Ukraines PM - "We still remember well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. "

irishinrussia

gandalf wrote: »

Again the recent "pro-russian" additions are using the tried and trusted distraction tactic from the issue in hand here. The mantra is the US has done bad therefore Russia has free reign to do what it wants.

Again any country arming and supplying mercenaries and then sending in their own troops clandestinely to subvert the sovereignty of a neighbouring country is wrong, absolutely wrong legally and morally. Either you condemn the actions of Russia or don't.

Some of the posters contributing to this threads mentality reminds me of the type of people saying "I'm not racist but..." comments.

(BM)

If that is a reference to my post, then It is clear that you didn't really follow where it came from. I wrote in reaction to the easily disprovable claims of Ozymandius in comparing Russia in a negative light to the US regarding foreign policy. I specifically stated that I would not claim Russia followed this or that foreign policy course based on morality. The post also declares that the Russians have abandoned the "Rules". Ozymandius claimed that rule breaking is a part of the Russian "mentality" - which is out and out prejudice without even a hint of "I'm not racist but..."

For the record I do not think Russia is wrong, morally or legally, and I do not condemn Russia's actions .

That, however was not the point, the point was the factual inaccuracy and hypocrisy of Ozymandius' post. If you want to condemn Russian actions, please don't do it by condemning Russian actions as somehow worse than those of the US and Nato.

irishinrussia

SamHarris wrote: »

The very fact that people bring up the US in this context of defending russia is evidence enough.

No one claimed the US was a paragon of international reltiaons, they are only ever brought up to say "See the West isnt perfect" which means nothing to anyone on this forum. Except to the people saying it, who seem to think their edgy counter cultural rejection of the West is something that needs to be acknowledged in every debate about pretty much anything.

You don't like them, we get it. Thats great. Now, about the invasion fo the Ukraine by Russian forces...

Ozymandius effectively claimed that the US, if not a paragon, is very much morally superior to Russia. It is not necessarily about defending Russia, it is about refuting flawed arguments regarding US moral superiority and respect for the rules relative to Russia. I will quite happily debate the issue of whether or not Russia's actions are right or wrong without reference to US foreign policy, except insofar as it relates directly to this particular issue, if you or anyone else likes. However, if such a discussion involves claims of US/EU/Nato moral or legal superiority or a discussion of international rules/law and their existence or lack thereof, then I will feel perfectly entitled to respond with arguments referencing US/Nato foreign policy.

gandalf

You flatter yourself if you think my comments were specifically aimed at you. At least you are honest and you say unlike others here that you support Russia waging war on a neighbouring country.

gandalf

irishinrussia wrote: »

For the record I do not think Russia is wrong, morally or legally, and I do not condemn Russia's actions .

Quoting this in case you edit it out

irishinrussia

Is that the best you can do?

irishinrussia

I have absolutely no intention of editing it out. If you check my username at the Guardian site you'll find plenty of same. Projecting the underhanded nature of your own mind onto others much?

gandalf

irishinrussia wrote: »

Is that the best you can do?

With you I don't have to say anything else. You have proven my point, you are using the US's sins perceived or real as a justification to give Russia a "get out of Gulag" free card with regard to their illegal actions in another neighbouring sovereign state.

If you want to discuss how wrong the US were to invade Iraq in 2003 start a separate thread about it and I'll join in on the kicking to the US.

If Russia's annexation of Crimea and its subsequent illegal proxy and not so proxy war in the Ukraine is being explained away by US BAD RUSSIA GOOD then YOU really need to try better

Ozymandius2011

The latest threat by Zacharchenko to mobilise 100,000 men is obviously a ruse to disguise a large-scale Russian invasion. The OSCE chief Zannier said a few days ago that the reason they can find Russian troops and equipment is that the separatists heavily restrict their movements (especially in the border areas).

irishinrussia

gandalf wrote: »

With you I don't have to say anything else. You have proven my point, you are using the US's sins perceived or real as a justification to give Russia a "get out of Gulag" free card with regard to their illegal actions in another neighbouring sovereign state.

