| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ukraine | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 7 2014, 04:31 PM (567 Views) | |
| Sedulius | Mar 7 2014, 04:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Soooooooooooooo what does everybody think about what's going on in Ukraine? Personally I think it's ridiculous what those protestors did. Literally the new government was put in office using thumbs up, thumbs down by that mob. Shame on the West for acting like it is a legitimate government. Ukraine needs to have true democratic elections. I'm laughing my ass off that Crimea is holding a referendum on whether to join Russia, and now there are Cossacks popping up down there in support of the Russians. Aren't Cossacks honestly the real Ukrainians? The only ones really worried in the Crimea are the Tatars, but I seriously doubt Russia is going to ethnically cleanse them or resettle them. This isn't the Soviet Union we are talking about. Also, it should be noted that Russia was allowed to have a certain number of troops in the Crimea (Russia says 25,000; Ukraine is saying 11,000), so they really haven't invaded. The airports and military bases in the Crimea have been blocked off by the self-defense forces that the Crimea itself establish, made up by a lot of Ukrainian military that defected to them. The Russian Duma has approved deployment into all of Ukraine, but Russia hasn't done so. Western media is really doing a lot of warmongering and fear-mongering here. Russia doesn't intend to go to war, but I'm not so sure about the West. |
![]() |
|
| Alberto | Mar 7 2014, 06:32 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Resident Italian
|
Hmmmmmmm I nomally do not post on the off topic section, but Ukraine is something that I am following very closely and I would like to give perhaps a more balanced account (or at least what I perceive to be more balanced). I give this account after having followed a bit of western and also russian media on the issue. The Yanukovich government came down after the Party of Regions broke: parliamentarians that had voted for him in the Rada switched sides and Yanukovich lost his majority. The Rada then voted in a new majority - still it is true that no formal impeachment procedure was started, however to tell that this was a coup is perhaps excessive. More prosaically, the protests have caused the party of Yanukovich to let him down and vote a new majority in the parliament (this after much, too much violence, and worrying things are emerging about it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet). Now, Crimea is holding a referendum and invoking its "right to self-determination". Self-determination is the right of a group to be represented adequately at the level of institutions, political, economic and social life in a country. What it is not is a right of an ethnic group to secede. Within Ukraine, russophones cannot claim that they are not adequately represented: for instance many former opposition leaders (think about Timoshenko) are russophone ! In anyway, without the consent of the original state, and without an extremely dire humanitarian situation, Crimeans are not entitled to any independence. Rather, they should try to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state (my legal authority here is the ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court over Quebec, the ICJ having refused to addres the issue in its Kosovo opinion). The last paragraph here touches, I think, upon whether there is or not what the Russians are doing in Ukraine amounts to an aggression. Under international law this is doubtlessly the case. Here, one should start from the good old Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which reads: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". So, this article prohibits not only the actual use of force but also its threat: a state does not have to shoot in order to be an aggressor under international law. For the purpose of establishing whether we have an aggression, it does not matter how many troops Russia has in Crimea, but what those troops are doing there. And those troops, are taking and exercising control over territory against the consent of Ukraine. The Russian forces (they are Russian army forces ! The Ukrainian forces have not melted away, and the Crimeans could not put together a force with armoured vehicles in few days) have exited their bases, they have surrounded the Ukrainian military bases, they have blocked the access to Crimea from Ukraine, they have prevented the Ukrainian state from enjoying control over its sovereign territory. These acts were carried to favour the local secessionists. This falls under Article 2.4 of the UN Charter as a case of aggression: there is a threat of use of force against both the political independence and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Finally, we must also not forget about the 1994 Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances make the Russian Federation a garantor of Ukraine's territorial integrity? Another agreement that Russia is breaching ! So, overall, I agree that the western media coverage is very biased, and that the grievances of the Russian population are real and urgent. However, this cannot and must not justify what Russia is doing in Crimea. It is a bare aggression against another state, which has no pretext on international law - it is even less justifiable than the 2008 war against Georgia ! Edited by Alberto, Mar 7 2014, 06:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Mar 8 2014, 10:45 AM Post #3 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Alberto, the biggest problem in all of this is finding the real truth. A lot of things you have said are contradicted in other reports. For example, the Russians surrounding Ukrainian military bases. I have heard the Russians have deployed nothing more than what they were already allowed to (25,000) to the Crimea in a preexisting agreement with Ukraine. They have fired a shot, nor have they threatened to fire a shot. They are not surrounding