Western opinion is all over the place and includes the comments of apologists for the annexation as well as war mongers in the Republican Party. Sensible responses will, I think, be found only if you hold a consistent position vis-å-vis international law.
What I find so frustrating is to hear the argument that the rules of international law don’t apply in this case. Because history exists. Or something. IMO, it is just wrong to acknowledge that Bush charging into Iraq on false pretenses was obviously criminal act, but Russia annexing part of a neighboring country should be met with a magic wand. Because you use the word “diplomacy” exactly like a wand, having removed consequences (sanctions) from the toolkit.
I honestly don’t know how many times I need to say my argument is not that international law doesn’t exist because of history. I said I bring this up because the intent of the sanctions are not to protect Ukraine but to incite Russia. I’m sure you’ll strawman me again though.
Further the West is real. The east was the Warsaw Pact. It was disbanded. The West chose to keep NATO even though the cold war was over. That says a lot.
I’m not straw-manning you, I’m insisting on consistency.
Your entire argument boils down to an assertion as to the motives for sanctions…. “not to protect Ukraine but to incite Russia”. If that were the case then the sanctions would have been imposed before Crimea was annexed.
NATO was not disbanded because European governments remembered history and newly freed-from-USSR republics were fully aware of the tendency for Russian political figures to be attracted to empire-building and annexation of their neighbors. It seems they were right.
NATO wasn’t disbanded because the West wants control and influence. How do you think that looks to Russia? I really wish you’d read my arguments more closely. I’m not just making assertions. I’m providing evidence for why this is not working. I can see that it doesn’t matter what I say, you will believe what you want to. Go ahead and get on the sabre rattling band wagon and believe all the propaganda. I don’t want to spend time rehash g what I’ve said over and over.
The mistake you make, Diana, is thinking I’m on the “saber rattling bandwagon”. I’m not. And if (if I may use your phrase) you would read my comments more carefully you would understand that. It is as if you can’t imagine any non-aggressive motives for the existence of NATO and you can’t imagine that Russia might ever have aggressive motives of it’s own. And yet here we are, Russia has annexed part of a neighboring country, and you say it is all the fault of the west.
I’m trying to show things from Russia’s perspective. NATO is a threat to it. It exists as a Western allied group against Russia. How would you feel if a coalition of countries existed to oppose your country even though the cold war was over?
Well, I’m not a country, so it is kind of a weird question. But regardless of how I felt, I wouldn’t legitimately be able to start annexing my neighbor’s territory.
Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that annexing territory like this is wrong?
First of all there was an election. Russia didn’t drive in and start raping and pillaging. Secondly, I’ve repeatedly said we should watch Russia wrt Ukraine. Thirdly, I’ve argued that this isn’t even about Ukraine. The West doesn’t care. How do I know? They never cared in the past. This is a pretense for something else that started just prior to the Olympics with constant fear mongering about terrorist acts that would take place in Russia.
I’ve lived through World War II and the Cold War, and compiled and edited a book on the Soviet Version of World War II. So I have an interest. Diana, I think all your comments on current developments between Russia and Ukraine are spot on.
Thanks thh1859 – if that book is in English, I’d love to read it so let pass on the title!
Yes and right now it looks as though the way things are being handled, it is just making things worse. You can’t go all testosterone like that because Putin is not going to back down and lose face.
I don’t think the goal at this point is to get Putin to back down, although it would be a good thing if he did. The goal is to prevent further annexations and unilateral “liberation” of the Russian-speaking parts of neighboring countries.
Sigh.
The election was illegal, as you very well know.
Where did I say anything about raping and pillaging? (And you say I straw manning!)
Russia annexes part of Ukraine and “this isn’t even about Ukraine”?
I have the feeling I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole.
I think we should stop soon. We may be trying our host’s patience. I think there is a Rool about this kind of exchange.
LRB eye-witness, dated 7th March.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n06/james-meek/putins-counter-revolution?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3606&hq_e=el&hq_m=3094386&hq_l=5&hq_v=5a0debd0f4
James Meek writes: “Instead, Putin decided to help himself to Crimea. It is true that many Crimeans – a majority, I suspect – would like a very close relationship with Russia, perhaps reunification, but it would be hard to think of a better way of encouraging the most chauvinistic aspect of Ukrainian nationalism than invading Ukraine.”
I think the reported turnout was ’bout 83% and the favorability for reunification was ’bout 97%.
The official languages of Crimea continue to be Russian, Ukranian, and the Tartar language.
The Kiev coup (I understand) has eliminated the use of alternative languages and taken down websites in all languages except Ukraine.
Although Svoboda (National Socialists in effect) is not a large party (10% of electorate), the party itself is openly anti-Semetic and supports brown-shirt militias that sport white power symbols(celtic cross and our own dear confederate flag). Allied militias use Nazi symbols (wolfsangle patches and SS symbols on militia sheilds), flags with Nazi colors (crimson and blank), paint their faces as SS skulls, and paint number-symbols (“18” means Adolf Hitler, “88” is Heil Hitler, “14” is a 14 word motto of white supperiority) on riot shields. Svoboda’s youth militia that occupied the communist party office in Kiev, called Combat-14 (C14),use a celtic cross symbol.
Jerry, remember that the Nazis only got 18% of the vote in 1930 and Hitler only 30% in 1932. I know there are several Jews at the head of the Kiev coup. They like the Catholic Orthodox party leaders with them seem to be crooks, or, as the Estonian Foreign Minister said in his intercepted phone conversation with Catherine Ashton,all of the Kiev coup leaders have dirty pasts.
If I were a Russian or a Jew in Crimea, I think I would feel safer with Putin than with Yaksenyuk.
