Why is Russia an enemy?

[Surrealistik]

Anecdotal, eh?

Here's another interesting tidbit I just pulled from the Wiki link you provided earlier...



Western polling institutions conducted these polls. Polls which seem to support my "anecdotal" claims quite well.

You do understand that per the referendum, Crimea was only given an option between independence and becoming a Russian territory, right?

I expect that yes, most Crimeans would indeed wish to become a part of Russia which stood poised to lavish it with money and a hegemony of propaganda in order to win the region over (per the 2015 polls) as opposed to standing on their own, alienated from Ukraine and Russia alike, and being forced to do so by Russian military pressure (heads I win, tails you lose), which is why the fact that the status quo wasn't even an option invalidates the referendum, nevermind the egregious violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law which forbids the sum entirety of Russia's military aggression and other actions there in the first place.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You do understand that per the referendum, Crimea was only given an option between independence and becoming a Russian territory, right?

I expect that yes, most Crimeans would indeed wish to become a part of Russia which stood poised to lavish it with money and a hegemony of propaganda in order to win the region over (per the 2015 polls) as opposed to standing on their own, alienated from Ukraine and Russia alike, and being forced to do so by Russian military pressure (heads I win, tails you lose), which is why the fact that the status quo wasn't even an option invalidates the referendum, nevermind the egregious violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law which forbids the sum entirety of Russia's military aggression and other actions there in the first place.

How could Russia possibly give them the option to join Ukraine? The fact is for that to be possible there would have had to have been cooperation between Kiev and Moscow and that was not possible at the time due to the open hostility that existed. Beyond that, the Ukrainian government also has that "anecdotal" feel for what the people of Crimea would be in favor of so from their perspective allowing the Crimeans to actually have that option would be something that Kiev would have opposed at every turn. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans identify as Russians. Moscow knows it, Kiev knows it.

Ukraine is an absolute cesspool of crime and corruption not to mention the fact that there was a recent coup and the situation in Kiev was chaotic at best. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the people of Crimea would have chosen that path even if it was an option on the ballot.

 

[Surrealistik]

How could Russia possibly give them the option to join Ukraine? The fact is for that to be possible there would have had to have been cooperation between Kiev and Moscow and that was not possible at the time due to the open hostility that existed. Beyond that, the Ukrainian government also has that "anecdotal" feel for what the people of Crimea would be in favor of so from their perspective allowing the Crimeans to actually have that option would be something that Kiev would have opposed at every turn. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans identify as Russians. Moscow knows it, Kiev knows it.

Ukraine is an absolute cesspool of crime and corruption not to mention the fact that there was a recent coup and the situation in Kiev was chaotic at best. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the people of Crimea would have chosen that path even if it was an option on the ballot.

So because Russia was at odds with Ukraine, that somehow excuses Russia's breaches of international law, its brazen compromise of Ukraine's sovereignty and makes the referendum legitimate despite the lack of such a necessary and important option?

Nothing was stopping Russia from offering them such an option but its own overriding sense of self-interest, and the need to assure Ukraine's deprivation of the region.

Also the unsupported and unproven assertion that Kiev would be opposed to the option is inane (and it's not as though Kiev's wishes would have ever entered Russian thinking in the first place).

Lastly, the only parties that acknowledge the referendum and its outcome as legitimate and binding are Russia and its closest allies.

And yes, Ukraine indeed has issues with corruption; in fact that's what the Euromaiden uprising was about: Putin's puppet Viktor embezzling billions upon billions from the state while he championed Russia's interests.

The cold hard fact is that we actually don't know how the Crimean referendum would have turned out if remaining with Ukraine was an option, and equally true is the fact that the lack of such an option effectively invalidated the outcome, in addition to the fact that the whole thing was never legitimate or legal in the first place.

 

[Tigerace117]

So because Russia was at odds with Ukraine, that somehow excuses Russia's breaches of international law, its brazen compromise of Ukraine's sovereignty and makes the referendum legitimate despite the lack of such a necessary and important option?

Nothing was stopping Russia from offering them such an option but its own overriding sense of self-interest, and the need to assure Ukraine's deprivation of the region.