the Ukrainian military bases, but rather the self-defense forces (which are a good part made up of Ukrainian military that defected to their side) established by local powers within the Crimea are, and also the Cossacks, who in my opinion are the real Ukrainians (the Cossacks established the Ukrainian State in 1918 before being overthrown by communists). The Russians have made no threat of invasion, no threat to fire upon the Ukrainians. All they have done is approve military deployment to Ukraine should the Ukrainian people themselves be threatened. This means that if the self-appointed government in Kiev makes a move against its own people and starts killing them, whether they are pro-Russian or not, Russia will intervene. As to what the Russians are actually doing in the Crimea, they came there at the request of the local government in the Crimea to defend it against retaliation from the self-appointed government in Kiev. There has also been some concern expressed at the possibility of ethnic cleansing of Russians. The Russian army is not controlling the Crimea. They are defending it. The Crimea is in control of the Crimea. Hence, Russia is showing no aggression here. They are acting completely within international law, certainly far more so than the US has in its past few wars. The Western media in many cases is publishing blatant lies to misinform the public, to get the public on the side of the West. Anyone who researches the situation is going to find the agreement for Russia to have those troops in the Crimea, and they are going to find what the Russians have actually said, not what the Western media is reporting they said. Absolutely be wary of what any media is reporting, both East and West. Do not take their word for it. I think pro-Russians within Ukraine (who, by the way, are not all ethnically Russian. There are Cossacks and "Ukrainians" who are pro-Russian too) are absolutely not represented within the self-appointed government. If you aren't going to call what that government did a coup, what are you going to call it? It wasn't a popular revolution. I've heard some made up figures coming from no where that 70% of the population supports joining the EU, but during the Maiden protests, I heard nothing but opposition from Ukrainians to those protests, whether they were pro-Russian or not. The true opinions of the Ukrainian people is being swept under the rug by the thugs who put in place the current government. It is as I said, this government was not elected, but rather put in place by that mob in Maiden. Until an election is held that all of Ukraine's population is allowed to participate in, there is no legitimacy to that government, hence why Russia is not recognizing anything that government says. And you know, I am willing to recognize the government before them was corrupt, but this one is every bit as corrupt if not more so. Thugs have been traded for thugs. As to the war in Georgia in 2008, one must remember the Georgians fired first, killing both innocent civilians in the areas that wanted to separate from them and four unarmed Russian military observers. Russia was completely justified in going to war in Georgia. |
![]() |
|
| Pidgin | Mar 9 2014, 03:54 AM Post #4 |
|
Private
![]() ![]()
|
I doubt the west will go to war per say. Hell I think the USA will have a hard time getting sanctions put in place, If they even attempt since Obama is a pretty weak leader anyway (look at how Russia put him in his place on Syria) Needless to say Crimea will go to Russia, Ukrainian won't like it but will have to accept it. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Mar 9 2014, 01:04 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Crimea is gone, mostly, in my opinion, because Europe will not do a thing about it as long as Russia has its hand on the gas line controls. If we had spent the last 5 years finishing the Keystone Pipeline instead of worrying about the migration of non-existent bison herds, and if we allowed the building of more refineries, we would be in a position to offer gas to Europe as an alternative to Russia. Since we didn't, they will do nothing. Also, there is nothing we can do directly to get Crimea back. Now, if Putin's ambitions turn to be greater than just Crimea (Latvia comes to mind, with its large Russian-speaking population) then we will have no choice but to act. We can actually blame both the EU and NATO for not responding in a timely manner to Ukraine's application to both organizations. |
![]() |
|
| Alberto | Mar 9 2014, 02:54 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Resident Italian
|
Stiofan, you are right about Georgia: the Sakaashvili government started the war and the Russians intervened as "garantors" of the previous ceasefire. What they did wrong however was not to stop in South Ossetia and to go on threatening Tbilis. The thing is that there is no need to fire a shot (and shots were actually fired, in the air, while the Russian forces tried to break in an Ukrainian base) for us to have an aggression. An act becomes unlawful under international law even if it is only a threat of use of force: while not shooting, the Russian troops have been moving in greater numbers within Ukrainian territory against the consent of the local government. This, in international law, is sufficient to establish that there is an aggression - the terms of the Article 2.4 of the UN Charter are extremely wide and encompass such a situation. You argue that the Russians may be putting in place a sort of humanitarian intervention to protect the local population. This is an interesting defense that, I think, the Russians themselves have not made in front of the international community. The humanitarian exception to the rule of non interference is something that is very controversial. The terms of Responsibility to Protect put humanitarian intervention as a very last resort, once all other means have failed. Russia has made no effort to find an alternative means, and it has not gone to the UN. Moreover, Kiev does not pose any threat to the inhabitants of Crimea, not