Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[thief of fire]

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

Well that kinda undermines his arguments doesn't it?

No It shows how people who live pampered lives in NZ have no idea. They like to be armchair critics and watch the all blacks now and again and moan about how others are such hypocrites.

 

[thief of fire]

That would make thief's position itself hypocritical, because he condemns an action when the US does it, but not when Russia does it. It would also mean that all the many many arguments advanced against Kosovo would equally apply against Russia, and so Russia's actions would still be wrong.

well. Here we have it. The simplistic logic of the pampered declining west. Earning enough money at the bank? Is life comfy enough?
Russia is "wrong" because technically one can make a legal case they are hypocrites.

But what mature person really lives their life this way? Do you? Do you shrink back when you think some action needs to be taken for fear that someone might disagree?

I repeat, we don't see bloodshed in Crimea. But we do where your country is involved. Yet where England is killing civilians in foreign countries you don't have much to say. Do you? Why is that?

 

[Togo]

That would make thief's position itself hypocritical, because he condemns an action when the US does it, but not when Russia does it. It would also mean that all the many many arguments advanced against Kosovo would equally apply against Russia, and so Russia's actions would still be wrong.

well. Here we have it. The simplistic logic of the pampered declining west. Earning enough money at the bank? Is life comfy enough?
Russia is "wrong" because technically one can make a legal case they are hypocrites.

No, Russia is wrong (in part) because annexing territory belonging to other countries is wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either you (and Russia) are wrong over Kosovo, or you (and Russia) are wrong over the Crimea.

So which is it?

I repeat, we don't see bloodshed in Crimea.

Is there bloodshed in Kiev?

But we do where your country is involved. Yet where England is killing civilians in foreign countries you don't have much to say. Do you? Why is that?

I've always said a great deal about the subject.

Are you trying to attack me because you can't defend your own position?

 

[J842P]

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

Well that kinda undermines his arguments doesn't it?

It undermines his original "Legal precedent" argument for the legitimacy of the Russian annexation, given that according to Russias position on the precedent their annexation of Crimea was illegal
And it clearly speaks to Russias character that they are willing to oppose the independance of Kosovo and yet use them to justify their Annexation of Crimea (Hardly the shining paragons Theif wishes us to believe Russia is)

It might speak to Russia's character, but it certainly doesn't undermine any argument Russia has made in the past. That isn't how hypocrisy works. And that certainly isn't how precedence-based justification works either.

 

[J842P]

Did Russia use Kosovo as a precedent for the actions in Crimea?

If Yes, then Russias opposition to the precedent set in Kosovo makes them hypocrites when applying it here given that they oppose the precedent
If No, then Kosovo is not relevant and your argument was pointless

How could you possibly expect to get a handle on the Crimean annexation without considering these elements??

Because I am arguing against a specific case

So you can ignore the context of this specific case because you are arguing against this very same specific case? Huh?

Do I need to argue about events that seem to have no impact on other elements?
Events that do not change Russias stance on Kosovo as a precedent or their use of it in Crimea

You need to read what Putin and Russia actually said before you claim this. The thing that is obvious is that you don't know enough to form anything but a superficial opinion. You already admitted you know nothing of Kosovo. It's clear you have not read what Putin and Russia said, yet you can't wait to form a judgement.

Then please share this wisdom
If you believe that indeed Russias actions and applications of the precedent work then why not share it?

If you believe that I have missed relevant information then please share that information so that I may correct my arguments

What does any hypocrisy matter? Let us suppose I am arguing theif's position - yeah Russia is acting hypocritically. So what?

That would make thief's position itself hypocritical, because he condemns an action when the US does it, but not when Russia does it. It would also mean that all the many many arguments advanced against Kosovo would equally apply against Russia, and so Russia's actions would still be wrong.

Not in the context of a precedence based justification.

Suppose we are playing a ball game between three player: Joe, Ivan, and Elizabeth.

Ivan says "I don't think we should be allowed to use a forward pass in this game because of reasons x,y,z."

But then, Joe and Elizabeth disagree, and since they out-vote Ivan, the game is played with forward passes.

The next day, they play the game based on the rules established by precedence. Would Ivan be hypocritical in using the forward pass? Would Ivan's arguments x,y,z be somehow undermined?

I would say that Ivan's arguments against the forward pass might still apply, but he is nevertheless justified by precedence to use the forward pass.

