Russia vs Ukraine: Crimean Crisis

[Orionblamblam]

"Kerry Warns Putin: ‘All Options Are On The Table’"

Some years back, didn't the Bush administration take a bunch of flack for saying much the same thing? I *think* it was in reference to the hypothetical of nuking Iranian nuclear sites, or some such.

 

[bobbymike]

"Kerry Warns Putin: ‘All Options Are On The Table’"

Some years back, didn't the Bush administration take a bunch of flack for saying much the same thing? I *think* it was in reference to the hypothetical of nuking Iranian nuclear sites, or some such.

Yes and now Kerry's being called tough, resolute, etc. while Bush was a crazy warmonger set on nuclear destruction.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via Henry's Fork over at MilitaryPhotos.net:

 

[_Del_]

"Kerry Warns Putin: ‘All Options Are On The Table’"

Yeah but we all know the option that will be selected - harsh memo.

It's odd, because used in the diplomatic sense, it would generally mean "including but not limited to use of military force", but then Kerry clearly derails himself by talking about "ultimately" freezing assets or *gasp* suspending visas.

If you want to send a serious message after they cross yet another line in the sand and use force in the Ukraine, then sink a Russian boomer. Putin clearly values Sevastopol and a new status quo with a Russian Crimea more than he fears the chance that the EU and the US actually galvanize and kick them out of the G-8 or find a way to replace Russian gas and oil supply to the rest of Europe. He's playing the odds that this plays out like Georgia. And frankly, I think it will. A lot of bluster and at the end of the day, we re-normalize with Russia holding the things it wanted badly enough to go take.

 

[GTX]

Dare I ask: what exactly are the West's (and given the strong views by some members here, the USA's) actual interests in the Ukraine and in particular the Crimea region? Beyond not liking having Russia flex their muscle is there anything real?


I see a lot of domestic political posturing (the anti current US Govt stance for example) and comments regarding democracy (which isn't necessarily at threat here if one considers the supposed majority within the region in question). I fail to see any real interests though. And please don't give me references to standing up to aggression or references to WWII.

 

[_Del_]

I'm not looking for a shooting war with Russia. Other than assuring the Ukraine that we would help protect their sovereignty by signing the Budapest Memorendum, I'm not sure we have vital interest. Everyone else who has signed a piece of paper with us, however, is going to be looking at this and our reaction.
So far our response has been passive at best, incompetent at worst. Either tell Russia privately that you don't care, or actually do something. Most anything would work. So far we've heard, "we might, ultimately, someday, do ... something. Probably unpleasant, but not particularly nasty. We're thinking about it. We'll get back to you. Don't do anything naughty in the meantime." If I can see through the bluster sitting at my desk, I cannot imagine the Kremlin is at all frightened by the response. And, imo, no response at all is better than a vague threat that noone believes you are willing to carry out anyway. Ultimately, I think that brings us closer to a shooting war.
All the talk about "emboldening enemies" which everyone harped about and scoffed at is true. We're seeing it now, and I'm afraid we'll see it again in the future when someone (probably China, but maybe NK or Russia or Iran or ...) decides they can take what they want. And maybe we decide that time it is of vital interest to respond militarily. Then we're in a shooting a war.


More directly on topic: I see Poland has invoked Article 4 of the NATO charter.

 

[sferrin]

Dare I ask: what exactly are the West's (and given the strong views by some members here, the USA's) actual interests in the Ukraine and in particular the Crimea region? Beyond not liking having Russia flex their muscle is there anything real?


I see a lot of domestic political posturing (the anti current US Govt stance for example) and comments regarding democracy (which isn't necessarily at threat here if one considers the supposed majority within the region in question). I fail to see any real interests though. And please don't give me references to standing up to aggression or references to WWII.

While on one hand I agree, on the other look at the bigger picture. You can be sure China is watching our reaction to this vary carefully and will behave accordingly going forward. So what message do we want to send? One that emboldens similar behavior from Russia and China going forward or a message that deters it? There's a whole lot the West could do to make it very painful for Russia without firing a bullet.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And please don't give me references to standing up to aggression or references to WWII.

Why not? Some people learn from history, for good or ill. And those are both good, and honest reasons for why the west has an interest.

Plus, Ukraine was a valid contender for NATO membership. even though it is not (yet) a member, the fact that it very well *could* be makes their affairs and fate of interest.

