We shouldn't--and we won't--start a war with Russia over Ukraine. But....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

...that doesn't make Russia's actions any less contemptible and worthy of condemnation.

Russia is picking a fight with Ukraine when it knows it is at its weakest, and they assume no one will challenge their actions. All this because it wants to be a superpower again. That's really the only reason why they are doing this.

Vladimir Putin needs to be condemned by the entire world community and marginalized.

[hrmjustin]

1. I agree that Russia should be ashamed for taking advantage of the situation.

That being said no US military action.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. And?

It would be stupid for Ukraine's neighbors and he civilized community of nations to stand idly by.

[hrmjustin]

3. No to US military action.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. I agree with that

But if the CIA and other western intelligence agencies undercut or strangle Russia before it gets started, I'd be fine with that as well.

[hrmjustin]

5. I don't want the cia playing games.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. You can bet they already are.

[hrmjustin]

12. Probably.

[JaneyVee]

21. What if this was setup by the CIA to cause war in order to justify more Pentagon $$$

If you never hear from me again, you will know why.

[hrmjustin]

22. Who knows! This is the US and CA Russia playing games.

[Enthusiast]

63. We would probably be shocked if we could know the truth of it.

Both countries are trying to justify outsized military budgets.

[stevenleser]

49. If that war happens, you will never hear from any of us again. nt

[1awake]

77. No

Not likely at all and it doesn't fit the US's MO. But, I am not totally disagreeing with you either. Lot's of wars have been set up for several reasons including more $$$. A war with Russia would be insane, and not because I think we would lose. In a non nuclear engagement, we would win fairly quickly. But starting a war with Russia is counterproductive, and risks associated far outway the $$$ possible when they could simply do another Iraq type operation.

[Enthusiast]

62. They very likely caused the whole thing.

[davidn3600]

19. The CIA has likely been playing games all along.

...along with the Brits and who knows who else.

[hrmjustin]

20. Thats true. These big powers are playing games with Ukraine.

[babylonsister]

7. Amen from me. If certain people, like McCain, would

shut their traps and let this play out, hopefully diplomatically, that'd be nice.

[hrmjustin]

10. I agree. People need to realize we can't do everything.

[lostincalifornia]

27. Let's see the U.S. invaded Iraq. They said it was because of WMDs, but the real reason was oil. The

Russians are going into Crimea saying it is to protect Russian nationals, but lets not kid ourselves, it is also because of oil.

[hrmjustin]

30. Yes oil is the reason.

[joshcryer]

71. And Bush belongs in the Hague.

[reformist2]

6. Actually, the people of the Crimea are quite happy with Putin tonight. I have no problem with that.

[stevenleser]

25. There are always reasons to justify unprovoked wars of aggression. Just ask George W. Bush. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

41. What amazes me are the number of DUers who suddenly become fans of such wars...

...as soon as they think that engaging in that war is somehow against the United States' best interest.

Do they really hate America that much, that they're willing to defend the conquest of another country and the murder and subjugation of another people who are trying to do nothing but to throw off the chains of a corrupt autocrat?

Apparently yes.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[stevenleser]

43. They are behaving like negative nationalists as described by Orwell.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.
.
.
.
(Examples of) Negative Nationalism

(i) Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

53. It's ironic how the most accessible online library about Orwell...

...has a .ru (russia) country name. It's hosted there.

To me though, the most cogent passage is the one just before the one you highlighted:

In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong.

Scratch out Britain, and update it with the United States, and there you have a perfectly apt description of these DUers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

- C.D. Proud Members of the Reality Based Community

[stevenleser]

54. I agree. If Orwell were writing this now, he would replace Britain with the US in that essay.

Sad that some people cannot see this in themselves.

[amandabeech]

67. Thanks for posting the Orwell.

It sure explains a lot here, and in the comment sections of some major newspapers here and in Britain.

[Enthusiast]

64. Very few DUers are in favor of any kind of war with anyone.

No more foreign entanglements!

