tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-681148865964431927.post8269538781015062238..comments2023-11-05T01:40:27.910-07:00Comments on FOGG OF WAR: With Precedent Set, the Door's Wide Open for Putin in Ukraine. What will Ukraine and the V4 Do?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08399019375564825616noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-681148865964431927.post-5254099722549713172014-04-01T20:52:45.003-07:002014-04-01T20:52:45.003-07:00It definitely at least temporarily happened. I thi...It definitely at least temporarily happened. I think of course the idea is to slap them on the wrist and bring them back in later.<br /><br />If Russia cares, it's in the wrong way, I fear. Russia's own "self-talk" here is that the EU is deaf to them, isn't cooperating, that NATO is encroaching on them, and so they have this story of victimization for themselves (a la the Germans in the 30's) about how bad everyone else has been to them. I think kicking them out of the G8 and severing ties certainly will stoke that self-talk...<br /><br />...but at the end of the day I think the self-talk is reverse-justification for what they're already planning to do. I don't think Putin cares much about this kind of acceptance and I don't think the Russian public will get bent out of shape that the West doesn't like them anymore. I really do think Putin sees the G7 types as rivals and doesn't really plan to cooperate with them beyond what's convenient for the moment (where the US might get quite bent out of shape because it sees the other 6 members as close allies).<br /><br />So in short I'd lean towards "doesn't care" but if anything I think it's likely to make the Russians feel more empowered/justified to be unilateral. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08399019375564825616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-681148865964431927.post-79769692021686394572014-04-01T20:44:21.568-07:002014-04-01T20:44:21.568-07:00So I ran across an article in the Globe the other ...So I ran across an article in the Globe the other day that implied in passing that they kicked Russia out of the G-8 in response, and went back to being the G-7. I have seen no reference to it anywhere else, but admittedly haven't been looking. Did that actually happen? If so, do you think that's actually a sanction that will mean something to Putin?Charles Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17673209470354488997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-681148865964431927.post-56237473688112697192014-03-28T07:51:37.447-07:002014-03-28T07:51:37.447-07:00I'm kindof surprised you're using the Arab...I'm kindof surprised you're using the Arab Spring as an analogy. I sat back and thought about it for a bit but I'm still thinking that it just doesn't come all that close. I also don't particularly exalt the Arab Spring--leaving morality out of this, there is a clear difference in what's going on, and why one is a threat to the long-term international order. <br /><br />Reasons:<br />1) Russia invaded another country, with troops and guns, claimed the territory. Nobody invaded these Arab Spring countries. Letting countries run around invading each other and gobbling up land is a bad thing. One can point to a hundred different little locations all throughout Europe in which there are concentrated ethnic minorities, and a precedent for peace/stability _has to be_ that "no, you cannot just invade a country because it has some concentrated ethnic minorities that happen to be a majority in your country."<br /><br />2) There was no separatist movement in the Arab Spring. This was about internal regime change. Violent regime change has its own set of problems, but it's a completely unrelated set of problems from separatism and re-drawing the map. Generally the peaces of Westphalia / Waterloo outline non-separatism as the thing to squelch, specifically because a precedent of separatism allows #1 to happen.<br /><br />3) These were people that were legitimately being oppressed in awful ways: y'know, torture, murder, all that. Go look these dudes up, I mean they were _bad news_. International Law has a somewhat fuzzy line on this, but generally there are certain standards a government has to meet in order to be considered legitimate and "not butchering your people wholesale" is one of those, so when you start butchering your people wholesale, you've crossed a line that's "generally accepted" one in which your people overthrowing you is thumbs-up.<br /><br />4) If instead of the Arab Spring you started looking to stuff like Kosovo or South Sudan to bring separatist movements into the picture, we're also talking about extenuating circumstances for these ethnic minorities that are "somewhat" clearly outlined in international law: namely that the ethnic majorities of those countries were butchering / oppressing those people and after some time of trying to solve this in other ways, separation turned out to be the only real solution. It's not 100% clear where the line on this is, but it is very clear that Crimea wasn't close. <br /><br />It's not at all clear that a majority of Crimeans even wanted to join Russia! 58% of Crimeans are of Russian heritage, but just because someone is of Russian blood doesn't mean they'd want to leave Ukraine for the brutal oligarchy/kleptocracy of Russia. Let's not stereotype Russian ethnics too much here. The other 42%--Ukrainian and Tatar--while the same rules apply to them, they're not going to have much incentive to want to jump ship. What I'm saying is it's not actually totally clear that you had even a majority--much less an overwhelming one--wanting to join Russia.<br /><br />So if Crimea was being systemically oppressed by the Ukrainians and then tried to leave but the Ukrainians started butchering them and then Russia came in to _actually_ save people, then we might be looking at something that was not clearly, obviously, shamelessly pure territorial aggression, but since it was clearly "Russia coming in, unprovoked, with military, to take a strategically key piece of land when its neighbor was unstable, and then forcing a sham referendum with guns pointed at voters to make it seem half-legitimate to its brainwashed public," then yes, I'm going to call it Russian aggression, because it's Russian aggression.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08399019375564825616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-681148865964431927.post-15389711071967994382014-03-27T20:40:29.755-07:002014-03-27T20:40:29.755-07:00I think it's more complicated than internation...I think it's more complicated than international support vs. not. During the early days of the wars in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, the oppressed party that overthrew the government represented a small majority of the population (55-65%) and created significant bloodshed, whereas in Crimea, the vast majority are of Russian heritage, and the transition was nearly without violence. Why do we exalt one as the "Arab Spring", and view the other as Russian aggression?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759434386358224916noreply@blogger.com