Why are we rushing to defend Ukraine? [merged threads]

[millefleur 5,047]

57 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Should Zielinsky Give in to Putin's Demands?

I agree with the article. 100% agree about Crimea and the Donbass. This 2010 election map just pretty much shows the division in Ukraine and why trying to force these people into something they don't want makes no sense (blue = more monolingual Ukrainian speaker/ethnicity, red = more monolingual Russian speaker/ethnicity...reflected in the super pro-Ukraine vs pro-Russian candidates):

 

 

As for the other points: the EU question is much less threatening than NATO. Finland (a non-NATO but EU country) has been on Russia's doorstep now for years and Russia has maintained a pretty good relationship with them despite their troubled history. I have a feeling if it was only the question of the EU, this level of escalation would not have arisen.

 

The "disarmament" question I feel is less relevant than asking the "nuclear question." I think Russia fears a nuclear Ukraine more than just a merely armed Ukraine. Again, take the Finland example: they have their own military but no nukes, this makes them non-threatening and a true "neutral" country. Thus Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons is more the issue. On the one hand, I totally get why Ukraine wants nukes, who doesn't want nukes as it's now been proven to be the ultimate defense tool. On the other hand, I understand why Russia would be weirded out by Ukraine developing a nuke and then potentially pointing it at Russia (because, let's face it, who else would it be aimed at?) Russia has a bit shot itself in the foot with that one, because Ukraine will always see Russia as a threat now, so it's going to be a hard bargain between the two and I think it comes down to the nuke question and how they should handle this. A lot of diplomacy and trust will need to be rebuilt after this disaster.

 

A few things the article doesn't mention: 1.) Ukraine recognizing Russian as at least an officially recognized language instead of forcing monolingual-Ukrainian on everyone, a good example for this is Canada or Switzerland - it's worked great before and I don't get why Ukraine won't concede this, the majority of Ukrainians are bilingual (including every single president!) so this just seems like a bare minimum to ask for 2.) Stop the water crisis in Crimea, which was caused by Ukraine building a dam to starve the crops and cut water supply to people. There would have to be a treaty that water is a right to the people in Crimea and Ukraine has to honor it. 3.) Ukraine really needs to get a handle on its neonazi problem and should really back off moreso the anti-Russian hatred that is driving it, like we've seen in the Donbass for the last 8 years. I think they can do this, most European (EU) countries have very strict laws against any kind of neonazism/extremist nationalism or glorification of that. This point to me seems like a win-win for both Russia and the EU.

[TBoneTX 45,571]

Very thoughtful analysis, ma'am.

[millefleur 5,047]

Just one more thing to add for possible negotiations: Russia has to help rebuild Ukraine since they were the ones who destroyed it. This would mean removing the sanctions so Russia's economy doesn't completely die and can function again, and assuming some kind of peace is met between the two, and Russia must help invest in Ukraine and put back what they took away, possibly even helping invest in humanitarian projects and things like that. I'm not a foreign policy genius so I don't know how it would work, but it only seems fair. Perhaps some 3rd country could be an auditor of this, making sure to keep corruption low and that it gets enforced.

 

A repeat of the Treaty of Versailles is a horrible idea, we don't want to overly punish Russia like Germany was after WW1, but expecting Russia to help pick up the pieces of the mess they caused should be bare minimum. Russia has tons of natural resources and is actually in a good position to help rebuild and Ukraine could also benefit from that. I think fostering any kind of cooperation between the 2 countries under the watchful eye of some 3rd parties (presumably who would broker the treaty/deal) who both also want to ensure peace there would be a very good outcome. Ukraine, in my opinion, should not be forced to take on debts to rebuild: I view that as punishing the victim. But on the other hand, I don't think it's the US's responsibility to rebuild Ukraine either, it's not our job to pick up after Russia.

 

Russia could be forced to stick to the rebuilding principles and obligations under the threat of sanctions being put back perhaps. It would be nice to see sanctions have an actual purpose other than merely being an after-the-fact punishment.