As a realistic, practical “realpolitik” matter, had the Ukrainian demonstrators been a little more patient and held off until the next presidential election, would (could) it have made the critical difference (the apparent profound corruption of the president notwithstanding)in preventing Putin’s incursion/invasion?
Crimea is essentially as much part of Russia as Florida is of the US. In 1954, Kruschev quite arbitrarily gave Crimea to another region of the Soviet empire, Ukraine, without asking the the people living in Crimea. If the inhabitants of a region want to return to the country they were part of for most of their history, what’s wrong with that? Beats me how anyone could object to their recent referendum. Incidentally, Kiev was at one time the capital of Russia.
I agree. Crimea was always part of Russia and the inhabitants speak Russian. I may be naive but I don’t think Putin will annex Ukraine. But, I’m often wrong about these things so we’ll see.
It wasn’t always part of Russia and its population wasn’t mostly (58%) ethnic Russian until Stalin forced the Tatars out and brought Russians in. Putin has also been promoting the idea that all of that 58% want to be part of Russia and that isn’t true. If they had had a legitimate vote, the results may have been different.
What about during and after the Crimean War? Yes it’s changed hands a lot but since the 1800’s – it was part of that whole Taurida Governorate. Then after the Soviet Union broke up, Crimea became part of Ukraine. I don’t see how Crimeans aren’t Russian – they’ve been with the Russian empire in one form or another longer than my country has been a country.
Yes, they’ve essentially been part of Russia since my country’s declaration of independence from those British rascals, but prior to that, the land was run by and inhabited by the Tatars. If Stalin hadn’t moved these people out and killed some off, they would be the majority today. As it is, only 58% are ethnic Russians now.
Frankly, I’m okay if Putin wanted to force a vote (overseen by international monitors and without the Russian army on every corner). If the majority legitimately wanted to return to Russia, so be it. I question whether this is the case. We will never know.
It’s reported that members of parliament elected the new Crimean Prime Minister. I don’t think the rest of the world should be interfering with this. Keep in mind that the Ukraine overthrew by force a democratically elected leader. Jerk leader or not, this is what happened and no one is suggesting that we tell Ukraine that we are going to watch them because we don’t think what they did was democratic enough. Quebec has threatened to separate from Canada more than once in my lifetime and they came pretty close the last time. Right now, their premiere is a separatist. I would be pretty upset if the entire world wagged it’s finger at Canada and enacted economic sanctions. I’m all for watching that Russia doesn’t overstep and annex Ukraine but for now, that doesn’t seem to be what is happening.
When Ukraine tossed it’s elected leader, that was an internal matter (happens all the time). It is different when a foreign power invades and absorbs the territory into their borders. It would be one thing if Quebec declared its independence and another if the US invaded, then announce by an overwhelming vote that the people decided to be part of the US.
But that’s not an accurate comparison because it would only work if most of Quebec was populated by English speaking Americans who were given to Canada in the 1990s. It’s internal business if there was a decision by their parliament to go with Russian. Russian troops were already in Crimea as Russian troops are regularly in Crimea. Yes, there are more there now, but it wasn’t as if Russia rolled in with it’s army & took Crimea by force.
So if France bordered Canada you’d be fine with a military invasion? Maybe the US should “liberate” the English speaking provinces.
Again, that’s not what happened in Crimea. Russian troops are always in Ukraine. Ukraine overthrew their democratically elected leader. Crimea chose to leave Ukraine and join Russia again where they had been for the last ~200 years. muhry provided a link up thread to a survey of Crimeans where you can see what the Crimeans think about their identity. Do you really think the Crimeans are being forced into this decision at gunpoint? If so, you have been ignoring a lot of evidence.
Actually, France effectively does border Canada. The islands of Pierre and Miqelon are part of France.
@Diana, I don’t see how that link supports your point. It shows that only 40% (in May) considered themselves Russian. Crimea is only 58% ethnic Russian and not all of them want to be part of Russia. The election was rigged (some voters were shown depositing multiple ballots).
So if a country leases military bases, that gives them a right to annex territory? Wow! The US could absorb Cuba, Germany, the UK, S. Korea…
This is the second time you’ve straw manned me. When did I say or imply what you just said? Point where I say, “if a country leases military bases, that gives them a right to annex territory?”
Why are you so convinced that this Crimea situation is bad but it is okay for Ukraine to overthrow it’s democratically elected leader? I’m curious why this seems to be the majority opinion in the West.
How do you know the election was rigged? The numbers show in that link that there is a majority of people who feel they are Russian and they were part of Russia for hundreds of years.
Speaking solely for myself, I see a difference between a country’s internal government replacement and one country annexing part of another. I also have been around long enough to recognize that when 95% of a population shows up as having voted for anything, something is very fishy.
I don’t buy the argument that Russia didn’t send in troops because “they were already there”. The troops that appeared on the scene were clearly Russian but wearing uniforms stripped of normal Russian markings. The Russian government explains this by saying “anyone can go purchase army surplus closing”. So which is it? Were these guys just local patriots in army surplus or were they Russians who were “already there”?
When internationally recognized boundaries are redrawn by unilateral action like this, a great deal of instability results. The world is full of countries with haphazardly drawn and ethnically divisive boundaries. If this sort of thing is considered legitimate because some portion of a country votes in elections that are not internationally recognized, then we are in for a shitload of horrible down the line.
I’m not disagreeing that more troops were sent bit it also isn’t true that there were no troops there at all. I’m arguing that it is more nuanced than Russia is bad and Ukraine is good.
Also, yes it is bad to disregard international law but look how many times it has already been sanctioned to do so by the West (see Gysi’s speech I link to down thread).