Back off on the several thousands of foreign entanglements we are presently engaged in!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

82. I completely agree with that sentiment

However, there is a difference between "Don't start a world-ending thermonuclear war with Russia" and defending Putin's conquest of the Ukraine and saying there should be no consequences for such actions. All because some DUers have a hard-on for absolutely anything perceived as anti-Obama, anti-Democratic Party, and/or anti-American.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cha]

57. Yeah there were many Americans quite happy with bush-cheney

invading Iraq, too.

[Jenoch]

70. What do you know that the rest of of us do not know?

[joshcryer]

72. It is starting to sound like that is not true.

So there goes that theory. Unsurprising that as they march north, more and more ethnic Ukrainians take a stand for their country. This was completely predictable.

[penultimate]

8. The Russians are glorious liberators who are bringing freedom and liberty

to the oppressed peoples of the world.

[840high]

42. Just like we do.

[PosterChild]

55. Nope...

...we do it much, much better.

[penultimate]

61. For sure...

Except there tends to be far less cheerleading for the glorious US military when they invade (or threaten to) and occupy foreign lands.

[okaawhatever]

11. Putin needs to have much worse happen then condemnation. If the Ukraine doesn't ignite a war

something else will. Putin will not stop until he is stopped plain and simple. We can deal with it now or later.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. Putin is pure evil and is now an aggressor

He has placed his Russian troops inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in opposition to Ukrainian government which is violation of international law.

If this escalates into fomenting Ukrainian civil war, Putin's head should land on a stake.

[cprise]

45. The US plotted a coup against an elected leader

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence

BTW, the "Putin is pure evil" line indicates you watch too many Hollywood shows. Good for a laugh, though!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

46. I, like GWBUSH, looked into Putin's eyes/soul

But I saw a bad man. A man who will kill or imprison anyone standing in the way of his quest for absolute power.

Ahmadenijad and Kim Jong Un are cartoons. This guy is the real deal.

[cprise]

48. Ummmm CBS... Yeah, you definitely seem like a CBS guy.

What's your favorite? NCIS?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

50. Lol. I don't have cable or satellite

But I do watch The Daily Show online.

[polly7]

76. Are you saying Bush looked into a mirror and saw his soul? I agree.

As would hundreds of thousands of those Iraqi people, if they still could.

[WCLinolVir]

51. Putin is evil, no matter what the US the has done.

The US is evil as well.

[cprise]

52. Those are very simplistic labels

Just remember when applying them that its the US that has over 800 military bases encircling the Earth.

[WCLinolVir]

84. I'll just go with the definition of evil.

"morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious." Yeah simple, but succinct. I just did not bother to elaborate. You may say that Putin's scapegoating of gays is homophobic, sociopathic, etc, but it is also evil. He is motivated by control, and gays as well as gay rights supporters do not support him. They are part of the outspoken criticism in Russia against Putin. He doesn't care who he hurts or at what price his monopoly on the media is enforced. US is evil too, or did you miss that?

[Igel]

59. Ah, that link.

The link that has somebody saying something that isn't really all that clear, until it has the right frame.

Then the frame dictates what the speakers meant.

It's like in Spiderman cartoons, where the newspaper shows a picture of Spidey doing something out of context and labels it a crime. But in context he's fighting bad guys. The reader sees the picture and assumes that "crime" is what is being shown--it's proven that Spidey is a criminal. Thing is, the picture shows nothing of the sort. Instead it's the caption, the interpretation placed on it, that slithers into the reader's mind and conveys all the information that the reader attributes to the picture.

Doesn't matter that the editor believes he's correct. He's not lying; he's just grasping for straws to support what he desperately believes to be true.

[cprise]

68. Its quite clear.

These US diplomats are actively deciding who will get in power to replace the current elected leader (who was up for election in 1 year). Time frame is no later than Feb.4, which is pretty inexcusable, IMO.