in the same way that Belgrade did toward the Kosovars. Simply, the situation in Crimea did not justify the use of force in contravention of the UN Charter, and customary international law. Then, concerning the events of Maidan, from how I see it, there is the participation of fascist and nationalist groups that is extremely worrying (and they must be looked into, even if , as usual, the EU and the west are not giving any attention to it !), but it must be remembered that these groups are a political fringe ! Their participation should not deny the fact that hundreds of thousands of young, old, democratic, patriotic Ukrainians from all ethnies have taken to the street in a sincere movement of protest for a new, better Ukraine. I have been quite often in Ukraine and have met many Ukrainians, some of them (including people who I studied with in UK) have risked their lives by going to Maidan for weeks. I really cannot believe what the Russians say, that Maidan is a negation of democracy and a group of fascists - this is not true. This said, I hope that Ukraine will remain united in its diversity. Ukraine is a country less divided than one might think: there is a real Ukrainian identity that encompasses all the country's many ethnies and so it should be ! However, I fear that Crimea will be another of a series of unrecognized states that thrive in the former Soviet Union. It may just be another Abkhazia, or Transdnistria. What the EU could do now is to impose some sanctions and hit the Russian ruling elite where it hurts: its bank accounts in UK, its mansions in Italy and France, its investments everywhere in Europe. But, seen the British government's absolute devotion to the City, I do not see this happening :( Edited by Alberto, Mar 9 2014, 02:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 9 2014, 11:16 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
I think that it's interesting that nobody is questioning why the majority of Crimea is made of ethnic Russians. Might have something to do with the campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Crimean Tatars, who were the overwhelming majority in the region, by both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Russians can't even insist that this is their land in the same nebulous way that the Israelis do. You will not find a historian who will state that Kievan Rus wasn't both preceded and followed by a number of other peoples in their claim to the area. Whether Kievan Rus' was Russian, or Ukrainian, or both is a matter that could be debated at length, I'm sure. As to how representative the current Ukrainian government is, clearly this is an issue. This entire situation was touched off by the fact that a very large number of Ukrainians believed that the previous government was not representative of them. This issue is not resolved, nor will it be resolved by Russia annexing a large piece of Ukraine. In regards to finding the truth, conflicting reports are just that. Both sides have vested interests in presenting the "facts" in their own way. We have no way of confirming what is or is not true, although, personally I find the Russian media in general plays nearly as fast and loose with the facts as Fox News does. As to agreements, the Russians have a legal right to have troops within the confines of their own bases in Crimea. They need the approval of the Ukrainian government to conduct any sort of action on Ukrainian soil. They have not received this permission, which they don't seem to think they need because they don't recognize the Ukrainian government as a government. There are Russian troops on Ukrainian soil without the Ukrainian government's permission. This seems pretty unambiguously illegal to me. We'll see how it plays out. The US and UK may be obligated to act if Ukraine can make a strong enough argument that it's being invaded. Both countries, as well as Russia, signed the Budapest Memorandum, committing themselves to the defense of Ukraine's borders as they stood in 1994. I seriously doubt they will intervene, but if they are interested in keeping their word, they technically should. If Russia is truly worried about the well-being of Russians in Eastern Ukraine and not in making a land grab, I'm sure they could offer their erstwhile citizens the right of return. It seems to me that would solve the problem. Russia as the protector of all Russian speaking people is a little ridiculous to me. Does this mean the US can rightfully intervene anywhere anyone speaks English? That's pretty much a blank check. I assume the Russians wouldn't see it that way, but honestly, much like us, the Russians are no strangers to hypocrisy. Edited by Al Araam, Mar 9 2014, 11:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 15 2014, 08:58 PM Post #8 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Wasn't the Kievan Rus destroyed by the Tatars? Westerners get butt hurt about fluctuations in land borders because our concepts of "international law" derive from that of feudal Holy Roman Empire bookkeepers. But the Tatars and Russians are not westerners and they do not come from that tradition-- they are People of the Steppe, and they get that empires rise and fall, sometime with alarming rapidity. Things on the steppe are always in great flux. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 16 2014, 10:07 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Yes, the Mongol invasion is generally recognized to be the fall of Kievan Rus. However, Slavs in the area were preceded by, to name a few, the Scythians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Goths, Bulgars, and Khazars before the advent of Kievan Rus. Also, Greek kingdoms and the Roman Empire. Slavs may have historic claims to a lot of areas, but this is not one of them. Russian occupation of Crimea has been a flash in the pan, so far as history is concerned. The historical nature of steppe politics is much as you say, but it is rather hard to justify anything on those grounds. Even Russia is not under the impression that things still work that way. Not that it matters in the least bit. The diplomatic battle lines are drawn, and I seriously doubt Russia or the West will openly back down at this point. They'll do some economic and political sparring. Mostly, Western Ukraine will almost certainly join NATO, which could make for some interesting times, as Russia will be just about as open to the West's involvement in Western Ukraine as the West was to Russia's in Eastern Ukraine. Interesting times. Very interesting times. So long as everyone keeps their fingers well away from their respective red buttons, this could be an interesting political situation. