Let's look at this from the Russian perspective:

* Ukraine's new pro-western government is made up of protesters who overthrew the democratically elected president of the country. The new government is not elected and is not legitimate.

* Although they made a peace accord to hold elections later this year, the protesters immediately violated the agreement and installed a pro-western government.

* Crimea and portions of Eastern Ukraine are majority ethnic Russian or majority Russian language speaking.

* The ousted president of Ukraine and the elected officials of Crimea have formally requested military protection from Russia.

* Any conflict or civil war in Ukraine would have spill over effects into Russia which shares a border with the Ukraine and is its largest trade partner.

* People in Crimea and portions of eastern Ukraine fear reprisals and/or ethnic violence from the "ultra-nationalists" and "neo-nazis" who overthrew the president of Ukraine.

* Crimea was a part of Russia for the vast majority of history and reverted back to Ukraine only in 1954.

* Military units of Ukraine are defected to Russia.

* The US/EU fomented the tensions which resulted in the overthrow of the president of Ukraine.

* The US/EU has intervene in far away lands for far more spurious reasons than Russian's current military intervention in Ukraine, e.g. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia, etc.

* The US would almost certainly feel entitled to intervene if the situation were reversed. What if a nation on our border overthrew the democratically elected government and that overthrow was fomented by communists? What if half that country was made up of American expatriates? What if those Americans feared violence by the overthrowers?

Looking objectively, we're pretty hypocritical. Russia looks more justified in Ukraine than we've been in many of our military interventions.

Jugnaut Wrote:Looking objectively, we're pretty hypocritical. Russia looks more justified in Ukraine than we've been in many of our military interventions.

Yeah, but American Exceptionalism™.

(03-03-2014 06:34 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Let's look at this from the Russian perspective:

* Ukraine's new pro-western government is made up of protesters who overthrew the democratically elected president of the country. The new government is not elected and is not legitimate. THE ACTIONS OF YANUKOVICH AND HIS CORRUPTION WERE GROUNDS FOR THE ELECTED PARLIAMENT OF UKRAINE TO REMOVE HIM, WHICH THEY DID.

* Although they made a peace accord to hold elections later this year, the protesters immediately violated the agreement and installed a pro-western government. THERE HAS TO BE A GOVERNMENT.

* Crimea and portions of Eastern Ukraine are majority ethnic Russian or majority Russian language speaking. TRUE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN ZERO ACTIONS AGAINST THAT POPULATION. AND MANY RUSSIAN SPEAKING UKRANIANS DO NOT WISH TO BE A PART OF PUTIN'S RUSSIA.

* The ousted president of Ukraine and the elected officials of Crimea have formally requested military protection from Russia. UNDER DURESS FROM RUSSIA AND AFTER THE FACT. IN YANUKOVICH'S CASE, HE'S UNDER CRIMINAL SANCTION FROM THE PARLIAMENT

* Any conflict or civil war in Ukraine would have spill over effects into Russia which shares a border with the Ukraine and is its largest trade partner. TRUE BUT NO CIVIL WAR EXISTS NOR WAS ONE THREATENED

* People in Crimea and portions of eastern Ukraine fear reprisals and/or ethnic violence from the "ultra-nationalists" and "neo-nazis" who overthrew the president of Ukraine. THE DECISION TO PIVOT TOWARDS THE EU WOULD ENSURE THAT ANY NEW UKRAINE WOULD BE MUCH MORE FREE AND TOLERANT THAN YANUKOVICH'S REGIME

* Crimea was a part of Russia for the vast majority of history and reverted back to Ukraine only in 1954. IRRELEVANT

* Military units of Ukraine are defected to Russia. AT THE POINT OF A GUN

* The US/EU fomented the tensions which resulted in the overthrow of the president of Ukraine. TOTAL FABRICATION. THE GENESIS OF THE TENSIONS WAS THE TOTAL DISGUST OF THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE WITH YANUKOVICH.