[Neonred 3,576]

5 hours ago, millefleur said:

Just one more thing to add for possible negotiations: Russia has to help rebuild Ukraine since they were the ones who destroyed it. This would mean removing the sanctions so Russia's economy doesn't completely die and can function again, and assuming some kind of peace is met between the two, and Russia must help invest in Ukraine and put back what they took away, possibly even helping invest in humanitarian projects and things like that. I'm not a foreign policy genius so I don't know how it would work, but it only seems fair. Perhaps some 3rd country could be an auditor of this, making sure to keep corruption low and that it gets enforced.

 

 

LOL  As my wife told me years ago before she even moved to the US " Russia is full of liars, cheaters, and thieves."

 

But I do totally agree with you.

[Dashinka 24,628]

1 hour ago, Neonred said:

LOL  As my wife told me years ago before she even moved to the US " Russia is full of liars, cheaters, and thieves."

 

But I do totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, so is pretty much every other country.

[Mike E 11,741]

7 hours ago, millefleur said:

 

 

 

 .

So Ukraine is to cede the dark red territory or the light red territory too?

 

Where does it end?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Russians_in_post-Soviet_states
 

In Latvia and Estonia over 24 percent of the overall population is ethnic Russian.  Surely there are regions of each that are majority Russian. Is Putin justified invading these NATO nations and should the west just cede the regions that are majority Russian now?

 

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Americans
 

“The top U.S. communities with the highest percentage of people claiming Russian ancestry are:^[42]

1. Fox River, Alaska 80.9%^[43]
2. Aleneva, Alaska 72.5%^[44]
3. Nikolaevsk, Alaska 67.5%^[45]”

^{Should we cede these places to Russia?}

What every happened to ethnic people accepting the results of a treaty that re-drew the boundaries and either leaving or staying. 
 

After the American Revolution, ethnic British who didn’t accept American rule left for Canada and the British Caribbean.  
 

After Point Roberts was ceded to the USA, Canadians who didn’t like it moved.  
 

After WW2, Germans in former Germany who didn’t like it, left for Germany (granted some if not most were forced out) 

 

After the partition of India, millions of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh went to India and vice versa.  
 

Yet for some reason Russians in Ukraine and rest of the non-Russia former Soviet Union are to be treated differently.   

[millefleur 5,047]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

In Latvia and Estonia over 24 percent of the overall population is ethnic Russian.  Surely there are regions of each that are majority Russian. Is Putin justified invading these NATO nations and should the west just cede the regions that are majority Russian now?

~24% is clearly a minority figure. It doesn't match the overwhelming majority in Ukraine's population in those other regions. I also never said Putin was justified. I just said that this is a possible negotiation to end the fighting. There's also no active, ongoing ethnic hatred and civil war in these countries/regions you mentioned. The civil war in Ukraine is what sets the whole situation apart. If people aren't killing each other then great! There's no problem. The Ukrainian government's handling of a civil war inside its territory has been abysmal. They did nothing to solve the issue and in fact stoke the flames and made it worse, showing no signs of being interested in resolving it. Again, huge difference between countries where multi-ethnic peoples live peacefully and governments don't encourage civil war with them.

 

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

Yet for some reason Russians in Ukraine and rest of the non-Russia former Soviet Union are to be treated differently. 

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

What every happened to ethnic people accepting the results of a treaty that re-drew the boundaries and either leaving or staying. 