Oh, and take your cartoon/infotainment perspective and shove it.

There is no legitimate reason for international diplomats to talk this provocatively.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I don't get that sense. This doesn't seem like a victory for him, it seems more

like a salvage operation, and one that distracts and costs money and diplomatic status. He may look like a statesman to Russia, but to everyone else he looks a little nuts.

[Igel]

60. That post makes no sense to me.

It presupposes that Putin is aware of others' interpretations and things that they're worthwhile.

It presupposes that Putin cares about the short-term opinion others have of Russia. He doesn't. Short-term thinking is for Americans and Europeans. We see that over and over. Georgia was a huge debacle for Russia's reputation. Except that in 4, 5 years not only was all forgiven but Russia had more prestige than it had before. Did Russia ever pull back to the agreed-upon line? Don't know. It was so utterly unimportant that I don't know if it was even mentioned.

It also presupposes that only educated Western opinions matter--we're about the only people, apart from the Ukrainians, that think he's a bit nuts. Even then many find him wise. If you look to a lot of countries that really don't like the West, he's a kind of hero for humiliating their foe while not posing a risk to them.

We've seen other things that look like a salvage operation. In the end perhaps they are. But as the situation unfolds opportunities become available, and he takes advantage of them because he can--he's essentially an autocrat, and they can spin on a dime. Nobody gainsays him. The press that's not on his side knows to lay low. The difference between a salvage operation and planning everything from the start is pointless when the latter is impossible.

Keep in mind that Edinaya Rossiya is down to being in the low 50s for popularity. Or was before Putin showed he was strong for Russia.

[TwilightGardener]

65. Simple fact is that he couldn't influence at least half of the country to

partner with Russia instead of the EU--not even with big loans and cheap gas and threats. They felt that aligning with Europe was a better future. So is Russia's universe expanding or contracting, and at what cost does he recoup or hang on to it? Does having to take something by force, because you couldn't engineer it better, make you look like a winner? He just reminds me of the kid who kicks over the Monopoly board when he's losing. We'll see if it helps or hurts Russia in the long run, even if Georgia didn't hurt them at all.

The Iraq war hurt America because we weren't supposed to behave that way (on THAT scale, anyway), and we paid a price for our aggression--we're held to a different standard of conduct among other nations, and we blew it. The rest of the world already has low expectations of morality and trustworthiness from Russia, so that's a point in Putin's favor. We'll just have to see what comes of all this.

[kelly1mm]

13. Since Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the US/UK/Russia gaurentee of

their territorial integrity back in 1994, and apparently we (and the UK/Russia) have decided to not honor that agreement, they should be able to get their nuclear weapons back.

[LiberalEsto]

14. There's nothing wrong with Putin that a couple of our drones wouldn't cure nt

[awoke_in_2003]

31. Killing a head of state...

that is one way to start a war.

[LiberalEsto]

34. It's not going to happen.

But I can daydream.

[awoke_in_2003]

37. Yeah, I hear ya.

[JVS]

56. Oh yeah. that wouldn't at all create an insanely ultranationalistic environment in Russian politics.

One of the nice things for dealing with Putin is that although he's quite popular in Russia, he isn't really capable of creating a personality cult along the lines of Lenin or Stalin. Assassinating him or attempting to assassinate him would be likely to create Kim Il Sung levels of devotion in the public.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Agreed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I think the situation is far more complicated than what would warrant obvious condemnation

A lot of people here will suddenly be experts on Ukraine. I doubt it.

The weird status of Crimea is sufficient in itself to suggest caution in easy statements.

[alittlelark]

23. The US will not engage, unless the NATO treaty

demands it. We signed the NATO treaty. This is not all about us.

That said - PLEASE, someone talk Putin down!
WW3....uh, not a good time for me...

[jsr]

79. Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO and abandoned plans to join long ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraine-makes-it-official-nation-will-abandon-plan-67901.html
Ukraine makes it official: Nation will abandon plans to join NATO
May 28, 2010, 12:17 a.m. | Ukraine — by Reuters

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Do you understand that at least half the population of Ukraine is ethnic russian?