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 17 2014, 02:18 AM Post #10 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Tl;dr: IMO Putin would be more than willing to let the West take Western Ukraine in return for allowing Russia to annex Eastern Ukraine. Period. See, geopolitics is simple and sweet. The long version: Disentangling historical claims is really a form of mental masturbation, since history always takes a back seat to the power politics of the realities on the ground, but it is a fun pastime anyways. Of all the peoples who have come and gone in the Crimea, the Greeks have lost interest in the area, the Cimmerians Goths Khazars et al. might as well be colorful cartoon characters (that is to say they don't exist anymore but who knows if they may be resurrected in the future as nationalist-irredentist zombies)...leaving only the Russians and Tatars who actually exist as a people. In my estimation the Russians have as good a claim as the Tatars do...i.e. They conquered the land. Nobody questions why Russians are the ethnic majority in Crimea for the same reason nobody questions how the Tatars got there in the first place. It's not a great mystery, and much less nebulous than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I believe. In Crimea we have dates, we have actions, we have the palpable drama of actual historical events. The Golden Horde besieging the plague ridden Genoese at Kaffa. The Charge of the Light Brigade. We don't rely on surmising the divine intent from auguries in the Bible and hadiths. (Well, in truth nobody questions these things because nobody knows anything about history. Excepting of course the august members of our forum) Plus Vladimir the Rurikid got baptized in Tauric Cherson, so that holds some historico-religious significance for the Russian narrative. But in any case that is just an ornamental fact; in reality the Tatar narrative is no more or less compelling than the Russian one.
You yourself have just stated that yeah, it pretty much still works like the steppe politics of old. The mental masturbation, the lawyerly debate, the soaring intellectual exercises in (self-)justification will always be a delight, but in the end, the battle lines are drawn. it is always easy, not hard, to justify this action or that action on the ground. In summary, the token plebiscite in Crimea was made for Western consumption whilst Russians themselves are more interested in messianic Third Romism, plebiscite or no plebiscite. Hence our Western inability to conceive of the Russian, or indeed of any non-Western, mind, despite our much ballyhooed notion of our own multicultural empathic prowess. What we can, as Westerners, conceive of is the Ragnarok apocalypse that is our peoples foundational myth, so perhaps it is appropriate to always strive for the heroic but unachievable follies, standing on the extremes and precipices of the Twilight where the red button lives. If the Aesir fought for some ice begotten notions of honor then we must hurtle against Third Romism with the honor of democratic internationalism at stake. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Mar 17 2014, 07:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 18 2014, 05:56 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
The "mental masturbation" is the trappings of a unipolar world. We're quickly leaving that behind. If the major theories of international relations are correct, we're sliding towards a much less harmonious world. We've gotten good at pussyfooting around in the UN and sending ambassadors back and forth over various unimportant issues, but this may be the shape of things to come. Yes. At the end of all things, it's all about power politics, thus my tempered enthusiasm. I understand power politics. Realism is an exceedingly simple view of international politics, but that doesn't make it any less valid. It's what our world is reduced to between the brief bouts of unipolar sanity, such as the one we have experienced lately. Or at least that's more and more the way things are looking. The way we are heading is, in all likelihood, not going to be good for the human race in general, but for a man who has studied pretty much every theory of international politics, it's an opportunity to learn whether the "experts" are prophetic or just twisting our recent history enough to seem so. Although, I'd be surprised if Putin was happy to take a slice of Ukraine if he felt it meant that the NATO encirclement of Russia would be completed. Realistically, that's what's going to happen, but I wouldn't expect to see Russia not throw a fit about it. Western Ukraine will go the EU and NATO-integration route. Given that we're operating from a decidedly Realist political standpoint at the moment, Russia's actions would make sense if their belief was that Ukraine would inevitably go for NATO and/or EU integration in the near future anyway, which became a real possibility about the time it became clear that a large percentage of Ukrainian citizens were virulently pro-Western/anti-Russian. Theories of international relations have promulgated in the twilight of the Cold War, but Realism is one of those theories that you will continue to hold water til Ragnarok come. It explains the way nations react when they feel threatened by external factors. Russia is in real danger of becoming irrelevant on the international scene. They're making their play. If they fail, they likely become an international non-entity. They're facing