* The US/EU has intervene in far away lands for far more spurious reasons than Russian's current military intervention in Ukraine, e.g. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia, etc. LIBYA WAS TO PROTECT PEOPLE BEING FIRED UPON BY A REGIME ENGAGED IN TERRORIST BEHAVIOR, HUSSEIN GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE, MALI ENGAGED IN TERRORIST VIOLENCE, SOMALIA HAD NO GOVERNMENT. NOTHING IN UKRAINE CAME REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE SITUATION IN ANY OF THOSE NATIONS. THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT WAS DOING NOTHING MORE THAN TRYING TO SET UP ELECTIONS IN MAY.

* The US would almost certainly feel entitled to intervene if the situation were reversed. What if a nation on our border overthrew the democratically elected government and that overthrow was fomented by communists? What if half that country was made up of American expatriates? What if those Americans feared violence by the overthrowers? WE DIDN'T OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT WHEN YANUKOVICH ENGINEERED A FRAUDULENT ELECTION AND THEN JAILED HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. NO ONE WAS SUPPORTING YANUKOVICH WHEN HE WAS OVERTHROWN. NO ONE.

Looking objectively, we're pretty hypocritical. Russia looks more justified in Ukraine than we've been in many of our military interventions. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

See my comments in ALL CAPS.

(03-03-2014 06:34 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Let's look at this from the Russian perspective:

* Ukraine's new pro-western government is made up of protesters who overthrew the democratically elected president of the country. The new government is not elected and is not legitimate.

* Although they made a peace accord to hold elections later this year, the protesters immediately violated the agreement and installed a pro-western government.

* Crimea and portions of Eastern Ukraine are majority ethnic Russian or majority Russian language speaking.

* The ousted president of Ukraine and the elected officials of Crimea have formally requested military protection from Russia.

* Any conflict or civil war in Ukraine would have spill over effects into Russia which shares a border with the Ukraine and is its largest trade partner.

* People in Crimea and portions of eastern Ukraine fear reprisals and/or ethnic violence from the "ultra-nationalists" and "neo-nazis" who overthrew the president of Ukraine.

* Crimea was a part of Russia for the vast majority of history and reverted back to Ukraine only in 1954.

* Military units of Ukraine are defected to Russia.

* The US/EU fomented the tensions which resulted in the overthrow of the president of Ukraine.

* The US/EU has intervene in far away lands for far more spurious reasons than Russian's current military intervention in Ukraine, e.g. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Somalia, etc.

* The US would almost certainly feel entitled to intervene if the situation were reversed. What if a nation on our border overthrew the democratically elected government and that overthrow was fomented by communists? What if half that country was made up of American expatriates? What if those Americans feared violence by the overthrowers?

Looking objectively, we're pretty hypocritical. Russia looks more justified in Ukraine than we've been in many of our military interventions.

We have done and will continue to do interventions as you call them. This is an occupation at best, a simple good ol' fashioned invasion and conquer at worst.

We've not claimed those Countries as our own, that is the likely outcome or purpose here.

Crimea only has a Russian majority population because Stalin kicked the original inhabitants out, and settled Russians in their place.

Stalin did that to many geographically sensitive areas, which is why you have Russian speaking populations scattered throughout the old Soviet Union. As much as they tried to pretend the USSR was a union of equal states, in reality, it was a Russian Empire.

you've been trying various means of justifying this russian adventure since it started. what would be cool would be if you admitted why.

(03-03-2014 06:34 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  * Crimea was a part of Russia for the vast majority of history and reverted back to Ukraine only in 1954.

Historically, Ukraine did not exist as a country distinct from Poland or Russia until probably after the world wars. Crimea was under Ottoman control for a good part of its history. All of this does bring to a point that the nation state is still a fairly young entity in the context of world history and Americans are spoiled in terms of the concept of stable borders. And, as noted, all of this is complicated by ethnic cleansing.