Because the borders of modern-day Ukraine were poorly drawn and have never made sense, similar to the borders of post-Yugoslavia/former Serbian Empire region (and many other countries where borders were hastily drawn up out of war/revolution.) In this case, Vladimir Lenin was the one who drew up much of Ukraine's borders (the ones which were historically Russian), followed by the "gift" of Crimea in the 50's that the article mentioned. So, basically, you're OK with much of Ukraine's borders being a random whim that Lenin drew on a map and what Khrushchev randomly on a whim decided to "gift" to Ukraine that nobody living there had any say in at the time? And because of those poorly drawn borders and the Ukrainian government violently oppressing these people and arming their own military to shoot at them/fight them, there's been brewing hatred and active war now for 8 years. The current narrative in the media is to just completely downplay and ignore the civil war in the Donbass because a.) it makes Ukraine's government look bad and b.) it doesn't fit the "one, big happy united country" narrative. Another narrative shift is that the media now completely ignores discussing the systemic corruption and other division inside the country. Jailing of journalists and opposition has been rampant under Zelensky.

 

But in short, yes, some civil wars and border disputes should absolutely be treated differently than others and should result in map redraws. You can't just apply a "one size fits all" solution of "well, just let the people leave if they want" to every situation, if that was the case geopolitics and wars sure would be a lot simpler.

 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Unfortunately, so is pretty much every other country.

Yeah, that's the problem. I don't have an answer for how to get rid of liars, cheaters, etc, in any country. But it seems like lots of countries at least did solve their civil wars and moved on at some point, so maybe there's hope. There might still be cheating and lying but that's better than shelling and bombing. If people are just white collar crime robbing each other that's a huge step in the right direction towards civilization and peace! First world problems.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by millefleur

[Mike E 11,741]

19 minutes ago, millefleur said:

~24% is clearly a minority figure. It doesn't match the overwhelming majority in Ukraine's population in those other regions

24 percent is more than 17 percent. 17 percent is percentage of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.  And yet Russians are an overwhelming majority in Ukraine as you say.  
 

When you get to double percentages of a single ethnic, racial, religious, or any other type of affiliation, within a country, it is a statistical certainty that you can draw circles and find that the people representing a country wide  minority  are majority in those circles.
 

And so without even bothering to look, I posted with confidence that there are regions of Latvia and Estonia that are overwhelmingly majority Russia. 
 

So now after looking:

 

Latvia

 

 

Estonia

 

 

“Distribution of Estonians and non-Estonians in Estonia according to data from the 2011 Estonian census. Russians and other Russophone people form the bulk of the non-Estonian population.”

 

Lithuania. Less than 5 percent of of the country is ethnic Russian,  And yet … 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Lithuania No map handy:

“

Top 10 municipalities with Russian diaspora:

• Visaginas Municipality (51.91%)

”

This isn’t going to end.  
 

 

 

[Neonred 3,576]

23 minutes ago, Mike E said:

24 percent is more than 17 percent. 17 percent is percentage of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.  And yet Russians are an overwhelming majority in Ukraine as you say.  
 

When you get to double percentages of a single ethnic, racial, religious, or any other type of affiliation, within a country, it is a statistical certainty that you can draw circles and find that the people representing a country wide  minority  are majority in those circles.
 

And so without even bothering to look, I posted with confidence that there are regions of Latvia and Estonia that are overwhelmingly majority Russia. 
 

So now after looking:

 

Latvia

 

 

Estonia

 

 

“Distribution of Estonians and non-Estonians in Estonia according to data from the 2011 Estonian census. Russians and other Russophone people form the bulk of the non-Estonian population.”

 

Lithuania. Less than 5 percent of of the country is ethnic Russian,  And yet … 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Lithuania No map handy:

“

Top 10 municipalities with Russian diaspora:

• Visaginas Municipality (51.91%)

”

This isn’t going to end.  
 

 

 

And yet the Latvians and Estonians are not killing off the ethnic Russians in their country, unlike what has been happening in Ukraine.

[Mike E 11,741]

59 minutes ago, millefleur said:

But in short, yes, some civil wars and border disputes should absolutely be treated differently than others and should result in map redraws. You can't just apply a "one size fits all" solution of "well, just let the people leave if they want" to every situation, if that was the case geopolitics and wars sure would be a lot simpler

In Canada we have an expression directed at Quebec secessionists: if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. If Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Georgia are divisible so is Russia. I can draw circles in Russia and find regions that don’t want to be part of Russia. 
 