getting eclipsed by the likes of Brazil. Which for Russia, as it almost certainly would be for the US, would be a tremendous body blow. Otherwise, it's just the US fighting a losing battle against time and hoping China's large number of domestic problems come to a head before the Chinese assume the mantle of hegemony. Which, for the record, is the reason you will not see China supporting any UNSC resolutions that might allow any one of its many disgruntled minorities to believe that they have the right or ability to secede, such as the ceremonial UNSC denunciation of the Crimea referendum, from which China abstained. This despite the fact that China and Russia have traditionally supported eachother as Security Council members. Although I'm sure Russian officials expected it, I'm sure this turn of events was not really welcome. Edit: I'm sure there are still Bulgars in Bulgaria. Whereas Khazars are more likely to be Hungarian, apparently. Both groups are likely to be included in what the Russians refer to as Tatars in their histories, as Tatar became something of a generic term for the Altaic (or Mongol/Altaic, depending on which side of the ongoing linguistic debate you fall on) steppe peoples who interacted, to put it gently, with Russians over the course of their recorded history. Edit x2: It's an interesting thought exercise to ponder whether the American populace might feel a little different about the potential use of force in Ukraine if the events of Iraq and Afghanistan had failed to unfold. This would indeed be a very different kind of war.. Although both Russia and the US have their Cold War experience vis-a-vis pushing envelopes. Everyone's ideals seem to be disposable when the end of the world is at stake. Or at least that has been the case so far. If it were otherwise, we probably wouldn't be here right now. On the bright side, I guess my education, focusing on international relations and Middle Eastern history and politics, with stopovers in Turkish language and politics and Russian history, wasn't a complete waste of time. If Russia continues to play the Realist game for another few years, I might be able to parlay that into a job. Edited by Al Araam, Mar 18 2014, 08:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 18 2014, 10:13 AM Post #12 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Hmm Bulgars are to Bulgarians as Anglo-Saxons are to the Saxons (of Dresden). They are sort of completely different people with mutually unintelligible gibberish and traditions. As for Khazars...well, I don't know anyone who would claim that identity even if they claim the descent. They are a distinctly extinct nation. All that realism is, is a tool, no more and no less. It really is the only tool for making any sense of politics whatsoever, no matter what the period of time and place. Any other approach to understanding politics will result in such confusing triangulations and quadrangulations that one is reduced to a stuttering stupor. To rely on any other tool other than realism, is to use a spoon to shovel dirt instead of an earthmover. Ideology is more of a spiritual thing. It is a personal conviction and a personal confession. In fact realism and ideology quite often coexists within the same man and support each other to great effect. I would argue that mental masturbation, though will get you nowhere in reasoned debate with an apposed mind in the arena of politics, is quite necessary for justifying oneself to oneself. In fact there is no question that ideology motivates and animates the political player. Example; westerners are instinctively repelled when our ideals, our beloved sacrosanct international laws are violated. There is just something deeply unsettling or offensive to such a thing, striking at our western souls-- in that light, to be illegal is to be repugnant and inhuman. No doubt, however, that the Russian mind and the Russian soul suppose a higher or more transcendent order of things or order of laws that is violated when we enforce our mere western laws. We accuse the Russians of barbaric mysticism and the Russians accuse us of sinister obscurantism. There is no reconciling the two, and the settlement shall therefore be decided by the edge of swords. In that sense I believe ideals are strongest when the end of the world is at stake. To paraphrase Sartre (unfortunately, given that I simply loath the man), ideals are the only thing that makes existence bearable when faced with the end of existence, I.e. underneath a fiery mushroom cloud. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Mar 18 2014, 10:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 18 2014, 10:50 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
And Russians are to Kievan Rus as Anglo-Saxons are to Saxons (of Dresden), as well. I'm not arguing with you. As I am, I suppose, at my core a historian, I enjoy debates over the origin of things. I believe the origins of things shape the way said things turned out. I'm not, however, under the impression that nations will allow history to interfere with the reality of modern politics. Namely, boots on the ground and dollars in the hand. Those two things will decide this conflict, and Russia undoubtedly has the upper hand in boots on the ground. They're no longer even trying to justify it in terms of treaties they signed with the Ukrainian government, by the way, Sed. That ship has sailed. They've embraced the Realpolitik, as I undoubtedly would in their situation. I cannot fault them as a student of international politics, no matter how much I might disagree with the outcome they realized. Dollars in the bank is another matter. Russia has forced the EU to take a stand, and their cash cow, petroleum, is on the line. 85 percent of Russian petroleum exports go to the EU. If the EU can find a way to move away from Russian oil, that would be a very, very significant blow. Then again, easier said than done. Apparently a lot of Russian cars/machinery come from the EU. A similarly huge amount, actually. If the economic "nuclear option" is exercised we might see a lot of European cars with no fuel, and a lot of Russian fuel with no cars/tractors/excavators. I don't think that will happen. In this globalized economy of ours, I'm interested to see how one might go about cutting out a major trade partner and the impacts that may have. As I said, interesting times. Edit: As always, it's a pleasure to have someone who has knowledge of current events and those that went before to discuss these things with. Much more stimulating than the inane rehashing of events aimed at those with a sixth grade education or less that the major news outlets have been providing. Edited by Al Araam, Mar 18 2014, 10:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Mar 18 2014, 06:39 PM Post #14 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