Also the unsupported and unproven assertion that Kiev would be opposed to the option is inane (and it's not as though Kiev's wishes would have ever entered Russian thinking in the first place).

Lastly, the only parties that acknowledge the referendum and its outcome as legitimate and binding are Russia and its closest allies.

And yes, Ukraine indeed has issues with corruption; in fact that's what the Euromaiden uprising was about: Putin's puppet Viktor embezzling billions upon billions from the state while he championed Russia's interests.

The cold hard fact is that we actually don't know how the Crimean referendum would have turned out if remaining with Ukraine was an option, and equally true is the fact that the lack of such an option effectively invalidated the outcome, in addition to the fact that the whole thing was never legitimate or legal in the first place.

Yeah, but at the same time Euromaiden hasn't actually managed to fix anything. The names and faces changed, and the backers did as well, but the song remained the same.

Crimeans were only ever a part of the Ukraine out of almost random chance. I'm not Putin's biggest fan by anybody's standards, but once the vote was held the results were consistent with the views of the majority of Crimeans.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

So because Russia was at odds with Ukraine, that somehow excuses Russia's breaches of international law, its brazen compromise of Ukraine's sovereignty and makes the referendum legitimate despite the lack of such a necessary and important option?

Nothing was stopping Russia from offering them such an option but its own overriding sense of self-interest, and the need to assure Ukraine's deprivation of the region.

Also the unsupported and unproven assertion that Kiev would be opposed to the option is inane (and it's not as though Kiev's wishes would have ever entered Russian thinking in the first place).

Lastly, the only parties that acknowledge the referendum and its outcome as legitimate and binding are Russia and its closest allies.

And yes, Ukraine indeed has issues with corruption; in fact that's what the Euromaiden uprising was about: Putin's puppet Viktor embezzling billions upon billions from the state while he championed Russia's interests.

The cold hard fact is that we actually don't know how the Crimean referendum would have turned out if remaining with Ukraine was an option, and equally true is the fact that the lack of such an option effectively invalidated the outcome, in addition to the fact that the whole thing was never legitimate or legal in the first place.

You are, again, not taking the time to digest what you are reading.

How, possibly, could Russia offer the option for Crimea to join Ukraine? Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Could the US offer Puerto Rico the "option" to join Cuba without the Cubans dictating the terms of how such an arrangement would take place? Obviously not. And besides that, what did Ukraine have to offer? Chaos? Corruption? Instability?

Crimeans voted for their own self interests.




One more thing before I leave this thread...

Lastly, the only parties that acknowledge the referendum and its outcome as legitimate and binding are Russia and its closest allies.

I hope you are including the people of Crimea as "a closest ally" because they see the referendum as legitimate, too.

 

[MadLib]

I would love an explanation as to why I should support any politician that instigates hostilities toward Russia.

Russia is an immensely right-wing nationalist autocracy that intends to challenge our status as the world's sole superpower. From a purely self-interested realist perspective, this is threatening to us. If we factor in morality, it's a challenge to the increased globalization and liberalization of the world and to the freedom and prosperity that accompany it.

If you do not see anybody instigating hostilities toward Russia, then you are simply not paying close attention.

We and NATO violated a verbal promise made during Bush41 time. And we march our troops very near their borders. As we speak a huge NATO exercise has troops, tanks and airplanes quite active along the Russian border.

We and EU placed sanctions against Russia for shooting down MH17 which they did not do.

So Russia took Crimea. Big deal. If I had been in charge under the circumstances, I would have done the same thing.

So the "violation" of what is basically a gentleman's agreement with the head of a defunct state somehow legitimizes Russia's actual violation of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for territorial integrity?

The 'little green men' were Russian soldiers deployed to impose direct military force on Crimea in order to seize it for Russia and preside over its sham referendum which they did; I'd say that effectively constitutes a military invasion and seizure. You can choose to get hung up on the semantics all you like, but this was the very substantive outcome of foreign military forces making an incursion into a sovereign country.

There's not even a semantic argument against it. The little green men occupied Ukrainian military bases and the Crimean parliament building. There is no interpretation of events where this does not constitute invasion.