It’s interesting you brought up Yugoslavia. Its disintegration led to current war in the Ukraine.   Had I been in charge of the world, unlike Clinton, I’d have told the rest of Yugoslavia:  “suck it up buttercup”.  But that’s my Canadian bias showing. 
 

Drawing boundaries without asking the affected people causes problems for sure.  Re-drawing them without asking causes more problems.  
 

[Mike E 11,741]

16 minutes ago, Neonred said:

And yet the Latvians and Estonians are not killing off the ethnic Russians in their country, unlike what has been happening in Ukraine.

The ethnic Russians in their countries aren’t shooting down passenger planes either, re: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

 

Play secessionist games, win secessionist prizes.  The south in the USA won prizes like seeing their cities burned to the ground, and an economy that hasn’t fully recovered after a century. 
 

What goes on in  Ukraine doesn’t justify foreign invasion.  No more than what went on in Yugoslavia justified foreign invasion. And the American invasion of Yugoslavia allows Russia to justify  the invasion of Ukraine.

 

If Ukraine is divisible, Russia is divisible. And that is going to be messy to say the least.   

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Mike E

[millefleur 5,047]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

And so without even bothering to look, I posted with confidence that there are regions of Latvia and Estonia that are overwhelmingly majority Russia. 

You didn't address the active civil war which I said is the main reason the situation in Ukraine is different and what lead to this whole mess we're in now. If Ukraine had learned to live peacefully with its majority Russian regions and accommodate their wishes and find internal solutions, then the civil war never would've happened and then this whole major war could've been avoided. Like both WW1 and WW2, you can't simply blame 1 country or person for the whole of it. While Germany deserves the bulk of the blame in those cases (as Russia does here for the invasion), the causes behind all this are complex and multi-faceted.

 

Why Ukraine can't be a federation like Russia which has quasi-independent and autonomous republics inside the borders, where things like local cultures and languages are actually protected by the country's constitution and even encouraged, is beyond me. Mongolia and Russia overlap with ethnic Buryats in both countries and there's no fighting because Buryats are given a lot of freedom and autonomy in Russia, so Mongolia is happy with it, Russia is happy with it, there's no problem. Why Ukraine's government has become so ultra-nationalist and wants to just stamp out their Russian minority population is the key question here. Imagine if a small, super nationalist anglophone section of Canada decided that French language should be banned from schools and any demands, even slight, coming the Quebecois was just completely ignored and laughed at or physically oppressed. That's what Ukraine has been doing to Donbass since 2014. Canada doesn't do that because they're smart and know that it would just cause problems and tensions and possible civil war! Why doesn't Ukraine understand that?

 

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

This isn’t going to end.  

It will end because most countries around the world eventually ditch their rabid nationalism and realize that working together and cooperating with different ethnicities in your country is a huge net gain over having an idiotic civil war. According to your view, the Yugoslav wars never would've ended but lo and behold even that mess (which is far messier and more violent than Ukraine, involved actual planned massacres and concentration camps) came to an end. It would just be nice if the Ukrainian government (and the US who absolutely encouraged and stoked the tensions of) would get on board with that and they should have solved it years ago internally, instead of letting it fester and grow into the hatred/revenge filled madness that's going on now in Donbass, particularly Mariupol. And NATO/the US should not have been arming Ukraine for use to kill those people in the Donbass.

 

The situation is actually much more cut-and-dry than how it was in Yugoslavia. There are solutions here that benefit both sides and can be reached. It's just a matter of that happening and how much more idiotic fighting and war each side wants to put up with. Could be months, maybe years, but it will end eventually. I think a federated current-borders Ukraine with quasi-indepedent republics sounds great, but the people of the Donbass are so traumaized after 8 years of getting fired at, I don't think they'll trust it, the trust has been destroyed. Zelensky called the people in the Donbass "terrorists" meanwhile his own army with literal neonazi battalions is shelling them. Ukraine's government and leadership has been beyond abysmal and it's clear to me they also wanted this war. Until enough innocent people die on both sides, maybe finally Ukraine and Russia can both reach a limit where they can come to solutions.