I don't think the EU can ditch Russian oil in the short term, but I think that it is very likely to become medium term goal. Given that politicians in Western countries have been talking about (and working towards) alternatives to fossil fuels for some time now, sharpening the tension with Russia simply adds another incentive to an already existing trend. Of course, fossil fuels will remain a major part of energy supplies for the foreseeable future, but the shale boom in the United States could supplement European needs as they attempt to wean themselves off of Russian oil. I am sympathetic to ecological criticism of hydrofracking, but I think that geopolitics will trump environmentalism in most cases. This is especially true because, first, our leaders are and will continue to be people who grew up during the Cold War, and, second, Russia is a more credible foe than the various tinpot satraps of the Middle East. I do not think that globalization will prevent war between major powers over the course of the next 20-40 years. I think that globalization is effective in incentivizing the powers to paper over minor differences in the interests of mutually beneficial relationships. However, I think that it will be ineffective in preventing war as minor differences become major ones. Al Araam wrote that Realism "explains the way nations react when they feel threatened by external factors." Globalization means increased dependencies between nations and even civilizations. When a nation feels dependent on those whom it does not trust or understand, it will feel threatened. Hence, certain types of conflict may, in fact, be exacerbated by globalization. Also, there is the historical example of World War I, when people in Europe famously thought that trade relationships would make a war between the Great Powers too costly to be worthwhile. I think that a WWI scenario is more plausible threat than a WWII scenario in the short to mid term future. Al Araam mentioned China, which is always an interesting topic. I think that China has very different motivations from Russia. I do not think that Russia actually has imperialist motivations at current. Recall that "Third Rome" was originally an apocalyptic idea rather than a imperial one. I think that Russia wants to be secure enough to dig in and avoid having change imposed on it from outside. However, Russia has always used land as its walls, so it sees Western incursion into its traditional sphere of influence as equivalent to massing cannon against a city wall. Hence, the land grab in the Ukraine is, from Russian perspective, a defensive move, and probably a rash one at that. Personally, I'm not sure what great incentive there is for the European Union or NATO to admit Ukraine. I actually think that it would be relatively easy to keep peace with Russia if we could maintain clear boundaries with them. I think many Westerners think we are doing this, and that national boundaries are the clear borders - hence Westerners see Russia as breaking the peace and not acting in good faith. But the Russian view is that the West has gobbled up the old Soviet satellites, and is now making its way through the former SSRs as well - i.e., knocking down Russia's walls. Why shouldn't the Russians feel threatened? IMO, a partition of Ukraine could be a basis for peace as long as both sides have incentive to trust each other. But trust is at a low point, and is probably difficult to rebuild. China sees itself as a rising power. It wants to be recognized hegemon in Asia, and then to be recognized as equal to (if not greater than) the United States. I think China's own internal problems may catch up to it before it can make a serious bid for dominance. If not, don't expect the United States to play as nicely as it has been. Very few people like giving up something as enjoyable as global dominance. And I don't think anyone in the American political class believes that the Chinese political class shares American values and is interested in building a world in which American values and interests thrive. Also, the regional powers of Asia prefer American dominance to Chinese dominance (at least partially because America is farther away). I would advise watching the India-Japan relationship over the next few years. If these powers hew closer to the United States as a result, China will feel like it is being encircled, and act accordingly. All in all, I see a major Asian war as plausible. I'm not sure if my observations contribute much to this discussion, but I enjoyed typing them. |
![]() |
|
| meh | Mar 19 2014, 05:38 AM Post #15 |
![]()