 

[Thoreau72]

Russia is an immensely right-wing nationalist autocracy that intends to challenge our status as the world's sole superpower. From a purely self-interested realist perspective, this is threatening to us. If we factor in morality, it's a challenge to the increased globalization and liberalization of the world and to the freedom and prosperity that accompany it.


So the "violation" of what is basically a gentleman's agreement with the head of a defunct state somehow legitimizes Russia's actual violation of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for territorial integrity?


There's not even a semantic argument against it. The little green men occupied Ukrainian military bases and the Crimean parliament building. There is no interpretation of events where this does not constitute invasion.

The violation of the gentleman's agreement simply demonstrates how untrustworthy the US government is. The Native Americans discovered that 2 centuries ago. The Russians only lately, but I suspect it will inform their future decisions about relations with the US government.

 

[Surrealistik]

Yeah, but at the same time Euromaiden hasn't actually managed to fix anything. The names and faces changed, and the backers did as well, but the song remained the same.

Crimeans were only ever a part of the Ukraine out of almost random chance. I'm not Putin's biggest fan by anybody's standards, but once the vote was held the results were consistent with the views of the majority of Crimeans.

Again, yes, given a choice between the misery of independence as an alienated state enforced by Russian military power, and being part of a country willing to lavish it with investment and money in order to win it over, I have no doubt that Crimeans would choose the latter.

The indisputable bottom line is that:

A: We will never know the outcome were the option to remain a part of the Ukraine offered.

B: The referendum was utterly illegal (per both international law and the Budapest Memorandum) and a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty in the first place.


As for Euromaiden, yes, it didn't eliminate corruption in Ukraine, but it did reduce it by getting rid of Viktor who factually embezzled billions; I've yet to see evidence of Poroshenko doing the same.

You are, again, not taking the time to digest what you are reading.

The only failure I've thus far seen to 'digest' is on your behalf when you assumed in that earlier Forbes article, even after I gave you an explicit breakdown, that my concern was with an unsourced Ukrainian report, not the Russian Human Rights Council polling.

How, possibly, could Russia offer the option for Crimea to join Ukraine? Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Could the US offer Puerto Rico the "option" to join Cuba without the Cubans dictating the terms of how such an arrangement would take place? Obviously not. And besides that, what did Ukraine have to offer? Chaos? Corruption? Instability?

It's not a question of 'joining' Ukraine so much as remaining part of it. It's a vote for the status quo, not a change in state; don't be ridiculous.

Crimeans voted for their own self interests.

Again, yes, given the exclusive option between Russian imposed independence and isolation, and Russian investment money as an annexed territory, I'm sure voting for annexation was indeed in their interests.

I hope you are including the people of Crimea as "a closest ally" because they see the referendum as legitimate, too.

An annexed territory isn't really an 'ally', now is it?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I would love an explanation as to why I should support any politician that instigates hostilities toward Russia.

Maybe not why you should support, but why there are hostilities.

U.S. has significant influence over Europe and the Middle East.
Generally speaking, Russia wants it to, to help serve their economy and other national interests, but they're more or less boxed in by us and China.

It seems that Putin wants to make Russia an empire again and the only logical route is to take away the "imperial lands" of it's competitors, the US and China.

 

[Surrealistik]

Maybe not why you should support, but why there are hostilities.

U.S. has significant influence over Europe and the Middle East.
Generally speaking, Russia wants it to, to help serve their economy and other national interests, but they're more or less boxed in by us and China.

It seems that Putin wants to make Russia an empire again and the only logical route is to take away the "imperial lands" of it's competitors, the US and China.

The other part of it is that Putin is keen on using military adventurism and nationalism to distract from Russia's sham democracy, systemic corruption, and domestic malaise; to keep the public looking outward in order to minimize recognition of the problems inward; it's a classic maneuver among right wing authoritarians.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The other part of it is that Putin is keen on using military adventurism and nationalism to distract from Russia's sham democracy, systemic corruption, and domestic malaise; to keep the public looking outward in order to minimize recognition of the problems inward; it's a classic maneuver among right wing authoritarians.

Agreed, from my limited experience with Russians (primarily through online games) most are ultra nationalistic and many seem to be incredibly xenophobic or rather anti foreigner.
Making the US look like the Star Trek federation.