Now, I know you disapprove of straw-manning and “tu quoque-ing”…
This isn’t a simply tu quoque argument. I point these facts out because we should be skeptical when the West condemns Russia but not Ukraine or its fascist issues or wags a finger at Russia but looks the other way for similar offences then acts like this is the first time since WWII that something like this has taken place. Further, the West ignores the cultural make up of Crimea and considers that Russia is plotting to reunite the Soviet Union all without evidence of this instead of thinking these things through and thinking what it looks like from different perspectives.
I am not saying that we don’t hold Russia responsible but I am saying that it isn’t a good vs. bad situation.
Come on, Diana. “The West” doesn’t condemn or condone. People do and governments do. I hear plenty of people in “the West” bending over backwards to explain away Russia’s actions here and justifying it with pretty sloppy argument, including “Yeah? But what about Bush?” or “But there’s a bunch of people who want to be Russians”.
I am dismayed when my fellow liberals are more than happy to castigate W and the war criminals who led us into Iraq (as I happily do) but go out of their way to find excuses for Putin taking advantage of turmoil in a neighboring country to annex part of it.
This was’t without precedent. A few years ago Russia took similar action in Georgia to “protect” ethnic Russians. Putin has spoken about the great tragedy that was the breakup of the Soviet Union. (Does that count as evidence of anything?) He’s an old KGB fellow who would be President-for-life except for constitutional issues, resolved by transferring his hat from time to time.
I don’t understand the desire of my fellow left-of-center types to pretend that we’re seeing some kind of democratic process going on here.
By the West I am specifically talking about Western governments – my prime minister, Obama, Merkel. So condemning isn’t what sanctions do? All those speeches talking about how Russia is bad – that’s not condemning? Perhaps you and I have a different idea of what condemn and condone are. Did you read the transcript from what Gysi says. He brings up important historical and present day facts.
Well, OK…. I specifically allowed for “governments” as actors. Perhaps we can agree on the term “western governments”. But there are plenty in “the west”, including you, who have a different opinion. And Gysi, who you keep insisting we read (and I did, but without really learning anything much… diplomacy is good!).
I’m not advocating for war. And I’m not apologizing for poor decisions, bad choices, or outright war crimes that have been committed by western governments. I am simply insisting that making excuses for annexing pieces of other countries is not the way forward. That logic runs both ways and if you want to hold Bush accountable it won’t do to give Putin a pass. That rational runs both direction.
1. There were international observers. Only they weren’t official observers, vetoed by Washington and Brussels. All report that the elections went smoothly without coercion or even visible military presence. CNN, with complete freedom to report, was unable to produce more that rhetorical mistrust of the events.
2. Indeed, Ukraine was and still is a kleptocracy ruled by a democratically elected jerk president ousted by jerk opposition crooks, aided a band of violent, determined, and treacherous neo-Nazis.
Hear, hear. I totally agree with everything you’ve said here, Diana.
In May 2013 Crimeans were asked:
“In your opinion, what should the status of Crimea be?”
23% said given to Russia.
Also asked:
“Regardless of your passport, what do you consider yourself?
40% said Russian.
The numbers are no doubt fluid, the Ukrainian conflict and propaganda could move them around, probably only temporarily though.
Had Crimeans been given a chance to cool off, not been propagandized, and given a fair referendum they likely would have voted differently. Hence the reason it was fast tracked.
http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf
Which was before they saw a democratically-elected pro-Russian government get tossed out in a coup by a bunch of Ukrainian nationalists who immediately started passing anti-Russian legislation.
I’m not sure how many anti-Russian laws were passed, but the one eliminating Russian as an official second language was rescinded on March 2, 2 weeks before the referendum.
Again, as I stated in my comment I can understand how the events would shift opinions. If a people want to secede then I think they should be able to do so, but I’m doubtful that the drive to join Russia was entirely endogenous.
Although I don’t think there should much surprise with how messy the Ukrainian situation turned out to be. Ukraine is among the most corrupt countries on earth and 50 or so oligarchs account for 85% of it’s GDP.
Those last 2 bits are why I think it’s silly to talk about Ukrainian democracy. The word democracy is pretty much used as cover to do as one wants, whether those people be pro-western, pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian.
Thanks for this – it is very interesting.
If you actually read the poll you posted, you might have seen that in 2013, 68% of Crimeans had a “warm” feeling toward Russia. In contrast, only 14% had a warm feeling toward the European Union and 13% with a warm feeling toward Turkey.
About being propagandized, Russian television (cable?) is being blocked in Ukraine. Right-wing thugs beat up (and may have done in) the director of a Kiev television station who was foolish enough to broadcast Putin’s speech.
I object to their recent referendum given that (i) there were Russian troops everywhere, and then (ii) the result was 97% in favor of those troops, while (iii) the area is known to have a tartar plurality in the 40% range that favors staying with Ukraine.
Look, if the GOP stationed armed conservatives next to every voting booth in a 40% Democratic district, and the results of the vote were 97% in favor of GOP, you’d very rightly be suspicious that that result did not reflect the true will of the people, but instead the intimidation and coercion inherent in voting “under the gun.” Well, that’s what happened here. A vote under a foreign gun, pro- that foreign gun, is not a trustworthy vote. Its not the way democracy can work.
International observers did not report the presence of armed uniformed men on the streets or near polling stations.
Wait and see what happens when Ukraine votes.
“I never thought I’d see the Cold War resume in my lifetime.”
With any trend, there are fluctuations around the mean. Putin might be a slight return to the Soviets of old, but the next president will probably be more liberal.
Also, we are not pointing intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear war heads at each other, but economic “weapons”.
Most of America’s nukes are still pointed at the bear.
More liberal? The Russian people love this. I saw only one report that managed to show the celebratory mood in Russia; in general, the media has been blind to it. Unless Russia gets a bellyache from eating Crimea, I don’t expect a change of mind about the use of thuggery.
Once the lines start forming for bread and they can’t buy TP, their attitudes may change. It’s not a good time to be investing in the Russian stock market either.