I would go further and say that Ivan isn't even being hypocritical. Indeed, he would be a fool to not use the forward pass since he is playing a game where Joe and William have already established that a forward pass can be used.

 

[thief of fire]

well. Here we have it. The simplistic logic of the pampered declining west. Earning enough money at the bank? Is life comfy enough?
Russia is "wrong" because technically one can make a legal case they are hypocrites.

No, Russia is wrong (in part) because annexing territory belonging to other countries is wrong.

No it's not wrong if the people ask for it. Or if people are being persecuted by an illegitimate bunch of thugs.

I repeat, we don't see bloodshed in Crimea.

Is there bloodshed in Kiev?

There has been yes. And through much of the country outside Kiev too.

 

[barbos]

it was West/US

An interesting point it that the pro-Russian posters keep trying to paint this as USA vs Russia, or sometimes EU+USA vs Russia
But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it
In fact there are ALOT more countries many of which are not EU or USA that reject Russias claims over Crimea
And there are few countries that actually do support Russia, with those not condemning them, also not supporting them either (Neutral)

So why is it that despite Russia painting this as USA/EU going against them, there is large support from outside those areas? and why is it that Russia has almost no international support for their claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Stances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

Crimeans don't give a fuck about these countries. They voted to end illegal annexation by Ukraine and went back to Russia.

 

[thief of fire]

it was West/US

An interesting point it that the pro-Russian posters keep trying to paint this as USA vs Russia, or sometimes EU+USA vs Russia

As I explained here, this whole thing is largely about America pursuing it stated aims of "no rivals" (although Ukraine being the key to Russia's gas exports is important too).. many countries are just followers of the USA they do what they are told to do. Russia doesn't do what it is told.
Russia with so many nuclear warheads is potentially a threat to the USA. America is trying to surround Russia with military bases in order to neutralize any threat to the USA (never mind that most of Europe is within range of Russia's cruise missiles).
What the USA is doing with its coup in Kiev and continued attacks on Russia is dangerous for the entire world,as Russia is not going to give up it's naval bases (and neither should it). As Putin said.

“We stand against having a military organization meddling in our backyard, next to our homeland or in the territories that are historically ours. I just cannot imagine visiting NATO sailors in Sevastopol,” he stressed. “Most of them are fine lads, by the way. But rather let them visit us in Sevastopol than the other way around.”

I think that those governing America just have to accept that the unipolar world they have enjoyed is ebbing away.

 

[barbos]

Interesting thing to note is Georgia.
US attempts to undermine Russia using Georgia for the most part failed.
Yes, Georgians want South Ossetia and Abkhasia (which was gifted to Georgia by Stalin who was georgian, Khrushev who gifted Crimea to Ukraine was Ukrainian by the way, make your own inferences) back but they realize now that chances are slim after what US-backed Saakashvili did. They even realize that they can't continue to piss into the wind regarding Russia and need to normalize relations. Saakashvili himself is under bunch of criminal investigations ranging from embezzlement and illegal takeover of TV stations to political corruption and suppression of opposition. And rumors are, US is not too keen to provide former president political asylum, there is way too much shit on Saakashvili. Bottom line, regardless of whether or not it's fair/right Russia is closer to Georgia (and Ukraine) than US.

Now about Ukraine, they now indirectly admit that some of their forces lost control (as if they ever had) and are responsible for violation of cease fire agreement and specifically for killing red cross guy.
Speaking of which, one of their politicians/commanders (Lyashko who is very colorful individual, open closet gay with criminal history, not that anything wrong with it) has a feud with Kolomosky and openly threatens to kill him.
Kolomoisky himself has a 3 passports, which is illegal for government critters in Ukraine.
Right Sector started campaign of civilian lustration, basically lynching. In reality of course it is politicians pay these groups to lynch their opponents. There is a legal lustration too, which is hilarious considering that it comes from the government which legal status is pretty shaky whereas previous government despite its corruption and such was democratically elected. These idiots don't understand that they themselves now will be lustrated for sure when people get fed up with them. Another funny thing is criminal charges/investigations against ALL former ministers of defense, they blame them ALL for the state of Ukrainian armed forces
It's a freaking circus over there.