1st Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An interesting bit of news that just popped up. http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 19 2014, 09:13 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Thank you, RD. Your post got me thinking quite a lot. I'm not sure whether I've mulled things over for long enough to adequately express my thoughts, but I'll try to outline them in broad strokes. I think you're correct. This entire situation is happening precisely because Russia feels threatened. As I mentioned before, however, I believe the threat facing Russia runs deeper than the fact that they feel threatened by their near-complete encirclement by NATO. It seems to me that Russia is deep in the throes of an existential crisis. It's very easy for me to envision a world where Russia is reduced to a third-rate power. The current maneuvering is, I believe, a Russian attempt to remain relevant. I think the Russians are all too aware that if they maintain their current heading, they will be reduced to watching from the sidelines as the US and China face each other down in a new Cold War. Theories of international relations abound. No single theory adequately explains all the ways that we have seen nations interact with each other over the course of history. I'm beginning to feel that, when taken in total, these disparate theories of international relations paint an eminently human picture. Perhaps it is easier to grasp international relations if we choose to look at states as human beings and the various theories of international relations as their virtues and vices. When reduced to its core, I suppose it's not surprising that the behavior of states should resemble the behavior of humans. States are, after all, nothing more than a collective of human beings. They are us writ large, as Plato said. This idea is both under-taught and under-examined. I'm not sure if it's accurate, but it's certainly interesting to imagine that states suffer from all the same problems which we as human beings have encountered. To tie the idea back to Russia, one only has to imagine that one is, say, a basketball star. One of the top two players in their league. At some point, they lose their edge and they're feeling their age and can't keep up with their old nemesis on the court. Commentators start talking about retirement. But at the end of the day, they're positive they're a few spectacular games away from being the greatest again. This is Russia's metaphorical big game. They can remember the glory days when they were head an shoulders above just about everyone on the planet. Now there are at least a couple guys on the court that could probably beat Russia in a game of 1 on 1. But they're just chasing that one win that will make them great again. And they'll give anything to get it. They're recklessly pushing themself way beyond what their body can handle because the feeling that your chance to be somebody, to be a contender, is slipping through your fingers makes you do stupid things. As I said, I need to do some more thinking on the subject to get my thoughts straight. The metaphor is inexact, at best. But I do think that Russia is chasing the dragon at this point. Realism, which, to me, seems to represent the more animalistic, fight or flight portion of the human psyche as seen in the nations we have made in our own image, seems to be the dominant ideology in Russia at this moment. Rationally, in the interest of de-escalation, the US should avoid piling on additional external threats. However, international politics is an exceedingly complicated game. Sometimes looking weak is as bad as being weak, particularly when you're up against an opponent who is apparently under the sway of the compulsions of their reptilian brain. There is apparently real fear in a lot of ex-Soviet satellites that this is Russia's declaration that they're looking to re-establish the USSR. I don't think they are, because as suspect as Russian decision-making has been in the past, they've never demonstrated suicidal tendencies. But I do believe that the US will, more than likely, use this as an opportunity to deploy more troops to ex-Soviet states. Most likely Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland, with Latvia and Estonia being the NATO member states most likely to receive troops in the near future. This is speculation based solely on the fact that they share a direct land border with Russia. Incidentally, as they share a direct land border with Russia, the deployment of US military assets to these countries would also be the most likely to provide the spark required for a large-scale international incident. Thank you for the link, Meh. I can't say I'm surprised, but I can say that I find it funny how history seems to repeat itself on occasion. Edited by Al Araam, Mar 19 2014, 09:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 21 2014, 07:11 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
The idea that former Soviet satellites are in the crosshairs is not just blatant fear mongering on my part. Apparently it's echoed by someone else, at the very least.See here. |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Mar 21 2014, 11:43 AM Post #18 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
Just a curiosity, what game would make a good simulation of the current bizarre geopolitical situations, if one was to mod it? A Paradox game, perhaps? |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Mar 21 2014, 05:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
The question is "whose crosshairs?" Westerners see a bunch of former Soviet states in Russia's crosshairs, but Russia sees the West picking off its former allies and vassals one by one. The sad reality of course is that the small states caught in the middle of these great power clashes are not the ones who get to decide what happens. |
![]() |
|
| Margrave | Mar 21 2014, 08:16 PM Post #20 |
|
Is very much a holla-back girl.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think Russia is totally right to annex the whole of the Ukraine and this idea is totally independently formed and not at all influenced by the new Crimean special prosecutor, however beautiful she may be. link Edited by Margrave, Mar 21 2014, 08:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 22 2014, 09:23 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