Plus, Putin's a dick. He's pulled this stunt before... successfully. One must stand up to dicks, even if for no other reason than to make then look like schmucks. Of course, to do that you have to stand up to them *successfully.*

 

[Graham1973]

I am going to write the one question that has been bugging me since the Russians made their move, where are the massive spontaneous protests in the West in support of the Ukranians?

 

[Orionblamblam]

The sad truth is that the type of Western people who come out to protest wars don't protest when it's a war between "others," with rare exceptions.

And here's a question: isn't this action a war crime under the Geneva conventions? The Russian troops showed up sans insignia. doesn't mean that they could, in principle, be summarily executed on the battlefield as spies and saboteurs?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/03/02/there-will-be-blood-our-own/

 

[Triton]

"Eurasian economic union with Russia at centre of Putin’s endgame"
LAVINA LEE
The Australian
March 04, 2014 12:00AM

Source:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/eurasian-economic-union-with-russia-at-centre-of-putins-endgame/story-e6frgd0x-1226844074752#

THE effective seizure of the Crimea by Russian forces on Saturday has caught many in the West off-guard. They should have known better.

While most advanced economies have been cutting back on defence, the Russian Federation has embarked on the greatest expansion of its military since the end of the Cold War.

Moscow’s latest move is further proof that it is prepared to use force to reassert Russian influence within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union - a chilling reality for not just Ukraine but other Eastern European and Central Asian states. It is also a reminder for a complacent European Union that old-fashioned power politics in Eurasia is not merely a thing of the past but alive and well - with possible lessons for future peace or conflict in Asia.

New Ukrainian presidential elections have been announced for May 25 since the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev last week amid violent protests against his November decision to choose closer ties to Russia rather than the EU.

If these take place, it is expected that a pro-European leader will prevail.

If that occurs, likely Ukrainian entry into the EU and the possibility that it may even join NATO at a future time would represent a personal humiliation for Russian President Vladimir Putin whose government offered billions in concessionary loans to woo the Yanukovych government.

In addition to the geostrategic importance of Ukraine, getting Kiev on side is critical to the success of Putin’s proposal for a Eurasian Economic Union. Such a union will exist as a counter to the EU and allow Moscow to institutionalise Russia’s influence.

If realised, the Russian-dominated union would also potentially control one-third of the world’s proven natural gas reserves. It is also clear that losing Ukraine would dangerously undermine Putin’s standing and authority within his own United Russia political party, and provide an example of what dissatisfied populations can achieve through popular protests.

This is why Russian willingness to use coercive diplomacy to maintain an exclusive sphere of influence in the former Soviet Space should come as no surprise. After all, it was Putin who in 2006 described the demise of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. To protect its declining influence, Russia has not hesitated to use its control of energy resources. At the height of winter in 2006 and 2009, Moscow cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine - and Europe - in disputes with Kiev over gas prices and gas debts.

Russia also uses its position on a network of Soviet-era pipelines as the last exit point to European markets to bully clients and extract low gas and oil prices from Central Asian suppliers.

For example, in 2009, in a dispute over gas pricing Russia suspended gas imports from Turkmenistan for nine months, which cost the latter an estimated one-quarter of its total annual GDP.

Economic coercion is one thing. But in 2008, Russia’s military invasion of Georgia showed that Putin was willing to use force against peripheral states moving against Russian interests. Georgia provides a predictable strategy for Russia’s response to the loss of Ukraine to Europe: invade on the pretext of protecting a Russian minority. After all, there the EU and US proved powerless to stop the forcible change of Georgia’s sovereign borders by force. Given this pattern of behaviour, the EU has had ample warning that all options remain on the table for Moscow when it comes to its interests in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Brussels has been caught flat-footed vis-a-vis these instances of Russian behaviour for one central reason. It naively fails to accept that the renunciation of economic coercion or war between EU members is an exception in the rough world of international politics, rather than the norm.

As such, it failed to see the signs that Russia would do all it could to ensure Ukraine joined the Eurasian Union, and to prevent Ukraine from taking the European path. Indeed, the EU’s persistent unwillingness to bear any real economic cost in order to support the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination is noted by other Eastern European and Central Asian states that may have otherwise looked to the EU as a means to escape Russian control.

There are lessons in all of this for our region: a reminder that dissatisfied great powers rarely remain passive for long when protecting their core interests.

Although there are significant differences between China and Russia - the former a rising great power and the latter a declining one - some similarities are pertinent. Both believe they have been humiliated by outside powers: Russia by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and China by the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. Both seek to restore what they see as a natural and legitimate right to dominate their respective regions and to rectify historical slights, including the redrawing of sovereign borders by force if required.