 

[Duke Leto]

I'm officially filed under "Don't Care" in this fight because while I think the Russophiles' ardent denials that there is anything wrong with Russia's behavior are ludicrous, I'm also sure that the Ukraine entering the Euro would be the worst thing that could happen to its citizens in the medium term.

I just want to ask why on Earth anyone is still engaging the Russophiles after 37 pages of this stuff. It's completely obvious that you are not going to get an honest debate, so why bother?

That is all.

 

[barbos]

I like Obama, he means well. But he, to put it mildly, is incompetent in foreign affairs, which is not that uncommon among US presidents and public in general. So actual problem is Obama's advisers and such, it appears he surrounded himself with even more incompetent people than himself. That former ambassador to Russia who thought it would be a great idea to first meet russian opposition leaders and then go to meet russian president

 

[angelo]

Ukraine is a basket case anyway as are many Eastern European states. It Needs billions of Euros in aid immediately. Why on earth would anybody want to take on that enormous burden?

 

[Daioh]

It might speak to Russia's character, but it certainly doesn't undermine any argument Russia has made in the past.

So Russia didn't (and doesn't) reject Kosovos independance, while arguing Crimeas was perfectly fine? (And Russia used Kosovo as an example according to them they are similar enough to each other)

they play the game based on the rules established by precedence. Would Ivan be hypocritical in using the forward pass? Would Ivan's arguments x,y,z be somehow undermined?

Yes Ivan would be a hypocrite and his arguments undermined
Because Ivan didn't just disagree about the ruling at the time then accept it and play the game, he pouted and complained and refused to be budged on the issue stating his opposition to the forward pass throughout the game
Then the second he benefitted from it he breaks all the arguments (X,Y,Z) to do a forward pass, claiming that it is perfectly ok when he did it

I would say that Ivan's arguments against the forward pass might still apply, but he is nevertheless justified by precedence to use the forward pass.

But according to Ivans own statements he isn't
How does Ivan account for his own dissent to the rule?

I would go further and say that Ivan isn't even being hypocritical.

Given that Ivan was strongly oppsed to the ruling then yes he is very much hypocritical
"Hypocrisy... is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

 

[dystopian]

Not in the context of a precedence based justification.

Ignoring that the "precedent" being talked about here (Kosovo); really isn't analogous to Crimea at all, and doesn't serve as a suitable precedent based justification.

 

[dystopian]

I'm also sure that the Ukraine entering the Euro would be the worst thing that could happen to its citizens in the medium term.

Assuming Putin doesn't go apeshit over such a thing; I don't see how one could possibly think Ukraine entering the Euro (which wouldn't happen anyway, joining the EU and joining the Euro are two separate things) would be the worst thing that could happen to its citizens, in either the short, medium, or long term. Besides, there was never any consideration of them joining the EU (or the Euro) from one day to the next; just having them move closer to the EU; which would then allow for a possible membership at some point in the future (the road to which would undoubtedly be paved with meeting various requirements which, if met, would make the transition as painless as possible)

I just want to ask why on Earth anyone is still engaging the Russophiles after 37 pages of this stuff. It's completely obvious that you are not going to get an honest debate, so why bother?

The same reason we keep debating creationists and the like; blatant falsehoods need to be addressed every time they appear, or else we run the risk of having those falsehoods become accepted by more than just the lunatic fringe.

 

[angelo]

Keep Telling a lie until it becomes the truth.

 

[Togo]

No, Russia is wrong (in part) because annexing territory belonging to other countries is wrong.

No it's not wrong if the people ask for it.

Which is precisely why people complain about the conduct of a snap referendum by an invading army.

Or if people are being persecuted by an illegitimate bunch of thugs.

The Russian army are legitimate thugs?

An interesting point it that the pro-Russian posters keep trying to paint this as USA vs Russia, or sometimes EU+USA vs Russia
But if you look at the votes, there are more countries that reject Russias claims over Crimea then support it
In fact there are ALOT more countries many of which are not EU or USA that reject Russias claims over Crimea
And there are few countries that actually do support Russia, with those not condemning them, also not supporting them either (Neutral)

So why is it that despite Russia painting this as USA/EU going against them, there is large support from outside those areas? and why is it that Russia has almost no international support for their claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Stances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

Crimeans don't give a fuck about these countries. They voted to end illegal annexation by Ukraine and went back to Russia.