[stevenleser]

26. See my #25. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

28. There isnt going to be any aggression. Crimea will vote to separate from Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine

will follow. Western Ukraine will have its ethnic Ukrainian state, minus the assets that support their economy.

[stevenleser]

29. The unprovoked war of aggression has already started. Russia admitted its troops are operating in

Ukraine.

[LisaL]

32. The troops are in Crimea, where they appear to be very welcomed.

[stevenleser]

33. Once again, see my #25. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

35. there is no war going on. Your rhetoric is ridiculous.

Russian troops were already in crimea. It has a major strategic russian military base.

The DU cohort that starts waving the bloody shirt at every opportunity never ceases to be predictable.

[stevenleser]

36. Once again, see my #25. nt

[Chan790]

38. The territorial integrity agreement likely precludes that.

That is, it forbids the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from leaving; it forbids division of the country at-all as the fear all along was that Russia would game for succession of Russian majority areas.

Anyways, it seems that both sides only want the whole country so division is likely not on the table for anybody, just an ethnic war.

(I have a bad feeling regardless what we want, we're not getting out of this clean.)

[stevenleser]

39. Good point. That treaty and agreement, WHICH RUSSIA SIGNED, prohibits them doing what they are doing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Article one states:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine … to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

[MattSh]

75. And NATO was never to expand east...

but now they're looking to expand into Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

[stevenleser]

78. See my #25. nt

[MattSh]

80. Apparently the point eluded you.

NATO and the EU have continuously broken agreements; agreements that would have made all sides safer, if all parties abided by them. Russia has just decided that they won't be fooled again for the 15th time or so.

[stevenleser]

81. None of which justifies the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression.

The attempt by some to spin themselves into whirling dervishes to justify this war crime is pretty interesting to behold.

So no, sir, I am not the person who missed the point. I am not the one trying to put a nice spin on a war crime.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. the agreement will be ignored.

and "we" have no play at all, despite the armchair basement du warriors.

one of the blowbacks from Bush's uniltateralist policies is that Russia and China no longer feel constrained by a defunct international system.

[joshcryer]

73. Only after it has been put under complete military control, of course.

[kardonb]

44. Putin

if you think Putin gives a rip about they world condemning him , fuggetaboutit . He wants to be sure he keeps his Naval base in Sepastopol , on the Black Sea , as a power base in the region .

[AverageJoe90]

47. I agree with you on this, pretty much.

I do think the same should also be done for Svoboda and the other far-righters which do seem intent on trying to hijack the anti-Yanukovich movement, though.

[Maedhros]

58. Russian history comprises repeating cycles of collapse followed by re-conglomeration.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was only a matter of time before the latest Russian conqueror would begin re-assembling the empire.

[dionysus]

66. tell that to the crowd who'll say the US engineered a violent coup... and lurves them some putin...

[nikto]

69. I wonder...

About the degree of US (neocon) "tampering" in Ukraine,
via support of violent or disruptive elements.

The US has a long (and recent) history of "helping" revolutions abroad that serve our interests.

The neocons badly want Ukraine in NATO as a prize in (what they see as) the US's competition with Russia.
I think it is reasonable to expect we have some covert ops going on over there.


I also wonder if similar disruptive subterfuge could be going on in Venezuela this time.

But that is another story.

Just questions people should be asking, IMO.

[davidpdx]

74. I agree it shouldn't be by force

But we do have a duty to speak up when injustice happens either in the US or other parts of the world. It shocks me that people on DU are in favor of Russia invading the Ukraine.

[alarimer]

83. I want diplomatic and economic sanctions

For example, I want the US and EU to cancel the G8 meeting, which is supposed to take place in June in Sochi. Send a message that Russia is a world pariah.

Then barring US companies from doing business there, freezing assets, which they have done with tinpot dictators in much smaller places.