Significantly, both are undertaking unprecedented and rapid build-ups of their military capabilities in a time of relative peace.

Content with the status quo, many in the West are more inclined to eschew the use of force as an instrument of politics. But the Ukrainian crisis - no matter how violently or peacefully it plays out - should remove any complacency that military force has become obsolete in Eurasia and perhaps Asia.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And here's a question: isn't this action a war crime under the Geneva conventions? The Russian troops showed up sans insignia. doesn't mean that they could, in principle, be summarily executed on the battlefield as spies and saboteurs?

No. Insignia is not needed. Just a recognisable uniform of some sort.

 

[Desert Dawn]

What would constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention would be if the Russian troops were wearing the uniforms of the army they are fighting. Such as when the SS troops wore US uniforms during the invasion of Normandy.

 

[Triton]

"What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response"
By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Monday, March 3, 2:32 PM

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/zbigniew-brzezinski-after-putins-aggression-in-ukraine-the-west-must-be-ready-to-respond/2014/03/03/25b3f928-a2f5-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

Regarding the Russian aggression against Ukraine, much depends on what Vladi­mir Putin does next. But what Putin does depends on not only his calculation of the likely NATO (and especially the U.S.) response but also his estimate of how fiercely the Ukrainian people would respond to any further escalation by Russia. And, to complete the circle, the Ukrainian response would be influenced by citizens’ reaction to any further repetition of Putin’s Crimean aggression and by whether the nation believes that the United States and NATO are truly supportive.

Putin’s thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea offer some hints regarding his planning. He knew in advance that his thinly camouflaged invasion would meet with popular support from the Russian majority in Crimea. He was not sure how the thin and light Ukrainian military units stationed there would react, so he went in masked like a Mafia gangster. In the event of serious Ukrainian resistance, he could disown the initiative and pull back.



His initial success may tempt him to repeat that performance more directly in the far eastern provinces of Ukraine proper. If successful, the conclusive third phase could then be directed, through a combination of political unrest and increasingly overt use of Russian forces, to overthrow the government in Kiev. The result would thus be similar to the two phases of Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland after Munich in 1938 and the final occupation of Prague and Czechoslovakia in early 1939.

Much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin — a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler — that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe. If Ukraine is crushed while the West is simply watching, the new freedom and security in bordering Romania, Poland and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened.

This does not mean that the West, or the United States, should threaten war. But in the first instance, Russia’s unilateral and menacing acts mean the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade. Second, the West should convey — privately at this stage, so as not to humiliate Russia — that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be preciptated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.

In addition, such efforts to avert miscalculations that could lead to a war should be matched by a reaffirmation of the West’s desire for a peaceful accommodation with Russia regarding a joint effort to help Ukraine recover economically and stabilize politically. The West should reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or to turn it against Russia. Ukrainians themselves can define the depth of their closeness to Europe and the scope of their economic cooperation with Russia, to the benefit of peace and stability in Europe. And after their May elections, they can revise some of the arrangements for a special status for Crimea, but they should not do so under duress or attack from a neighbor driven by imperial or personal ambitions.

 

[Grey Havoc]

What would constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention would be if the Russian troops were wearing the uniforms of the army they are fighting. Such as when the SS troops wore US uniforms during the invasion of Normandy.

Unless they were wearing their own uniforms underneath, in which case it would be likely classified as a legitimate ruse of war. Of course, black ops personnel and the like don't need such legal niceties.

 

[bigvlada]

This brings back some really dark memories. Hopefully Ukrainians will be more mature than Yugoslavia was. Nazis, Ukrainian version of Novak Djokovic, convicted gas tycoons on the one side and Russian puppet politicians and tycoons on the other. Poor people. I can’t decide which media outlets are worse, Russian or western ones. TV evangelists everywhere. We have been there, this situation will leave deep scars on Ukrainian society.

It is my understanding that the majority of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine are Stalin-era imports and their descendants. Thus, Ukraine demanding that they learn Ukrainian is no more a difficult situation than France demanding that Algerian immigrants learn French, or Denmark demanding that Egyptian immigrants learn Danish, or Japan demanding that immigrants learn Japanese.

Hardly, they had their first state there, Kiev Rus (Russians, Belarus, Ukrainians), before the Mongols conquered them. I believe the emotions towards Ukraine are similar to those of Serbs about Kosovo and Metohija, they too had their early state there and the Patriarchate building of Serbian Orthodox Church is still in the town of Peć although the Patriarch is located in Belgrade now.