Next president? Now that was a good joke.
Putin has been the leader of Russia for 13 years (changing his title from president to prime minister for a while to avoid violating the constitution) and shows no sign of ever going to quit.
Actually, in Russia, Putin is the liberal.
In the last duma elections, the communists came in second. They are not known to be pro-western liberal democrats. Third place went to the “Just Russia” party that is supposedly social democratic, center left. A prominent member of this party, named Yelena Mizulina, actually invented the gay propaganda laws and is one of the few key figures on the US sanctions list. Fourth place in the elections went to the “Liberal Democratic Party of Russia”, which is in actual fact right wing populist and nationalist and is headed by the notorious Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
Putin bad, ultranationalist and neo-nazi good.
So that’s why the GOP wants to out Putin!
So, you’re saying in 20 or so years they’ll get a leader not bent on annexing other states? That is not promising.
I fear the worst and hope that we Europeans are ready to welcome every single citizen of Ukraine that needs, if worst case scenario happens, a new home.
Fucking politicians!
Military conflicts are a depressing reminder of how immature our civilization really is. We proud ourselves as being the only species on Earth capable of articulating the most complex of ideas through speech and written word, and yet we continue to fight like a bunch of primitive monkeys unable to work out their differences without resorting to violence.
But we’re getting better.
I think it would be prudent of me to get a hold of Pinker’s book. Just as a quick pick-me-up antidote to politics….
If you’re referring to the entire Ukraine, it’s highly unlikely. May be he can try to annex the Russian-speaking eastern part, and he may even succeed. However, western Ukraine is entirely different story. As we’ve seen already they are willing to fight (and die) to be an independent European country; it’s going to be extremely difficult to annex western Ukraine for that reason alone, besides the international backlash, which is going to be much stronger.
Ukraine’s military can’t defeat Russia, but it’s big enough that they could drive the cost of Putin’s fantasies pretty high–maybe enough to piss off the Russian people. Wars w/o a real security need will piss off the people sooner or later; the bodies start coming back and there’s no good answer to “why?” For example, Vietnam. Whether the Ukraine could withstand an invasion long enough to make this happen, I don’t know.
The Russian economy runs on selling energy to its Western neighbors. Much of this energy crosses Ukraine…pipelines make easy targets.
Furthermore I’m fairly certain the the memory of Afghanistan might deter Putin from going all in on Ukraine.
If blows up in their faces and the Ukranians choose to defend their country to the bitter end( backed by assistance of some sort from the west ), then it could easily turn into Chechnya/Afghanistan only on a much greater scale and without the option of retreat.
Putin is walking a thin red line.
I don’t think Russia will try to absorb all of Ukraine, maybe just the eastern part. The western part has a lot of anti-Russian people.
Agreed; I meant the east. But I still think it will happen.
There was an NBC interview with some Crimea big shot who thought that the eastern Ukraine was going to be taken too.
I doubt it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/national-pride-in-ukraine-by-region-and-home-language/
Even Donetsk is not nearly as pro-Russian as Crimea.
Is Estonia marked for annexation, too?
Both Estonia and Latvia have around 25% ethnic Russians. I don’t remember the details, but I know that, even in the closing years of the USSR, the Russians did some really nasty military action in these areas.
About 15 years ago, I knew an ethnic Russian girl from Latvia. Both she and her boyfriend had come to the U.S. to study and she was waiting tables where I hung out a lot. Anyway, she mentioned the tension between Latvians and ethnic Russians. She seemed to be ok, but her father refused to even learn the language.
Quote from Wikipedia:
“Latvia is a member of NATO, European Union, United Nations, Council of Europe, CBSS, IMF, NB8, NIB, OSCE, WTO and OECD. For 2013, Latvia is listed 44th on the Human Development Index and as a high income country.” I would think they will fight rather than be annexed to Russia.
Given the “all for one and one for all” treaty obligation of NATO, any Russian invasion of Latvia would trigger a NATO response.
…but only if the US decided to go
(you’d probably find that treaty obligations are ALWAYS subject to cancellation by the executive, just like with the Native Americans, Geneva conventions etc)
I’ve known a large number of Lavtian-Americans (all born in Latvia). I would pretty much gaurantee that Latvia would fight — anyone; but especially the Russians.
I imagine it would be the same for the Estonians and Lithuanians.
Russia already hase their pied a terre on the Baltic: Kaliningrad Oblast.
But, then again, this could be used as the excuse, just as East Prussia was in 1939 …
On the other hand, the Holocaust practiced by the Baltic states (mostly as willing Nazi collaborators) was equal or worse than the territories of Germany and Austria together, measured both in number and percentage. Russia lost 27 million of its people to Germany and their allies.
If I were Russian, I might be suspicious of the intentions of Berlin.
The Baltic States are members of NATO, it would be war if they were attacked. Russia cannot win a conventional war against NATO. Putin is crafty, not stupid.
It looks like Professor Ceiling Cat may have caught an anti-Russian hysteria virus while in Poland. As an antidote, I’d recommend some cooler assessments: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/20/fmr_us_ambassador_behind_crimea_crisis, http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/17/after_crimea_votes_to_secede_how
Thanks for posting. I think we are not getting the full story of western/NATO meddling, including the involvement of neo-Nazi elements in the buildup to the crisis.
Pinker quoted a statistic that said that sanctions work 1/3 of the time. On a broader scale, he thought that international cold shoulders tended to produce behavior changes in wayward regimes, in the same way that adults learn to avoid the disapproval of those in their social environment.
One thing I’ve read in the past is that punishments need to be scaled just below the point that the punishee would get angry. A mildly annoying punishment that occurs without fail will eventually have an effect. A modern example is that a lot of “free” software gently reminds you that you haven’t paid, but it still functions. Eventually it wears you down.