If you want to discuss how wrong the US were to invade Iraq in 2003 start a separate thread about it and I'll join in on the kicking to the US.

If Russia's annexation of Crimea and its subsequent illegal proxy and not so proxy war in the Ukraine is being explained away by US BAD RUSSIA GOOD then YOU really need to try better

"Criticise Russia by all means, but lets not create a myth of US/Western moral superiority"

"I think what I have written stands in stark enough contrast to your claim that it is the Russians who break the rules and the US who doesn't resort to military action"

No, I'm not using the US' sins perceived or real sins as a justification for Russia's actions, I simply refuted another poster's claims that the US was morally superior. I did not link my support for Russia at any point to the argument that the US acting immorally and illegally somehow justifies Russia doing the same. I simply countered a flawed and perhaps wilfully misinformed post claiming US moral and legal superiority. I then went on to say I view Russia's actions as right, without linking the two issues. I did give my view of what I think the Russian leadership think about the rules and why. If you are going to try and criticise what I write, at least take the care to read it properly.

irishinrussia

gandalf wrote: »

With you I don't have to say anything else. You have proven my point, you are using the US's sins perceived or real as a justification to give Russia a "get out of Gulag" free card with regard to their illegal actions in another neighbouring sovereign state.

If you want to discuss how wrong the US were to invade Iraq in 2003 start a separate thread about it and I'll join in on the kicking to the US.

If Russia's annexation of Crimea and its subsequent illegal proxy and not so proxy war in the Ukraine is being explained away by US BAD RUSSIA GOOD then YOU really need to try better

I believe these were the key lines in what I wrote;

"Criticise Russia by all means, but lets not create a myth of US/Western moral superiority"

"I think what I have written stands in stark enough contrast to your claim that it is the Russians who break the rules and the US who doesn't resort to military action"

No, I'm not using the US' sins perceived or real sins as a justification for Russia's actions, I simply refuted another poster's claims that the US was morally superior. I did not link my support for Russia at any point to the argument that the US acting immorally and illegally somehow justifies Russia doing the same. I simply countered a flawed and perhaps wilfully misinformed post claiming US moral and legal superiority. I then went on to say I view Russia's actions as right, without linking the two issues. I did give my view of what I think the Russian leadership think about the rules and why. If you are going to try and criticise what I write, at least take the care to read it properly.

cerastes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well Afghanistan for example was openly harbouring Osama Bin Laden after 911. The US had every right to invade them.

They weren't harbouring him,he was there with their consent, I believe prior to 911 the us gave support to the Taliban there, they requested proof before they handed over said person, same as any law abiding and sane country would,when the us couldn't provide that,without un support they just went ahead and bombed the place.
To what end? Now to hear the moralising from on high, you think NATO had never done anything similar or worse.

Edit, and where did they find bin laden? In the end, with their ally beside an army base, not like they wouldn't have known he was there and just rolled out his execution whennthye needed it.

KingBrian2

SamHarris wrote: »

Isn't it interesting to see that the people who most condemn the US for similar actions are the ones making excuses for Russia's? It's wrack hypocrisy. No more evidence should be needed that these people are not arguing based on morality or what have you - this changes for them as quick as the wind. It's all base politics. They should at the very least admit to it - it's clear as day to everyone else. They have a "team" to be defended and an enemy to be vilified. Thats the extent of their motivations and the reason their arguments in favour of Russia's invasions are so easily picked apart.

Either its wrong for countries to invade another without provocation or it's not. This does not change because you like one group and dislike another. Or, more pertinently , because you have a bunch of conspiracy theories making the wolrd a very different place the rest of us live in.

It is immoral and illegal to invade another country and those not taking sides in the Ukraine/Russia conflict have been very consistent. In 2013 the warmongers in Washington wanted to invade Syria. To this day they plot, conspire and fund groups with the soul purpose of overthrowing Sovereign States. Russia should not be destabilising its neighbour nor should NATO be carpet bombing Syrian territory.