TC brought up a salient point to that effect, and it's one that deserves further examination, I believe. That point being: Russians and Tatars have traded Crimea between them for centuries. Crimeans were there first, but the Russians are there now. TC seems to come down on the side of the Russians. Examining my own convictions, I'd probably have to come down on the side of the Russians as well, from an ethnic geopolitical point of view. Realistically, the US cannot side with Russia. American entanglements in Israel, as much as I dislike them, make this impossible. We, as a nation, have already come down on the side of those who occupied the land in the most ancient accounts of our race. There is no other way to justify support for Israel. This idea is obviously completely illogical and self-defeating for the US. We're a nation built upon the idea that Native American lives mean absolutely nothing. We're all for historical borders except where we ourselves are concerned. We gave the natives the tiniest, most undesireable slices of this land we could get away with. From a power-politics standpoint, I think the best thing that could happen, in the interest of global peace, would the EU integration for Ukraine but not NATO integration. No additional US troops deployed to Eastern Europe. There's already enough deterrence there. The Ukrainian situation only occured because they were not a NATO member-state. The moment Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia is invaded and the US does nothing, then NATO is entirely worthless and all of the soft power the US has accrued in the past 75 years or so disappears. Given that a layman can see this, I hope it's readily evident to Russian policymakers. Because if it isn't, we could be in for some trouble. Also, these are sanctions? I suppose it makes the US and the EU look good if they gradually pile on more sanctions as Russia refuses to withdraw from Crimea and flips them the bird, but this seems like a fairly pathetic starting point to me. Ejection from the G8 would be a message, but apparently we're going to pussyfoot around that for an extended period of time. Edit: The Crimean special prosecutor is Russia's attempt to bring some soft power into play. If Japan was realistically a part of this conflict, it would probably be over already, apparently.. Edited by Al Araam, Mar 22 2014, 09:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Mar 22 2014, 03:54 PM Post #22 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I think justification for support for Israel is whatever you want it to be--likewise justification for support for Palestinians. There really aren't any internally consistent ways to justify the ever shifting sands of international relations or international politics. I suspect most supporters of Israel in America today see cultural affinity between the two nations to be the most salient feature of the relationship. However that assumes there *are* cultural affinities between the two nations or assuming that cultural affinities *are* an overriding basis for forming a relationship between two nations. Such assumptions, of course, are quite often swept away by the vagaries of future time, that is to say, the prejudices and expediencies of new generations. In fact, an overemphasis on historical justifications or provenances may even mislead an attempt to accurately forecast. The only constants in geopolitics are the unpredictable and the ahistorical: the dynamic personalities, the passions in men and masses, the infinite swirl of variables. You are correct that it may be easier to conceptualize nations as personalities-- like individuals, tentative one moment and decisive the next, full of ideas, self-views, hypocritical and self-righteous, religious vs atheistic, venality alternated with nobility, loyalty alternated with opportunism. The observer, the critic, and the commentator can only react to events: The only way to impose some discipline and predictability upon the unfolding course of geopolitical events is to be a hegemon in the events itself. Which is why we in this forum ought to form a sinister faction and commandeer a nation on the ground so we may participate and direct events to our liking.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Mar 22 2014, 04:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 23 2014, 05:44 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Thank you, TC. You are, of course, correct. And your points regarding cultural affinity is particularly well taken. My experience is not particularly broad in this area, but I'd expect to see the US gradually drift away from Israel of the next 20 years. Ideologically, I'm not opposed to that, but it does raise the question of what a nuclear state does when faced with an overwhelming amount of external threats. Mistakes were made, I suppose, but we have to live with them. As for forming a "sinister faction," I don't think we could do worse than a lot of the current administration, or the administration before, etc. By and large, politicians don't focus on international relations until they have to. Whereas IR is obviously something that interest all of us. I'm not sure any of us can speak about Medicare, or corporate tax breaks with authority, but I'm also fairly certain that none of us have spent too much of our valuable time worrying about the vagaries of baby-kissing or the names of voters that were encountered 5 years ago. Unfortunately, the US will always be run by rich men and not wise men, so the point is moot. Although if anyone here ever finagles their way into the Oval Office, I would not turn down a position as Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, or Chief of Staff. :P |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Mar 25 2014, 05:34 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
The Russian Government is predicting 70 billion dollars in investment in their country will be lost in the first quarter of 2014. Essentially, this is not because of the real threat of effective sanctions, but rather because global investors cannot tolerate the kind of unpredictability that Russia is setting itself up for.
Edited by Al Araam, Mar 25 2014, 05:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Apr 4 2014, 02:56 PM Post #25 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
I have nothing new to add. But I am also following this little blunder with interest. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |














11:32 AM Jul 13