A modern example is that a lot of “free” software gently reminds you that you haven’t paid, but it still functions. Eventually it wears you down.
Speak for yourself!
Signed — a Scot.
I’m not so sure the rest of Ukraine’s next. If the Russians make some dramatic quick move– like sending an armored division to Kiev– there could be a fait accompli where NATO could not act quickly enough, either militarily or in their internal diplomacy, to oppose it, and the Ukraine is absorbed. But if the Russians try and the Ukrainians put up a good fight on the approach to Kiev, there’s a fair chance (in my estimation) that NATO would respond. But if the Russians go for the Baltic states, NATO is all in, and it’s a real war.
Other commentators have supposed Estonia (unlikely if you ask me– it’s a NATO member) or Moldova are Russia’s next targets. (Moldova, perhaps better known in English as Moldavia, is part of one of the historic provinces of Romania, and I’ve never understood why it just doesn’t rejoin Romania, leaving the thin non-Romanian speaking strip of territory known as Transdnistria to rejoin the Ukraine.) But all this assumes the Russians have a next target– it’s not clear to me that they do.
I think you are overwrought.
When I was about 18, my Dad told me we had to stop the Commies in Viet-Nam or tomorrow they would be in California.
Well, I’m still waiting.
When the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was astonished that so many people imagined that this would usher in an era of peace. It was obvious to me that the Balkans would do as the Balkans always have and be riven with chaos and fighting, and that the collapse of their Soviet empire did not mean the Russians would cease to be the paranoid imperialists that they have always been. As a solution to their need for a warm water port, the Russians have coveted the Crimea for over two centuries. A war to stop them getting it was where “The Charge of the Light Brigade” and the fame of Florence Nightingale came from. And now they’ve got it. You have to give them points for perseverance. Look on the bright side, nobody can stop them doing what they want, but no one can stop the USA doing what it wants either. You have to do as the Spanish and Portuguese did in 1518 and divide the world up between you so can avoid conflict. Only this time China will want a cut too. The rest of us will just have to hope we don’t mind being raped too much.Of course the American ruling class rapes its own people worst of all.
Russia never went through what France did after they overthrew their monarchy. Their revolution was very different and Russia has never experienced freedom in the way we did in the West. It’s an interesting history and it is impressive that Russia is where it is today with the freedoms their people have.
Oh I don’t know, after the French Revolution they got a corrupt oppressive totalitarian regime which terrorised the populace with public executions, doesn’t sound so different to me. The main difference was they lost their revolutionary war whereas the Russians won theirs, and of course the extra century and a half since it happened.
It was a long fight to democracy but only a year after the revolution started, the monarchy was ousted and their lands lost, the church was booted out and their lands lost and don’t forget about The Declaration of the Rights of Man. The French Revolution (inspired by the American one) inspired Russia (and made England nervous). When Napoleon came, he did some good stuff – gave the French the metric system :)and he was instrumental in the development of the nation state (Italy and Germany become nations around this time).
After the dust had settled, France was most likely ahead of the rest of the nations – remember that things weren’t so great back then for anyone.
I don’t think the French Revolution went nearly as smoothly as you imply. The USSR fell about 70 years after the revolution, relatively peacefully and things are, as you say, now going, not terribly. Seventy years after the French Revolution they were having another one! Half of Europe had a revolution in 1848 and it started in France. In the meantime they’d restored the monarchy, and they were soon to have another go at a Napoleonic Emperor which would end badly as well. The kleptocracy which currently rules Russia consists of very much the same people who ruled it before the fall of the USSR. Their motivations and ambitions are unchanged. Whether Russia characterises itself as a “democracy” or a “socialist republic” does not change 500 years of conquest and imperialism.
It’s absolutely true that Russia is currently a kleptocracy: that’s what Yeltsin stood for and represented, the oligarchs who got cheap concessions on Russia’s oil and gas reserves. ‘Oligarchs’ sounds posh: they are thugs and thieves.
But it’s complete nonsense to equate them with early Soviet economics: you really don’t know what you’re talking about if you equate the two. Yeltsin privatized: Lenin nationalized. The two ways of running an economy are completely different.
If, as you say, Marella, the kleptocracy which currently runs the Russian economy consists of very much the same people who ruled it before the fall of the USSR, would you care to name them? Then detail the position of the future Russian oligarchs in the USSR state machine before 1989. You’ll have a hard job.
Yeltsin’s revolution really was a revolution: he led the way for the kleptomaniacs to run the key industries – at knock-down Lidl costs.
The devil is in the detail: in 1998 when my home-town, Birmingham, hosted the G8 summit, 2 male world leaders used the Gents at the banquet: one was Clinton, the other was Yeltsin. One of them nicked the soap from the men’s toilets. I don’t believe that it was Clinton: it was probably that old corrupt rum-pot, and habitual kleptomaniac, Yeltsin.
Slaínte.
” . . . 2 male world leaders used the Gents . . . nicked the soap from the men’s toilets . . . probably that old corrupt rum-pot, and habitual kleptomaniac, Yeltsin.”
Reminds of the towel-grabbin’ behavior of not a few Amuricuns stayin’ in a big ho-tel while visitin’ Thuh Big City. Like them, maybe Boris just wanted a leetle souvenir.
Putin was in the KGB before he went into politics.
It was 10 years between the revolution of 1789 and Napoleon’s coup. To me that doesn’t sound as terrible. My ancestors fled during The Terror which happened in between. I don’t recall the French monarchy being restored at all after Louis fled.
The French Monarchy was restored in 1814 with the ascension of Louis XVIII, it remained in place through three kings until the revolution of 1848.