Gatling

Looks like America is changing its stance on supplying defensive weapons momentum is gathering after the Ukrainians were pushed back by russian forces ,
Looks like modern armoured vehicles ,javelin anti tank weapons ,and radar that can track and pinpoint locations of rocket and heavy artillery along with drones are in the list , along with secure comns
Several nato and Baltic states will back and supply and weapons once Washington gives the ok ,

Ozymandius2011

cerastes wrote: »

They weren't harbouring him,he was there with their consent, I believe prior to 911 the us gave support to the Taliban there, they requested proof before they handed over said person, same as any law abiding and sane country would,when the us couldn't provide that,without un support they just went ahead and bombed the place.
To what end? Now to hear the moralising from on high, you think NATO had never done anything similar or worse.

Edit, and where did they find bin laden? In the end, with their ally beside an army base, not like they wouldn't have known he was there and just rolled out his execution whennthye needed it.

Pakistan is not a loyal ally. It is divided within itself between the pro-Taliban ISI and the more pro-US military. And the latter must be called seriously into question given where OBL was found. If India were to drop Russia the US would abandon Pakistan.

cerastes

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Pakistan is not a loyal ally. It is divided within itself between the pro-Taliban ISI and the more pro-US military. And the latter must be called seriously into question given where OBL was found. If India were to drop Russia the US would abandon Pakistan.

And to answer my post about Afghanistan?
So you shouldn't bomb other countries unless or in certain circumstances, especially where that country itself didn't directly attack you, but let's not even bother with or even attempt to make it look legitimateand get the UN involved, or even try and confirm if its actually based on fact.
I didn't realise India is in a military alliance with Russia? So because Indian decides to purchase equipment or have trade with Russia it should be checkmated if it doesn't buy similar off the US? In fact the US has good relations with India, to counter China I'd hazard, makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Looks like America is changing its stance on supplying defensive weapons momentum is gathering after the Ukrainians were pushed back by russian forces ,
Looks like modern armoured vehicles ,javelin anti tank weapons ,and radar that can track and pinpoint locations of rocket and heavy artillery along with drones are in the list , along with secure comns
Several nato and Baltic states will back and supply and weapons once Washington gives the ok ,

The Javelin is a great weapon.
The most up to date Russian tanks (upgraded T90) can disrupt their guidance.

However I don't think any are in Ukraine.
Russia has been sending in a lot of T80s & some T72s.

A Javelin will make short work of these.

However the story is an unnamed source saying its being considered. That's very different to actual crates being delivered.

cerastes

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Javelin is a great weapon.
However the most up to date Russian tanks (upgraded T90) can disrupt their guidance.

However I don't think any are in Ukraine.
Russia has been sending in a lot of T80s & some T72s.

A Javelin will make short work of these.

However the story is an unnamed source saying its being considered. That's very different to actual crates being delivered.

I don't think it is, but that anti anti-tank missile technology fitted to T-90's seems like it could be easily transplanted to any tank or be operated in the field some other way, If its as effective as its made out to be, I suspect the Russians won't be letting it out of their hands easily so counter measures aren't developed or weaknesses found, maybe more elite units only? All the same, there seems to be nothing else like it out there.

Aside from javelins, apart from the training, you still need to have support infantry that are more effective than their opposite numbers.enemy infantry working with and out ahead of tanks could be operating aggressively or using artillery to disrupt anti tank operators seems highly likely. The Ukrainians don't seem to have motivation in their ranks, they seem like the sort to throw down their weapons, might be as useful to just hand them over to the Russians.
In doubt the Russians will want any records being racked up against them or their tanks, seems like if it ever came to that they would use their advantages to minimise that, if it comes to that a few javelins won't make much of a difference other than rack up the body count of anti tank operators, something the US itself expected in its use of anti tank units if they ever faced off against the soviets.

robindch

Remember all that "Kiev Nazi Junta" stuff? Well, that's just so 2014. The new truth from Russian state-controlled media and Putin's proxies is that the authorities in Kiev are actually jews!

