Would anyone here support Russia moving into Ukraine?

[penultimate]

There's lots of arguing over the Russia/Ukraine stuff, and lots of people attributing thoughts/words to others without them actually saying such. So I'm just curious where many of the people stand on this issue. I personally would not support Russia moving to occupy any more of the Ukraine, as there seems to be little justification for them to do so. That being said, I would not support the US going to war to defend Ukraine, as I believe it should be handled primarily by Europe if they see fit to intervene or not.

Also, if you would support the Russians moving into Ukraine, do you believe it would be wrong for the Ukrainian military or Ukrainian citizens to resist?

[LiberalEsto]

1. Hell NO nt

[aristocles]

2. Yes...

...it is THEIR manifest destiny.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. 1. Obviously, no

2. Shoulda made it a poll.
3. They should get out of Crimea. The idea that one country can invade another just because they don't like who's in charge is the same one that got us into Iraq. For some reason, that seems to be just fine in the Russia/Ukraine case, because Bandera, or something.
IF Russia has a strong case that this was a US-organized coup, and that the new gov't is violating human rights, they can take it to the UN, or the Hague, or any one of any number of venues, just like they told us we should do in the case of Syria, right on the op-ed page of the NY Times.

[penultimate]

4. Thanks...

I considered making it a poll, but polls tend to be too black and white. I'm curious to hear more nuanced opinions on it.

I agree with everything you stated in #3. If Russia has a strong case, then they should be able to make it in front of the world. It's the same sort of requirements we would put on our government. Obviously we can't always stop them (Iraq), but at least many of us still put pressure on them to justify it and call them out on it if it's bullshit.

[stevenleser]

7. Yep, folks defending Russia here are post-validating the Iraq war. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Well-played.

My only regrets in this entire debate have been having to acknowledge that the diplomatic and moral capital President Obama held at his inauguration was squandered over the sands of Libya and stumbled off into the hills of Syria. His actions in this regard were reckless and ill-considered.

That said, the President has metric butt-loads more moral authority than the tin pot KGB thug in the Kremlin and those who claim the US has instigated events in Ukraine are de facto calling Obama an imperialist/imperialist stooge. It's grotesque and utterly divorced from reality.

[dipsydoodle]

10. US doesn't recognise the ICC.

So fat lot of good going the Hague would do.

[randome]

5. Unless Ukraine has a spare bedroom, it wouldn't work.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[penultimate]

6. Guess they'll just keep their RV parked in the driveway then.

[randome]

12. Putin may designate anything an RV, just as he designates the meaning of 'invasion' to be 'rescue'.

"Ve be vewy quiet. No disturb neighbors, nyet?"

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dipsydoodle]

8. No.

Russia has no need or cause to move in doubtless being ok to just sit back and watch them fuck themselves economically.

Whatever the outcome of Sunday's referendum Crimea will free itself of the leeches in Kiev by having greater autonomy.

[penultimate]

15. You don't think Ukraine will fair too well in the long run?

You don't think the EU/US will pump massive amounts of aid into Ukraine as a strategy to keep it from breaking down and looking toward Russia for help?

[dipsydoodle]

16. No

All loans will be subject to IMF rules , secured against state assets and managed accordingly. Ukraine will become owned by the west. Projected loan requirements across a period of time are at least $220 billion to cover transition costs.

USA and the EU are not charities and probably couldn't give a fuck about the population of Ukraine who will suffer in a similar manner to the Greeks of late.

[rdharma]

27. Exactly!

"USA and the EU are not charities and probably couldn't give a fuck about the population of Ukraine who will suffer in a similar manner to the Greeks of late."

The vultures are lining up to feast on the carcass.

[tech3149]

56. I agree with your assesment re economic outcome

The thing that bothers me about the whole situation is there is not much discussion about the geopolitical strategy from the west. At the fall of the Soviet Union, there were promises made regarding NATO not expanding to the east.

There has been expansion of NATO to the east and part of the EU offer would put Ukraine in that "sphere of influence".

There have been billions of dollars invested already to accomplish that goal. Why shouldn't Russia see that as an encroachment and breach of promise?

[functioning_cog]

22. I wish you could stand back and see how Russian you sound

Pathetic. It would be jumping from the corruption frying pan I to the totalitarian controlled state fire.

[dipsydoodle]

24. Suggest you do some research into the economic situation in Ukraine.

Might help you understand the situation.

Start with how much of Crimea's industrial output currently exported to Russia , Kazakhstan and Belarus could be exported to the EU.

[fadedrose]

9. I would have

but not the way they went about it...

Russia holds a lot of cards, the natural gas for one.

We can supply many of the countries affected by Russia's gas pipes, but won't our cost of natural gas here at home be adversely affected so that it gets to be so expensive that we have to buy gas from Russia?

The solution is not palatable to me. They should have had referendums on ballots voted on by Russians in the Ukraine and Crimea. With some creative bribing, they might have pulled it off without troops.