Louis was in exile for most of that time and only reigned for 10 years as a constitutional monarch so saying the monarchy was restored isn’t quite accurate because it wasn’t like the ancien régime which was an absolutist monarchy. He spent a lot of his time in exile pleading with Napoleon to let him come back and be an absolutist monarch but Napoleon wouldn’t let him. He wasn’t allowed back until he agreed to accept the French constitution which included a Republic and an elected parliament.
I have a fondness for the revolutions of 1848. When they failed, a great many intellectuals and free-thinking former revolutionaries came to the US. A lot of the them settled in Wisconsin and laid the groundwork for a long tradition of progressive social policy and politics which has, tragically, degraded and been lost in recent decades.
And they set up lots of breweries. We still have the beverage traditions alive.
Maybe sometime in the future, but certainly not in the next two months. Will not happen. I predict it will not happen in the next ten years.
Historically Crimea and Ukraine are different peoples and have different allegiances.
Sanctions could work. Put the hurt on the oligarchs that support Putin and pay him off, like Gary Kasparov recommends. I doubt, though, that the West has the stomach for it.
Sanctions often don’t “work” nearly as much as people like to believe. Those who really feel the impact tend to be ordinary citizens and sanctions often have unintended negative impacts on people, businesses and even countries they were not meant to harm.
Russia is probably strong enough to withstand any sanctions for the foreseeable future, and will most likely simply use countries like China to supply it with goods it used to obtain from elsewhere.
This article by economist David McWilliams is worth a read
Short of war, what other choice is there, besides appeasement? (That worked so well 1936-39.)
So do you approve of the BDS movement against Israel for their oppression of the Palestinians?
Actually, sanctions are an act of war.
Staying out of the conflict entirely.
It’s obvious right now that we haven’t got the stomach for serious sanctions. Putting Disney World off limits would have been more serious than what was done. My prognosis is that once Putin grabs all he wants for now, he’ll make conciliatory noises and the EU and U.S. will be super super eager to believe and thus make the fear go away.
“And the bell takes its toll once again, in a victory chime, and we can thank God that we’ve finally got peace in our time.”
–Elvis Costello, singing of appeasement.
I have my own conspiracy theory that it’s about oil. I wonder if the US and Canada are in cahoots to supply Europe Canadian oil and this is the only reason there is indignation from our politicians.
I think Western Ukraine is looking to join the EU, so Putin has simply bought himself another headache, since the Crimea is likely to be a consumer of resources rather than a contributor to the prosperity of the whole.
I don’t know what resources Russia has snagged in Ukraine. Ukraine is an agricultural exporter, but I don’t know if any significant portion of that comes from Crimea.
I don’t know enough to make a call on it, but it’s occurred to me that Ukraine might be better off just flushing Crimea. Anyway, Ukraine got rid of 500,000 ethnic Russians who will now never vote in Ukraine elections again. Hell, give the rest of the ethnic Russians in Ukraine bus tickets to Russia–they all seem to have such longing to be Russian citizens.
And leave the EU with the white-supremist, anti-Semitic nationalists. I think Russia would go along with this so long as NATO stayed away.
Western Ukraine would join the EU and NATO at the drop of the hat. They have seen how old eastern block countries have prospered within the EU and effectively want some of the same.
The EU has major problems over governance but overall it has been a vital aid to prosperity.
+1
I know EU has its fair share of problems that needs to be addressed and that the whole setup is prone to governmental issues, but I simply cannot agree with those who want to dissolve it.
I primarily consider it a source of common understanding and cooperation.
It also provides a good opportunity for many different peoples to join in common opposition to something. 😉
Not to mention the corruption, the dubious projects and the myriad of rules and regulations. 🙂
I enjoy the company, but sometimes Brussels is far away…
The soviets like the beachfront Crimean peninsula. Very few places like it in USSR.
Hey, I suppose the Ukrainians will head back to Ukraine and leave some good jobs behind as well as have to sell homes, property, and businesses cheap. A good time to be ethnic Russian in Crimea!
I heard an interview with a teacher from Crimea on CBC. She is okay as a teacher but she has friends who are in trouble with their business with their Ukrainian customers calling them traitors and not dealing with them. I’m sure there will be further red tape on top of that. The interview is interesting and can be heard here.
The one and only justification for conducting some form of war in another country is that there is an uncorrected security threat coming from that other country. I don’t see a security threat to the U.S. coming from what asshole Putin does to Ukraine. At the same time I saw no security threat to the Russian Federation coming from Ukraine.
Putin got pissed b/c the economic wedding with Ukraine was clearly called off. Quite handy too is that Ukraine has a bunch of ethnic Russians pining to be citizens of Russia but haven’t–for some reason-immigrated.
This is a rotten situation but it isn’t no f’ing Cold War again. During the Cold War, a crisis would come up and all or most (as I recall) of the B52 fleet would be put into the air to protect it from a Soviet strike. It wasn’t a happy time when it was reported on the news that SAC had put the B52 fleet in the air. People on the shorter range B47 bombers knew that, should they be sent to the USSR, they would never make it back.(I had a relative who was a B47 pilot.)
One thing that’s ominous here is that, just like the Soviets, Putin is a thug and the Russian people seem to like him. Note the thug manner of the ethnic Russian men in street demonstration in Crimea. I’m afraid I and the whole West have lavished a lot of wasted hope and goodwill on Russia. We were delusional.
We dropped out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We changed our war doctrine to now allow nuclear first strikes. We are trying to put ABM systems right on the Russian border. (Saying that it’s to defend against Iran!) A first strike with an ABM defense against the remnants should certainly be a security concern of Russia!
“We” means the USA.
Hate to go Godwin on the thread, but are you saying we were wrong to join in WWII in Europe? Germany was no security threat to the US. Japan obviously yes, but not Germany.
eric, It was Hitler (Nazi Germany) that declared war on the United States. We joined the European War because Hitler attacked us and not because we had anything agains Hitler.