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-run-miserable-jews-rebel-chief-202600090.html

Yahoo wrote:

Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders "miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe. Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".

"I can't remember a time when Cossacks were led by people who have never held a sword in their hands," Zakharchenko told a press conference in the eastern rebel stronghold of Donetsk, in a reference to Ukraine's nationalist forebears, the Cossacks.

Zakharchenko said that the country's historical nationalists "would turn in their graves if they could see who is running Ukraine." Anti-Semitic sentiment remains widespread in Ukraine, where leaders are commonly labelled as Jewish by those seeking to discredit them.

The comments by Zakharchenko, who was flanked by the leader of the neighbouring rebel-held region of Lugansk, Igor Plotnitsky, were carried live by Russian news channel Rossiya-24. [...]

Two legs good, four legs bad.

BoJack Horseman

Blaming Nazis -> Jews -> bears.

Watch this space.

gandalf

robindch wrote: »

Two legs good, four legs bad.

Orwell is such an apt author for this whole mess. Not only Animal Farm but also 1984 and the rise of "doublethink" and "doubletalk" from the Kremlin.

Elmer Blooker

nothing on AFP.com about this "story" - I can only find it on that bastion of truth .........
the Kyiv Post. When one of you armchair military strategists find a YouTube link or something please post it, I'm a big fan of social media evidence especially since Putin's missile shot down MH17.

also on news.yahoo.com, I see he's a Lenin fan too, why not Stalin as well?
http://news.yahoo.com/rebel-chief-lenin-fan-set-win-separatist-ukraine-193635214.html
This reputable site also covers the Zakharchenko story.
http://doctorjamespwickstrom.blogspot.ie/2015/02/ukraine-run-by-miserable-jews.html

gandalf

Carried by numerous websites including these Israeli ones as well.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/59814-150202-ukraine-run-by-miserable-jews-rebel-chief

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

Putins boy has messed up.

Iwasfrozen

gandalf wrote: »

Carried by numerous websites including these Israeli ones as well.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/59814-150202-ukraine-run-by-miserable-jews-rebel-chief

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

Putins boy has messed up.

Oh Zakharchenk, I actually liked you but you just dun seriously goofed.

Elmer Blooker

gandalf wrote: »

Carried by numerous websites including these Israeli ones as well.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4622200,00.html

This link quotes Zakharchenko as saying:

Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".

why let the truth get in the way of a good story as they say!

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This link quotes Zakharchenko as saying:


why let the truth get in the way of a good story as they say!

Funny how the kremlin said antisemitism was out of control in ukraine ,
Now it turns out there military commanders in eastern Ukraine are the problem again

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This link quotes Zakharchenko as saying:


why let the truth get in the way of a good story as they say!

Those fine upstanding gentlemen in the East will stick it to the Nazi representatives of the Jewish people in Kiev. Wait, wut?

Either Kiev are

1. Neo-Nazis.
2. Representatives of a perfidious Jewish plot.

Pick one because I don't think even you would claim they're both.

Elmer Blooker

Number 1.
We been through the Military Council affiliated to PM Yatsenyuk's party already.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Number 1.
We been through the Military Council affiliated to PM Yatsenyuk's party already.

Soooo anti Semitic nut jobs going around invading sovereign countries and shooting down civilian airliners sounds like terrorists to me

Iwasfrozen

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Number 1.
We been through the Military Council affiliated to PM Yatsenyuk's party already.

Leaving aside the ridicoulousness of that argument, great we're making progress here. so do you disagree with Zakharchenko when he calls Kiev "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people"?

Would you agree Zakharchenko is obviously anti-semitic?