Now, the best thing to do is leave it up to the European nations. We are already suspected of too much intervention... Those nations have both been overrun by other countries or did some overrunning themselves...they have more experience in dealing with border jumpers.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. No.

I feel about the same as you do. If Russia does invade the rest of Ukraine, I don't want our troops to be involved. You never know for sure about these things, but I'm pretty sure I'd fight a Russian invasion if I was a Ukrainian. Ukraine is a separate country now, and the Russians have no business there. All the reasons I've seen for Russian involvement are pure propaganda. Putin is a fascist dictator, and I wouldn't want to be ruled by him.

[penultimate]

14. I doesn't look like many Ukrainians want to be part of Russia either

Seems like that would end up turning into a bloody occupation, and I'm certain no one wants that.

[femmocrat]

17. Absolutely not.

The Ukrainian PM said they will never surrender. I believe the determination and nationalism of the Ukrainian people will explode with the invasion of their sovereign country.

[avebury]

18. I view it as a matter between the Russians

and Ukrainians and not of my concern. We live in a country that invaded Iraq over non-existent WMDs and we all know how that went. We are in no position to lecture any country on the issue of invading countries. Furthermore, we have more then enough problems of our own in our own country. Do we really want to divert attention from what we need to work on within the US?

[hrmjustin]

19. No. Putin is talking advantage of a bad situation and shows thr criminal he is.

[HereSince1628]

20. Maybe Ukraine could sell the Crimea to Russia

Maybe enough to pay off Ukraine's national debt and put it on a path to economic prosperity sans any IMF style austerity that makes it a fief of Western banking empires

[rug]

21. The argument is really about the U.S. moving into the Ukraine.

[functioning_cog]

23. No. That is not the argument

[rug]

25. Of course it is.

If Russia is violating international law, who's going to stop it?

[stevenleser]

31. Russia. nt

[rug]

33. They'll end it by raising their flag over Kiev.

[stevenleser]

34. And you will celebrate the Russian version of the Bush doctrine when they do, I presume? nt

[penultimate]

26. I think most people here would be opposed to the US sending any troops Ukraine

At least I haven't seen many arguments suggesting the US do so. I'm curious where people stand as far the Russian military sending troops into Ukraine.

[rug]

28. It's more likely to be from the air.

From this thread, it doesn't look like anyone supports Russia moving in. Now whar?

That's the usual step that precedes the U.S. taking action.

[stevenleser]

32. No. No one is suggesting that. nt

[rug]

36. A certain network is.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/05/hagel-says-us-stepping-up-support-to-nato-allies-in-europe-amid-ukraine-crisis/

They're good at starting drumbeats.

[stevenleser]

38. No, Sending an additional six fighter planes to a nearby ally is not planning an air war. nt

[rug]

41. How about "air policing"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-ukraine-crisis-pentagon-idUSBREA241CG20140305

War by euphemism.

[stevenleser]

42. Nope. The Russian air force could overwhelm everything NATO has in the Baltics, Poland, etc. in very

short order.

[rug]

44. Of course it could. Then the U.S. could overwhelm its air force, bases and nuke sites.

And so on.

[stevenleser]

47. No. We couldn't. The Russians have the most sophisticated air defenses in the world.

American planes operating over their territory wouldn't have just Russian fighters to content with, but top of the line SAMs and AAA. Russians operating over their own territory wouldnt have that issue.

[rug]

48. Yes the U.S. could. ("We" omitted.)

The way it would is when the conflict expands beyond the Black Sea.

[stevenleser]

52. No we couldn't. (no omission needed). nt

[penultimate]

35. Hopefully nothing.

I'm sure there will be plenty of covert dirty shenanigans played out in the background by all parties though. I understand why Russia wants to keep Ukraine close to it, but that doesn't mean they have the right to. Much can be said the US or EU trying to influence the situation too. If one criticizes one side, it only seems to right to criticize the other. I suppose you could say that Russia has more right to influence Ukraine than any other country, because it's in Russia's "sphere of influence", but wouldn't that be similar to saying it's okay for the US to covertly influence of central and south american countries?

[rug]

39. Russia has no legitimacy in its actions here.

That said, neither does the U.S.

[treestar]

29. No.

I could live with them getting Crimea if that's what people there really want. But no more than that.

[sadoldgirl]

30. Sorry,but all these arguments are rather useless.

Russia allowed the Ukraine to be independent only as long as it followed Russian policies. The two countries as well as Belarus are too much intertwined to truly break apart. It was the folly of the EU as well as oil companies and banksters, which started the whole mess. Putin will not give up the Ukraine, because he knows a) nobody will start a war about it, and b) because he can force the country back into allegiance with Russia again. All this huge noise about it is utterly useless. We can condemn it, but that is all.
Try to put yourself into his shoes. Would you want Mexico to join a russian economic club with the further possibility of getting WMD close to our border? Of course not. We would do almost everything to stop that. Putin knows exactly that the Ukraine is more important to him than economic sanctions. Besides, too many large corporations work with Russia and don't want even the sanctions.
We will wait and see.