So the Russian army tells us. By a very impressive margin too - 97.45%

So irrespective of what you may feel about Russian speakers in Crimea, the Russian army is telling us that non-native speakers, including ethnic groups like the Crimean Tartars who have a very poor history of persecution with Russia, still overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.

We know it must be true, because that's what we've been told by the guys with guns. And who knows more about democracy than the Russian Army?

I just want to ask why on Earth anyone is still engaging the Russophiles after 37 pages of this stuff. It's completely obvious that you are not going to get an honest debate, so why bother?

It's just so fascinating. Usually with these kinds of threads, the apologists for the impossible only go through one or two of standard contortions, but we're being treated to the full gamut of useless excuses. We've got:
1) Occupation by armed troops isn't an invasion
2) Ok, it was an invasion, but Crimeans must have wanted to be conquered
3) A snap referendum run by an invader must be accurate
4) Granting Kosovo independence is a precedent for any country conquering anything they want
5) But we're still going to argue that Kosovan independence was wrong, and that doesn't make us hypocrites
6) It's just a US vs. Russia thing. Ok, and the EU, and the Ukraine, and most of the rest of the world, but that doesn't matter
7) You're just all decadent americans who get lied to
8) Ok, and Dutch
9) Ok Dutch and Australians Well... monarchy is evil, so there!
10) Joe Biden! Joe Biden! (???)
11) Togo is a fair and balanced poster. Except that he disagrees with me, so clearly he's biased and partisan
12) The other side are evil, therefore we're right.

and so on, and so on...

Sure these are all familiar sorts of points. It's hard to go through many of these arguments without someone claiming that because you live a pampered and privileged lifestyle, invading another country must somehow be justified. But to go through all of them in the same thread? That's special.

 

[barbos]

So the Russian army tells us. By a very impressive margin too - 97.45%

So irrespective of what you may feel about Russian speakers in Crimea, the Russian army is telling us that non-native speakers, including ethnic groups like the Crimean Tartars who have a very poor history of persecution with Russia, still overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.

We have been over this.
Tatars are small minority and the ones who were against going back to Russia simply boycotted referendum.
As for the very poor history of persecution, then americans are in no position to give a lecture about that.
Not with the way you treated japanese americans.
Tatars at least had a chance and actually collaborated with nazi germany and then got persecuted.
Japanese americans did absolutely nothing to warrant persecution.

 

[Duke Leto]

Assuming Putin doesn't go apeshit over such a thing; I don't see how one could possibly think Ukraine entering the Euro (which wouldn't happen anyway, joining the EU and joining the Euro are two separate things) would be the worst thing that could happen to its citizens, in either the short, medium, or long term. Besides, there was never any consideration of them joining the EU (or the Euro) from one day to the next; just having them move closer to the EU; which would then allow for a possible membership at some point in the future (the road to which would undoubtedly be paved with meeting various requirements which, if met, would make the transition as painless as possible).

Because until Europe has a genuine Fiscal Union the Monetary Union is an economic deathtrap for smaller per capita economies (like Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, and Italy). Wealthier countries like Germany and Holland will tend to have larger per capita savings and less investment opportunities, smaller economies the opposite. Credit will flow into the poorer countries and a permanent current account deficit will accrue to the richer countries. Worst of all, the citizens of the rich countries will conclude that this rigged game is indicative of their virtue and the poor countries' vice. That's the actual cause of the Eurozone financial crisis.

If Ukraine joins the Euro, it may have an initial boom for a few years, but as soon as the next credit crunch hits it'll be 20% unemployment just like Spain and Greece.

 

[Togo]

So the Russian army tells us. By a very impressive margin too - 97.45%

So irrespective of what you may feel about Russian speakers in Crimea, the Russian army is telling us that non-native speakers, including ethnic groups like the Crimean Tartars who have a very poor history of persecution with Russia, still overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.

We have been over this.

Oh, I didn't realise. Can you just post what you put last time about why the result was 97.45% in favour in a supposedly fair and balanced referendum?

Tatars are small minority

12%. According to the referendum results, only 2.5% didn't vote in favour. So that's 9.5% voting in favour, according to the Russian Army.

Then there is ethnic Ukrainians at just under 25%. So combined we have at least 37% of the population with no particular tie to Russia, voting overwhelmingly 34.5% vs 2.5% to be annexed by Russia. Or so the Russian army says.

So, that's 3) and 7). Any more?