It would be a longer term approach but you could announce it right away. The US could lift its' energy export controls and start shipping excess nat. gas in the form of LNG to Europe and break Moscow's near gas monopoly in Europe and the Ukraine.

Over the longer term you could help places like Poland and the Ukraine frack its shale gas deposits and eventually get close to energy independence. This is what Moscow and Putin fear most IMHO.

I am trying to find an article that talks about Moscow's support of European anti-fracking groups while they frack away in Russia.

I cant remember where i have read the article about fracking attempts in Poland. It seems methods used in the US can’t be used there because of the different soil.


The main division of Ukraine is on poor agricultural west and slightly richer industrial east. Ukrainian industry in general is soviet based and outdated. It relies heavily on Russian gas. Those things that they make are not competitive in the west. EU does not want another wave of cheap labor in its borders or cheap agricultural products from Ukraine. EU admission was never offered to Ukraine.


The coup government wanted to exclude Russian, Hungarian and Romanian languages from official use. The second thing was removing the law that prohibits Nazi propaganda. The wanted to ban the local Communist party too. Those people in western Ukraine are celebrating their WW2 quislings, which amongst other atrocities, fought against partisans in Yugoslavia.


There won’t be any sanctions. Can EU do without those 6000+ German companies alone in Russia and 140-200 billion USD worth of exports? That was one of the reasons why Germany put a veto on Ukrainian and Georgian admission into NATO in 2008. This is not Call of Duty. When you declare a general mobilization and 1-1,5% of people show up, what does that say about the government? People need to sit, talk, make an agreement, sign it and then stick to it.


Ukrainians need as much OSCE observers as possible, for starters. Storming local parliaments, choking local administration with their own ties and threatening them with automatic rifles is not democracy. Having Nazis such as Svoboda party in government and Right Sector paramilitary in the streets will result in secessions or military occupation of regular or irregular Russian army in those southern and eastern regions where the party of ousted president had won in the last elections.
This was a dangerous precedent, ousting elected president (corrupt tycoon and Russian puppet), who won the last elections against pro-European parties (corrupt tycoons too) in a coup.Ukraine needs new interim government until the next elections, which will have to be heavily monitored. EU needs to help them as much as possible in strengthening their shallow institutions. Existing government and rump parliament (we had a huge affair where one MP voted with two cards, the other MP was on vacation – there is a video from Kiev parliament where they did the same) are a mess. They wanted 5 billion in loans until last weekend or they would collapse. Nobody took them seriously. On the other side, Russia is making one indecent proposal after another (in the best manner of the West) such as 6 billion USD of financial aid and investments for Crimea alone. The Kerch-Crimea bridge story is in the news again too.
As long as this coup government is in place, the Russia has an excuse to behave like a bully, stopping the imports of Ukrainian meat under the pretext of Ukrainian veterinary services not being able to check its quality anymore due to the chaos. They ceased buying Ukrainian bonds too. And please, get Victoria Nuland and John McCain out of Kiev and into the Zoo or Cold War museum.
We balanced between the East and West with good results, at least while Tito was alive and Cold War was on. Will Ukraine have the strength and wisdom to do the same in this still unipolar world? I hope they do.

 

[sferrin]

What would constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention would be if the Russian troops were wearing the uniforms of the army they are fighting. Such as when the SS troops wore US uniforms during the invasion of Normandy.

Unless they were wearing their own uniforms underneath, in which case it would be likely classified as a legitimate ruse of war. Of course, black ops personnel and the like don't need such legal niceties.

Did the Taliban suddenly start adhereing to the rules of war?

 

[Triton]

The question on everyone's mind is if President Vladimir Putin is exploiting the Ukraine crisis to create a "Greater Russia." There seem to be parallels between the current Ukraine crisis and the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, which resulted in the new countries of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I imagine that the Baltic States, which are now part of NATO and the European Union, are very worried that they may fall victim to Moscow's divide and conquer strategy to protect the "interests" of ethnic Russians. Will the Russian Federation pull parts, or the entirety, of the territory of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania back into Moscow's orbit?

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed in 2005 that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Some commentators have expressed that Putin holds neo-Soviet views.

Are western interests at stake if Putin and like-minded Russian irredentists re-constitute the Russian Empire/Soviet Union as the Eurasian Union?