I would suggest that Hitler was very much a threat to the USA and then US president Roosevelt knew it, which was why he was giving England all the help he could within the bounds of US isolationist politics of the time.
Hitler would never have been satisfied with Europe, never mind he could have simply stopped US trade with half the world. Would a man who planned to take half the world be satisfied with half?
He planned on taking Russia and after defeating the UK he would have gone after any of it’s possessions not already taken or not promised to his Axis partners.
Japan was chewing up China and was quickly gobbling up strategic pacific islands.
US and Canada would have been isolated and required to either take over all of central and South America, or used its resources to support them in order to keep the Axis off the continent which would have been almost impossible.
Alaska’s and much of Canada’s coastline was unsecured and as history shows, so was the US navy. South and Central America had nothing to stop any invasion and their economies had no real output, no navy, no real armed forces.
Of course none of this was happening in a vacuum, but the point is megalomaniacs are rarely satisfied with half of anything, and Nazi Germany was a long term danger to the USA.
Note that I’m not making any comparisons to any present day event or persons, I’m just saying at he time Nazi Germany was a long term and not so long term threat to the USA and it’s interests.
Crimea has a majority Russian population, was part of Russia until 1954, and, crucially, is home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Since its removal will leave Ukraine with a western-looking majority, instead of the previous very even balance, I infer that compared with Crimea, Putin does not think the rest of Ukraine is that important.
To me the most disturbing aspect is that in 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, inherited from Soviet days, in return for international assurances of its integrity, now exposed as worthless.
There is a Russian speaking majority in the Crimea primarily because that lovely man Stalin in one of the most brutal pieces of ethnic cleansing expelled the native Tartars in the 1930’s and 40’s
The %age of the population which was Tartar in the Crimea was about 35% around 1900 ( slightly higher that the Russian ). By 1960 the percentage Tartar had almost dropped to zero.
THAT is why there is a majority Russian speaking population in the Crimea.
Graph here ( note the dodgy time scale):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Crimean-tatar-population-comparison-1987-2001.png
As somebody noted above, the Crimea was part of Russia until Khrushchev (a Ukrainian, I think) made it part of Ukraine in the 50’s. This move was never popular with the population there, who were ethnic Russian.
In this case, I think we should consider respecting the wishes of the local populace, and accept the Crimea’s separation from Ukraine, irrespective of how we view Putin’s regime.
Could you please consider the Tartars as well, who had a quite strong presence there until Stalin deported them and had not a few of them killed? After all, they were more “original” population there than the Russians.
And then there are people of Ukrainian descent living in Crimea as well. Shall we wait for another ethnic cleansing?
Don’t pretend Crimea is a uniformly Russian region, and don’t pretend that the way Putin has played this does not matter, just because there are a lot of Russians there who would like to be part again of Mother Russia.
Nasty things have been going on there for the last few centuries, but there’s no need to let Putin continue his policy of bullying the rest of the world into giving him what he wants.
And the Palestinians had a strong presence in Palestine until the Israelis expelled them in 1947-48. Shouldn’t they have a say in what goes on there?
Neo-fascist street fighters are sharing power with a bunch of oligarchs who want to share in the EU market, treating the people like Greeks.
One of neo-fascist deputies campaigned by beating the head of a TV network into resigning. The neo-fascists broadcast the incident on the internet to make sure people got the point. The Svoboda deputy was on the parliamentary free speeech committee.
We know from Victoria Nuland the US government favors very close relations with Tyahnybok of the Svoboda Party, advocating talking with its leader Tyahnybok four times a week. Another leader founded the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre. Right Sector, a coalition of street fighters is even more right-wing. A founder of Svoboda (in its earlier incarnation as the Social National Party) is now chair of the Council for National Security and Defense, and Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector leader is deputy. They are attempting to organize a “National Guard” of 60 000 at this time.
Unity with the current Ukrainian government is unity with these people.
It really is fascinating that neo-nazi and fascist political actors are now our allies after staging a violent putsch over a previously elected government and it was labled a democratic uprising. But Crimeans voting for self-determination is termed a sham and charade.
The vote in Crimea was clearly a sham. Maybe a majority wanted association with Russia, but they only got to 95% by severe vote-rigging. Putin must not have been too confident he’d win honestly.
That percentage is a dead give-away for a fake election. A standard feature of totalitarian voting systems.
Hmm, what about the referendum in the Falklands in March 2013, 98% turnout, and 99,8% in favour of staying within the UK?
Thats got to be the mother of all rigged votes, and a total giveaway of a totalitarian voting system if there ever was one, right? 😉
I don’t claim there was no rigging in Ukraine, but I think you need better evidence then that in my opinion. Remember that the 95% value is the value of those that voted (~80%), not the fraction of the population as a whole, if I understand correctly.
It is high, but not outside of possibility by any means.
I’m not knowledgeable about the Falklands vote you reference. Perhaps it was rigged, too, I don’t know. I suspect population sizes have quite a bit to do with the range (or uniformity) of opinion. (Less than three thousand live in the Falklands, more than three million in Crimea.)
In any case, the Crimean vote is illegitimate for a number of reasons and if you don’t think a 95% “for” under the circumstances is more than a little suspect…
Just pointing out that using the value given for those that wanted to “join” Russia, as a precentage of those that “voted”, is perhaps not such a bright idea.
Or using percentages from referendums, as a termometer for totalitarianism…
Since the opposition, i.e. the tartars and many Ukranians actively said beforehand they would boycott the election, and if they really did, the outcome is fairly exactly what one would expect, isn’t it?.
I mean, it’s a little bit like doing a survey in Old Trafford on a match day, and be surprised that 99% love to watch football… 🙂
The point that I am curious about is the ~80% turnout, since the ethnic Russians is approx 60% in crimea.