[penultimate]

46. Are there any sources that dictate that Ukraine can be 'independent' so long as they do what Russia

says? I ask because most of the research I've done points to Ukraine being completely sovereign and having the right to self-determination.

http://bit.ly/1d2c3GQ

As for the Mexico comparison. I'm sure the US government would not take kindly to having Mexico aligning with Russia, and I'm sure there would plenty of dirty tricks playing out in the background. However, I don't think the world would be too keen on the idea of the US taking over parts of Mexico with its military. How many people defending Russia at this time would defend the US' right to take such actions in Mexico? It would be deemed imperialistic and morally wrong.

[sadoldgirl]

51. Check the history of all three countries

Kiev was the beginning of Russia. Then it was called "Old Rus", hence the name Russia. The east of the country still has a lot of Russians living there. I think that both Belarus and the Ukraine are considered buffer states to the west from Putin's point of view. I don't know how many russians will agree with his decisions, but I think that his moves may prove to be popular in his country.

[Igel]

53. Just substitute "Cuba" for "Mexico."

See how it plays out. You'd find that there'd be absolutely no defenders, nobody saying "sphere of influence" or "defending interests." Just condemnation--and, if somebody else dared to interfere, probably justification for the interference.

[uncommonlink]

37. A Big Fat HELL NO.

[LittleBlue]

40. I don't really care if they get Crimea

Sounds like they basically controlled it before in all but name, what with all the Russians there.

Just as long as they don't annex non-Russian parts of the Ukraine. Anyone who wants to leave Ukraine should be free to do so. The state doesn't really make much sense when one considers the ethnic divisions.

[Igel]

54. Few here are clear on the ethnic divisions or the numbers.

Many think they are.

I know Russian speakers whose Ukrainian is minimal. They're ethnic Ukrainians. There's a large number of those in Ukraine. A very large number. Most of the "Russian speaking areas" are still mostly ethnic Ukrainian.

Some of those are "culturally Russian" in many ways and like Russian things--literature, movies, etc. But they don't want to be part of Russia. They'd object to being compelled to switch over to Ukrainian as a matter of preference or convenience.

Some of the "Russian-speaking areas" aren't >50% "Russian as first language". There's a skew to the numbers, with brightly colored areas quickly interpreted and therefore labelled as predominantly Russian but which are areas where more than 30% or 40% (depending on the map maker) are Russian-dominant.

There's also a skew based upon whose data you use. Do you use the Ukrainian census from 2001? The census looks at self-reported "native language". Or do you use the numbers put out by Russia, which claim those fluent in Russian as Russian-speakers first and foremost. It's rather like looking at Spanish in Texas--some of my neighbors are functionally bilingual, so if you want to see the percentage that speak English and relegate Spanish to those who don't speak English you get one result; if you flip the numbers and bias the result to those who speak Spanish you get another result. You get to choose what you use based upon what your political demoguery du jour is.

[Rex]

43. No.

nt.

[DrewFlorida]

45. We should put George Bush and Putin in jail together!

[hrmjustin]

49. .

[11 Bravo]

50. I think there are a few DUers who might be cool with it as long as Putin himself ...

removed his shirt and personally led the charge.

[Igel]

55. Only a few at best would support invasion.

If you rephrased it as "who has a moral or ethical problem with Russia occupying or annexing Crimea and/or parts of Eastern Ukraine" the numbers would change.

There are whose who would seriously object to a US sphere of influence being enforced, to occupation based on defending US interests, etc., who have no such problem with Russia doing the same. Sometimes I get the impression it's mostly because they're vehemently anti-EU/US/capitalism, and figure that somehow oppression under Russia is better than oppression under the EU or the West. In other cases I get the impression mostly they just want to not have to be bothered, don't want to lose resources they wanted used at home for their own goals, figure their needs and wants trump other people's (and yet view that kind of attitude in domestic politics as sharply reactionary/RW). Etc. (heavy on the "etc.&quot

A lot of people have problems accepting something they find morally objectionable and have a black-and-white attitude towards such things when they judge others. If good men who sit by while evil men get their way are themselves evil, they have a harsh choice when it comes to themselves sitting by while evil men get their way. They can declare the evil men good. Or they can declare themselves bad. They'll not do the latter; the former remains the only viable option in their straitjacket.

A richer set of options is to find a continuum of actions to take. Some are salve for the conscious: I'll say bad words about the evil guy, thus being good in word if not in deed. Others are slightly less symbolic. Some may hurt, but not so much. The complement to that, however, is to deal with the idea of being good yet helpless by nature, by condition, or by self-imposed constraints, and wrestling with the extent to which self-imposed "helplessness" is, itself, a kind of evil.