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

You flatter yourself if you think my comments were specifically aimed at you. At least you are honest and you say unlike others here that you support Russia waging war on a neighbouring country.

gandalf wrote: »

Quoting this in case you edit it out

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

When one of you armchair military strategists find a YouTube link or something please post it,

Mod: Cut out this belligerent type posting please, attack the content of the post, not the poster(s).

Any more posts like that will be viewed as trolling and looking to get a reaction from others. Thank you.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Leaving aside the ridicoulousness of that argument, great we're making progress here. so do you disagree with Zakharchenko when he calls Kiev "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people"?

Would you agree Zakharchenko is obviously anti-semitic?

How could you not? Then again this is from Andriy Biletsky, head of one of the Ukranian militias;

“The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

Again, you [rightly] criticise the separatists but you want people like this in both NATO and the EU? Welcome to the new cold war.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

How could you not? Then again this is from Andriy Biletsky, head of one of the Ukranian militias;

“The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”

Again, you [rightly] criticise the separatists but you want people like this in both NATO and the EU? Welcome to the new cold war.

There are neo nazis living in every EU and NATO state, the difference is they don't get into power because we have structures and systems in place to ensure only democratically elected governments gain power.

Right wing groups trive in anarchy, Ukraine at the moment is anarchy but the EU and NATO can offer Ukraine political and military structures to ensure stability.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are neo nazis living in every EU and NATO state, the difference is they don't get into power because we have structures and systems in place to ensure only democratically elected governments gain power.

Right wing groups trive in anarchy, Ukraine at the moment is anarchy but the EU and NATO can offer Ukraine political and military structures to ensure stability.

Yes we have right wing parties and neo-nazi groups already in the EU, are there any of them operating armed militias at the behest of any governments? No. And it's pretty weak to blame it on anarchy, these groups exist and as long as they do, then absolutely no way can they even be considered for invite to the EU.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

Yes we have right wing parties and neo-nazi groups already in the EU, are there any of them operating armed militias at the behest of any governments? No. And it's pretty weak to blame it on anarchy, these groups exist and as long as they do, then absolutely no way can they even be considered for invite to the EU.

Armed militias defending their country ,

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Yes we have right wing parties and neo-nazi groups already in the EU, are there any of them operating armed militias at the behest of any governments? No. And it's pretty weak to blame it on anarchy, these groups exist and as long as they do, then absolutely no way can they even be considered for invite to the EU.

No government sponsored militias exist because the government has lost control over society, it's perfectly responsible to blame the symptom (armed militias) on the disease (break down of civil order). The EU and NATO can provide political and military structures to fill the vacuum.

Personally I would prefer if the Ukrainian government with the help of the EU organized referendums in every Oblast to allow the people to decide if they want to remain in Ukraine or independence.

Then what's left of Ukraine is free to join the EU and NATO and rest can join Russia (if they'll have them) or go their own way.

karma_

Gatling wrote: »

Armed militias defending their country ,

And are the other side not doing exactly that same thing? Like it or not the precedent set in the former Yugoslavia legitimises these breakaway republics.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No government sponsored militias exist because the government has lost control over society, it's perfectly responsible to blame the symptom (armed militias) on the disease (break down of civil order). The EU and NATO can provide political and military structures to fill the vacuum.

Personally I would prefer if the Ukrainian government with the help of the EU organized referendums in every Oblast to allow the people to decide if they want to remain in Ukraine or independence.

Then what's left of Ukraine is free to join the EU and NATO and rest can join Russia (if they'll have them) or go their own way.

I'm sorry but this just reads like 'Ah sure once they are in it will all be grand.' Still nothing I've seen you post, or others comes anywhere near reassuring me that the problems that exist in Ukraine would be solved by EU membership, quite the contrary.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sorry but this just reads like 'Ah sure once they are in it will all be grand.' Still nothing I've seen you post, or others comes anywhere near reassuring me that the problems that exist in Ukraine would be solved by EU membership, quite the contrary.

Did you read the second half of my post?

"Personally I would prefer if the Ukrainian government with the help of the EU organized referendums in every Oblast to allow the people to decide if they want to remain in Ukraine or independence.