 

[_Del_]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-obamas-threats-are-the-joke-of-the-year/#ixzz2v1bF22DF

Jazayeri called Obama’s statements regarding the deployment of US troops “completely inexpert remarks far from the reality, and these statements can be used as the joke of the year.”

The Iranian news agency Tuesday published a political cartoon mocking the US president, calling it: “All Options on Table.” This Time for Russia.” In a jab at US non-intervention in Ukraine, the cartoon portrays Obama peering forlornly into an empty paint can with the label “Red Line” while Russian President Vladimir Putin walks away saying, “I think you used it all on Syria.”

If we don't think people around the world are listening to our words and watching out actions, we should.

And Baltic states should be nervous. Hell, Poland is apparently nervous. We've spent the last six years telling everyone our bark was worse than our bite. They aren't listening anymore. That is extremely dangerous, imo.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If we're keen on starting a shooting war and want them to throw the first stone for perception reasons, then that'd be a good way to do it.

First stone thrown. When does the shooting start?

Russia sinks ship to block Urkrainian naval vessels from entering Black Sea

 

[GTX]

First stone thrown.

Get a little carried away aren't you? They scuttle one of their own junked ships...

 

[SOC]

They scuttle one of their own junked ships...

...in the entrance to the Ukrainian port at Yevpatoriya, which, coupled with the presence of Black Sea Fleet assets including Moskva on the other side of the sunken hull, makes for a blockade. Which is not something you do to be friendly.

 

[GTX]

They scuttle one of their own junked ships...

...in the entrance to the Ukrainian port at Yevpatoriya, which, coupled with the presence of Black Sea Fleet assets

Which is in the disputed region of Crimea...


And as for the Black Sea Fleet Assests...it is their region of operations...


Too many people too excited over this entire situation...and dare I say, too many wanting to see it turn into a shooting war. I recommend you just go rent a movie for your entertainment.

 

[SOC]

it is their region of operations...

...and it's also the Ukrainian Navy's area of operations. When they can actually get out to sea unimpeded.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

makes for a blockade. Which is not something you do to be friendly.

Well its not the first blockade the Russian forces have put into place around the Ukranian forces in the Crimeria. Since the Ukranian strategy is to sight tight and wait out the Russian blockades sinking a blockship has little or no impact on the crisis.

 

[SOC]

Well its not the first blockade the Russian forces have put into place around the Ukranian forces in the Crimeria. Since the Ukranian strategy is to sight tight and wait out the Russian blockades sinking a blockship has little or no impact on the crisis.

True, see the Sevastopol blockade (and ignore the word flagship, being edited) here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/ukraine-divisions-crimea.html?_r=1

My only point is that a naval blockade is an obviously unfriendly act; they aren't blowing up Ukrainian boats, but it's definitely not nice. And purposely sinking an old hull in the harbour entrance is certainly an attempt at implying who the boss is. It has little effect on the Ukrainian tactic of sitting and waiting but to the rest of the world it represents a potential ...well, escalation isn't the right word for it, but you get the idea.

 

[_Del_]

If we're keen on starting a shooting war and want them to throw the first stone for perception reasons, then that'd be a good way to do it.

First stone thrown. When does the shooting start?

Russia sinks ship to block Urkrainian naval vessels from entering Black Sea

Well, a blockade is an act of war... I don't think the Ukraine is excited about starting outright hostilities, so it might be awhile. If we had done that to Russia, I'd be a lot more pessimistic about resolving it without force.

 

[Orionblamblam]

First stone thrown.

Get a little carried away aren't you?

Nope. The claim was made that if the West/EU/US locked down the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, it'd be an act of war. Well, the Russians just did this to the Ukrainians, just on a slightly smaller scale. Well, the safety of a great many ethnic Americans are at risk in the region, so the precedent is set and the US military can move in to assure their safety...

 

[sferrin]

They scuttle one of their own junked ships...

...in the entrance to the Ukrainian port at Yevpatoriya, which, coupled with the presence of Black Sea Fleet assets

Which is in the disputed region of Crimea...

It's not disputed, it's Ukranian. If I decide I want your new Ferrari for myself it's ownership doesn't suddenly become "disputed". It's still your's.

 

[Avimimus]

They scuttle one of their own junked ships...

...in the entrance to the Ukrainian port at Yevpatoriya, which, coupled with the presence of Black Sea Fleet assets

Which is in the disputed region of Crimea...

It's not disputed, it's Ukranian. If I decide I want your new Ferrari for myself it's ownership doesn't suddenly become "disputed". It's still your's.