You might consider, also, what it means when significant parts of a population boycott elections. Maybe it is a measure of confidence in the honesty of the process?
@gbjames
I think this is a better argument concerning the problems with the referendum, (and the situation at large), than the one you originally made above.
Sloppy thinking is sloppy thinking, and a percived moral right, or “good” cause, does not excuse it. 🙂
I would rather say that it is precisely at moments such as these, we all have to be extra vigilant, not only in regard to media and news reports, but also in regard to our own thoughts and arguments.
History is weird: Kiev was the capital city of the first powerful “Rus” state (9th to 12th centuries, more or less) ruled by an aristocracy of Swedish origin (Rurik was a Varangian). At this time Moscow was only a provincial little town. But progressively Kievan Rus became politically a marginal country: the capital and power moved first to Poland and then to Moskow and St-Petersburgh, with Mongol and Kosack interludes. Not a very happy history.
The meaning of “Ukraine” is more or less “far reaches” or “frontier”, in this case the Orthodox side of the limit between Orthodox and Catholic Slavs (Polish and Slovakians).
It is the same root as “Krajina”, which was (a part of) the Christian side of the limit between Christian and Islamic Slavs (Croatia / Bosnia.
Indeed, historically Ukraine *is* Russia, and the upstart nation currently calling itself Russia is really Muscovy.
History change all kinds of borders. Historically Texas was Mexico and Florida, Spain.
And, I guess, historically Hawaii was . . . Hawaii? Hawaii did request to be annexed by the U.S., right? 😉
Ironically, according to Wikipedia…
“During the outbreak of the Crimean War, in Europe, Kamehameha III declared Hawaii a neutral state.”
Ha, right. That’s covering ones bases to rather an extreme, eh? As if the sovereign state (as in country) of Hawaii could possibly have any bearing on (U.S. or other) foreign policy regarding the Crimean War.
I wonder if the country of Hawaii also declared its neutrality with respect to the U.S. Civil War (perhaps mindful of U.S. “gunboat diplomacy” in Asia earlier in the 19th century).
All to no avail in trying to avoid the interests and impositions of the government/corporate masters of mankind.
Canada almost got Hawaii but Britain didn’t want it. I’m still bitter about it.
Republicans think it is part of Kenya.
Republicans think it is part of Kenya.
As if Hawaii was anyones to “get,” eh?
(I know you’re saying that tongue-in-cheek. 😉 )
(Re: the 1949 Chinese Communist defeat of the Nationalists, and Amuricun politicos subsequently bloviating about “Who Lost China?” As if China were somehow the U.S.’s to “lose.”)
Boy do I get it about never thinking you’d see the Cold War resume in your lifetime. I never thought I’d see the call to wand pregnant women seeking abortions, either! Or even the rise of militant know-nothing religion in the US –if you’d asked me 40 years ago, I’d have said religion would have withered on the vine by now.
The whole Ukraine? That doesn’t sound very plausible, if only because the Ukranians wouldn’t accept that, and there are considerably more of them than there are Crimea Tatars.
If I were a resident in any of the former Soviet states, I’d be getting nervous right now.
This is also evidence for the argument against me moving to Finland.
I’m watching the situation with some unease. Surely Russia can’t get away with what they’ve done, but what can be done about it?
Crimea should be returned to Greek rule, where it belongs.
Or maybe Turkish? They owned it for a long time.
Ah, but so-called “Turkey” should go back to Greece as well……
Taking cover from the wrath of all Turks right now! 😉
Not to worry Diana, since both Greece and Asia Minor surely belong to Rome 😉
And if I remember correctly in 1472, Ivan the III, Grand duke of Muscovy married Sophia Paleologue, the nice of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI.
And tsar, of course, the slavic name for Caesar…
Before the Russians it was Ottoman. Before the Ottomans, Greek. Before the Greeks, Roman. But before the Romans…it was Scythian. For about 1,300 years straight, it was scythian. So clearly, it needs to go back to the scythians.
“Historically, Taunton is part of Minehead already”.
I just finished reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for the third time in the last two weeks.
Putin is making EXACTLY the same lame excuses for seizing Crimea that Hitler did for seizing Austria (another fake referendum), Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
Lies, lies, lies.
Three times in two weeks?!
Was it the History Channel version? 🙂
And in the meantime you completely ignore the neo-Nazis who have such a strong influence in western Ukraine? They control the defense, justice and interior ministries and are organizing the National Guard. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing their thuggish behavior and brutality. Are you so confident that “Yats” is going to be able to control them? Like Hindenburg controlled Hitler?
I watched this YouTube video with Gysi addressing the Bundestag. People may not like his party (Der Link – The Left) but he says some compelling things and it appears he has some good solutions. Here is the video in German and here is the English transcript
It’s “Die Linke”. “Der Link” refers to IT.
Ha ha, it felt wrong when I spelled it that way but I was too lazy to double check.
Russia doesn’t have the resources to fight a sustained war with the EU or the USA. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we found out how “hollow” their forces were. The situation is even worse, now. The Russians were having France build them two helicopter carriers; they don’t have the technology, efficiency, and quality control to do it themselves.
Don’t get me wrong. The Russians have enough in resources and supply lines to skirmish with Ukraine and other similarly sized border nations to cause damage, seize military centers, and generally make life hell. But there’s only so far they can go, before they push against one of the Western power blocks that decide –after much political theater and talking head hoodoo — to fight back.
I think Putin can invade anything if he smells NATO expansion into that area. I don’t think he cares even a tiny little bit about the Russian minorities etc, it’s just a smokescreen. Crimea has an important Russian naval base, that’s all.
But I think he will surely keep trying to provoke NATO up to the point when NATO will have to decide whether to start WW3 or fail to protect its members or allies.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/hypocrisy-washington-yugoslavia.html