 

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

In Canada we have an expression directed at Quebec secessionists: if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. If Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Georgia are divisible so is Russia. I can draw circles in Russia and find regions that don’t want to be part of Russia. 

None of those "circles" you want to draw are flaring up into active civil war. If they did, yeah, we'd be able to have a different discussion. But right now, all the "circles" in Russia live peacefully under federation and they have their minority languages, religions and cultures actually protected and supported by the Russian government. Russia is a successful example of a multi-ethnic federation who has learned to live pretty well with its diverse population, making sure to avoid having these kinds of conflicts flaring up. Ukraine has done the opposite.

 

59 minutes ago, Mike E said:

The south in the USA won prizes like seeing their cities burned to the ground, and an economy that hasn’t fully recovered after a century. 

And in this case it'll be Ukraine who is burned to the ground and turned into a wasteland. This war could've ended like the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 when negotiations were brought on very quickly and agreements were arrived at. (I'm pretty sure this is actually what Putin wanted.) There is still minor tension in the area but Georgia did not want its capital city to be destroyed, so they negotiated. Georgia now will end up in a much better position than Ukraine, which will be bombed, wartorn and devoid of huge swaths of its population. I've always said that if the Ukrainian government continues on as-is post-2014, it will be lose/lose for them. It's far, far better to negotiate with Russia than to have war with Russia. Otto von Bismark famously said: "Make a good treaty with Russia." (Or in this case, make a good treaty with the Russian speakers in your country (Donbass/Crimea) in the first place to avoid having actual Russia invade like we're seeing now.)

 

No one here ever said Russia/Putin was justified. As for me, I'm just merely describing Russia's MO. I don't support invasion and i think it's wrong. However, we can't force Russia to act differently (they have nukes, so Gaddafiing Putin from planet Earth is not an option), so we have to deal with it diplomatically,  which means compromise. I think the article that TBone was coming from a similar view. Pretty sure the guy who wrote that article is not a pro-Putin stooge or cheering on the Russian military, he just wants the fighting to end and suggested a way out. I applaud that kind of article over the "Close the skies!" "No fly zone!" kind of WW3 cries coming left and right from the other side.

 

59 minutes ago, Mike E said:

And the American invasion of Yugoslavia allows Russia to justify  the invasion of Ukraine.

I totally agree that America's reckless behavior of policing the world with its military has actually emboldened Russia. They see how we "handle" civil conflicts around the world by invading/using military might, so Putin thinks "Well, maybe I need to do the same." Two wrongs don't make a right but this is the reality happening now.

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by millefleur

[Mike E 11,741]

Ukraine’s

 

* alleged injustices toward a minority

 

* failure to suppress a civil war versus a minority that is actively being supported by Russia (as if the Russian minority in Ukraine was capable of taking out MH17 without Russian help

 

* to set up a federation 

 

don’t justify an invasion. 

 

These are internal affairs of Ukraine.  
 

Russia is a federation in name only.  For practical purposes it is unitary state 

[millefleur 5,047]

These kinds of arguments don't address the question of: how do we solve the current crisis in Ukraine. You're having an argument about what's justified or not, other people want to find a find a solution right now to stop the fighting. Two different situations.

[Mike E 11,741]

Right.  
 

So capitulating to the bully never works because the bully always wants more.  
 

Bleeding the bully usually works. 
 

Bleed Russia and China dry. It worked when Russia invaded Afghanistan and It work again. Europe’s back is against the wall and Europe has the economic might  bleed Russia and China dry.  
 

If UK or France want to nuke Russia after (it is a matter if d when now) it invades a NATO country, let them.  
 

The USA should not send more troops to Europe and it should not send troops to countries where it doesn’t have troops. 
 

USA should begin to disengage from NATO once Russia is defeated in Ukraine.