Well - a lot depends on how you view the basis of state legitimacy. The territorial evolution of the Ukraine is complex of course (in part due to centuries of imperial actions).


If your an ethnic nationalist - the question is "what ethnicities?" The Crimea has a large Tartar population for instance (in addition to the Russian speaking majority).


If your basis involves the right of a population to reject a government (i.e. you support the legality of voting for secession or the American Revolution) - then the question will be settled in a referendum.


It is only if you want to freeze the borders of countries in their present form that the situation becomes clear. In this case Yugoslavia should still be together and we shouldn't have helped Kosovo break free...


Don't you hate philosophy?

 

[GTX]

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

'ethnic Americans are at risk', so the Crimea has a population of Navajo or Lakota or Iroquois or ... ?

'American' when used in reference to those born in the United States of America or self-identifying as
such after becoming US citizens (and bearing mind that they are not the only 'Americans' ), and being
other than a descendant of the aboriginal population, is a socio-political identifier not an ethnic identifier.
There is currently no singular American ethnicity, regardless of how hard the WASPs tried to create such
an identity and despite the raging of the white-power meatheads, perhaps in a couple more centuries
there will be, however we'll all be long dead and won't care. America/USA has been multiethnic from
the very beginning.

As to Russia, the Ukraine and Crimea, it's anybody's guess as to how it will pan out, what is
perversely amusing is how the specter of Hitler and Nazism has been raised to both condemn
and defend Putin's actions. Neither Neo-Nazism nor Neo-Sovietism are relevant, when looked at
historically, it's Russia being Russia. Russian leaders have for centuries reacted with force in
their immediate neighborhood when they feel Russian interests are threatened. What surprises
me is that people were surprised, all the talk of a 'New Cold War' is also ridiculous, because if
folks remember that was an issue of competing ideologies, capitalism is alive and well in
the New Russia, just as it was in the latter decades of pre-Revolution Russia. It also seems to
have been forgotten by some that Old Imperial Russia and the "West" were often in conflict
due to divergent interests, why should relations with New Imperial Russia be any different?

 

[Orionblamblam]

There is currently no singular American ethnicity...

And thus *all* ethnicities represented by the US citizenry ARE "American ethnicities."


An example:

An American citizen of Ukrainian extraction. And Serbian. And Russian.

I am perpetually perplexed by all the bullcrap around the world with, say, the Russian government worrying specifically about non-Russian citizens in a non-Russian nation simply because they happen to speak Russian, or have similar ethnic roots. To me it makes as much sense as the US government worrying about the fifth-generation descendants of American citizens who, say, gave up their US citizenship and moved to Argentina a century ago, over the *other* Argentinians.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Neat:

Ukraine Secession Referendum Does Not Have a ‘No’ OptionCheck one of the following. If neither is checked, the ballot is rejected as illegitimate:

• “Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’
• “Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”

The second option is *not* a "I want to keep things as they are" vote, but a vote for Crimean autonomy.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Any chance of Russia trying to just consolidate all its former states under the blanket title of the 'Holy Russian Empire' or some such title? I wouldn't put it past Putin.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I wouldn't put it past Putin.

Given how good crony capitalism has been to Putin, he's unlikely trying to reconstitute the USSR as such... but a Russian Empire seems not unlikely. Anyone willing to expend political capital and military forces on a mission of such dubious value as ethnicity is capable of pretty much anything.

 

[Rickshaw]

I am perpetually perplexed by all the bullcrap around the world with, say, the Russian government worrying specifically about non-Russian citizens in a non-Russian nation simply because they happen to speak Russian, or have similar ethnic roots. To me it makes as much sense as the US government worrying about the fifth-generation descendants of American citizens who, say, gave up their US citizenship and moved to Argentina a century ago, over the *other* Argentinians.

Simply because you are perplexed does not mean other peoples are. Why is your viewpoint any more valid than theirs' ?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Simply because you are perplexed does not mean other peoples are.

Sure. To some people, murder, rape, genocide, theft all on industrial scales all make some sort of sense.

Why is your viewpoint any more valid than theirs' ?

Because it's mine.

 

[Rickshaw]

Simply because you are perplexed does not mean other peoples are.

Sure. To some people, murder, rape, genocide, theft all on industrial scales all make some sort of sense.

Yep they so do. They made perfect sense to many Americans in the 19th and even into the 20th century now didn't they? Remember the Morgenthau Plan?

Why is your viewpoint any more valid than theirs' ?

Because it's mine.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. At least they have a vote in this. You don't.