Then what's left of Ukraine is free to join the EU and NATO and rest can join Russia (if they'll have them) or go their own way."

My post was less "It'll be grand" more "It'll be grand once they get rid of the eastern Oblasts".

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did you read the second half of my post?

"Personally I would prefer if the Ukrainian government with the help of the EU organized referendums in every Oblast to allow the people to decide if they want to remain in Ukraine or independence.

Then what's left of Ukraine is free to join the EU and NATO and rest can join Russia (if they'll have them) or go their own way."

My post was less "It'll be grand" more "It'll be grand once they get rid of the eastern Oblasts".

Right so, well we are in agreement then. You know that was my point all along, until the internal affairs are all sorted then all else must be placed on hold, I'm unsure why it took us this long to flog that out!

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Right so, well we are in agreement then. You know that was my point all along, until the internal affairs are all sorted then all else must be placed on hold, I'm unsure why it took us this long to flog that out!

But the EU and NATO have to be present during this process, they have to oversee the organization of the referendums and let it be known to Russia that Ukraine has their protection so the situation can have room to stabilize.

Gatling

karma_ wrote: »

And are the other side not doing exactly that same thing? Like it or not the precedent set in the former Yugoslavia legitimises these breakaway republics.

See the problem there these aren't break away republics this are areas controlled and supplied by a foreign government .
These aren't regions that have a history of tension and conflict .

robindch

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No government sponsored militias exist because the government has lost control over society, it's perfectly responsible to blame the symptom (armed militias) on the disease (break down of civil order). The EU and NATO can provide political and military structures to fill the vacuum.

The armed militias were inserted by Russia in order to break down civil order. Which they did.

You are mixing up effect with cause.

Iwasfrozen

robindch wrote: »

The armed militias were inserted by Russia in order to break down civil order. Which they did.

You are mixing up effect with cause.

Òh totally, the break down of civil order is a result of Russian interference.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But the EU and NATO have to be present during this process, they have to oversee the organization of the referendums and let it be known to Russia that Ukraine has their protection so the situation can have room to stabilize.

I can see an argument for the EU to be in mediating for peace but as to what NATO would, could or even should be doing there is a mystery to me.

robindch wrote: »

The armed militias were inserted by Russia in order to break down civil order. Which they did.

You are mixing up effect with cause.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Òh totally, the break down of civil order is a result of Russian interference.

That's over-simplistic analysis and ignores the fact that is goes much deeper than that.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I can see an argument for the EU to be in mediating for peace but as to what NATO would, could or even should be doing there is a mystery to me.

NATO could provide oversight to the Ukrainian military, to provide stability, structure and aid.

That's over-simplistic analysis and ignores the fact that is goes much deeper than that.

The causes for Russian interference go deeper than that but the root of this conflict is Russian interference.

SeanW

Gatling wrote: »

Soooo anti Semitic nut jobs going around invading sovereign countries and shooting down civilian airliners sounds like terrorists to me

To paraphrase the likely thoughts of some:

But, but, but, Whatabout Nazis, and NATO and Israel, or something? Anything?

karma_

SeanW wrote: »

To paraphrase the likely thoughts of some:

But, but, but, Whatabout Nazis, and NATO and Israel, or something? Anything?

Ironic when you consider that's exactly what you are doing with this post.

It's fairly simple, a lot of people find the game of global geopolitics contemptible, and that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. This should remain a Ukrainian/Russian conflict with the international community under an obligation to mediate peace first and foremost. I'd rather have a stable world but under no circumstances would adding NATO into that cauldron make things more stable, exactly the opposite effect would be an almost certainty, and would kick start another cold war to last who knows how long. Is that what people really want? Is it in anyones best interests? absolutely not yet we have persons here advocating exactly that under a pretence of morality and moderation.

So please, no more whataboutery accusations.

irishinrussia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The causes for Russian interference go deeper than that but the root of this conflict is Russian interference.

I would suggest that anyone who thinks the roots of this are as simple as Russian interference should read the work of Samuel P. Huntington's the Clash of Civilization and the remaking of world order (1996). He deals specifically with the issue of Ukraine and the different possible futures of the country. The roots of this conflict go very deep indeed.

Iwasfrozen

irishinrussia wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone who thinks the roots of this are as simple as Russian interference should read the work of Samuel P. Huntington's the Clash of Civilization and the remaking of world order (1996). He deals specifically with the issue of Ukraine and the different possible futures of the country. The roots of this conflict go very deep indeed.

Library's closed can you give a synopsis?

irishinrussia

If I recall correctly Huntington rejected Fukuyama's idea that following the end the ideological conflict between the capitalist/liberal democratic states and the communist world, Liberal Democracy would eventually spread over the world as a universal principle, being the end point of human socio-political development - hence the title of his work "The End of History". Huntington rejected the universalism of liberal democracy and instead spent the early 1990s formulating a theory that the end of the ideological struggle with the USSR would in fact lead to a renewed rise in nationalism, supplemented by loyalty above the nation to one's civilisation.

He projected the division of the World into specific civilizational groups of nations based on cultural, religious, ethno-linguistic, historical and political ties. Most notable were Western, Slavic, Islam, Hindu and Confucian (ie Chinese). He postulated that maintaining peace and order within those civilizations would fall primarily upon what he termed the "Core State" of each civilisation. He believed that due to cultural reasons outside states would not be able to successfully interfere in the affairs of states from other "Civilisations". He further believed that the renewed rise of nationalism, civilisationalism (for want of a better term), and multi-polarity in the World would make the West too weak in relative terms to be able to interfere or for that interference to be in our interests.

He believed that international order would be best served by allowing each civilisation, by and large, resolve its own disputes. However there were a couple of caveats. Particular in my memory was his assertion that Islam lacked a "Core State" and this is what makes that civilisation particularly unstable both internally and in its relations with other civilisations. He believed the rise of a core state in the Islamic world would ultimately act as a stabilising influence on that civilisation, creating order internally and a single "go to guy" for other civilisations to resolve disputes with. He put forward several possible core states for Islam (Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey) but concluded it was not possible to see any one of them dominating (Saudi - population too low, Egypt - too poor, Iran - too Shia, Egypt - too poor)

In relation to Ukraine, I believe he referred to it as part of a group of states that lie on the boundaries of two civilisations and are torn between the two - cleft states. He believed these states (Turkey was another) to be deeply divided with one part of their society looking to one civilisation and the other part of society looking to another civilisation. Huntington believed that Ukraine was deeply divided geographically with a more industrial, Orthodox, Russian speaking and often ethnic Russian east and South against a more Ukrainian, Catholic, agricultural Western region. He was already pointing to the divide visible in the Kuchma/Kravchuk (I think) elections, other problems (I think he looked at Crimea, but I'm not sure) and expectations among some Russians that the East would eventually "come home", while the "West (of Ukraine) can go to hell" - I'm in Russia at the moment and left my copy at home so I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe that was a quote in the book from a Russian general. In relation to these cleft states he (Huntington) did not attribute blame, simply dealt with the situation as he saw it - that such states were a danger to world order as they had the potential to drag their co-civilisationalists into conflict with each-other and barring some dramatic event creating unity, were doomed to internal strife, angst over identity and division, all with the potential to boil over into open civil conflict and partition or a short-medium term victory for one or other side before the whole cycle starts again.

I would regard it as very much a politically conservative book, even neo-conservative, and often pessimistic and uncomfortable (for someone more to the left). It does, however, contain some interesting insights, and while conservative (and somewhat American nationalist) in out look and origin, leads to quite a reasonable conclusion, the West is in relative decline (not absolute decline, just relative to rising powers) and doesn't have the power (nor is it in our interests) to put the World in order as we see fit, exhausting our strength and wealth in the process.