War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Statistical

This is intentional word choice. Nobody uses terminology like that to refer to a foreign country not even an adversary.

This is to play up to the Russian population that Ukraine isn't a nation. Russia can't invade Ukraine is in this false 1984 style rewrite history the Ukraine is simply already part of Russia.

There is no point to use language like that unless your intention is annexing and it won't end with these two provinces. Maybe there will be a quiet period but it will start up again. I mean we saw the same apologists making rationalizations about Crimea and how after that obviously Russia isn't going to invade or annex more territory and here we are again.

Before Crimea it was Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has been playing this game a long time. Like the saying how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Sanctions at this point should be kicking Russia out of SWIFT. Russian banks can't move funds to any non-Russian bank. Let Russia start paying for stuff by having to haul gold bars around the world.

Correct. Putin is trying to justify invading a sovereign country by claiming it was never really a country, and oh, those areas were already Russian. This isn't different from the playbook Hitler used in the 1930s.

As far as sanctions, I think the international community is hoping to use them as an incentive for Putin not to invade the rest of the country.

The way Putin is talking, I'll be surprised if he doesn't do a full invasion. He's still in the driver's seat.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I didnt' forget about Abu Graib. I knew someone would bring it up. It's a fair question.

In Russia, party leaders torture their political opponents, almost as a rule.

The incidents in Abu Graib were absolutely against U.S. and international law. The targets were also accused terrorists, not people who spoke out against the party in power.

The incidents in Abu Graib were also against our law, and were dealt with in the legal system. From wiki:

In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service.

Two soldiers, found to have perpetrated many of the worst offenses at the prison, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were subject to more severe charges and received harsher sentences. Graner was convicted of assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty; he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and loss of rank, pay and benefits.[8] England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act and sentenced to three years in prison.

Sure all that stuff is wrong.

Still doesn't mean we should let Putin slide for killing thousands of people, and invading other countries.

It's not the moral equivalence some folks are pretending.

Only because their stupidity got them caught out.. I'm pretty sure their superiors were aware of what was going on.. as to their status I believe it was 'alleged terrorists', like those held in Gitmo for years without charge.
As for this..
Still doesn't mean we should let Putin slide for killing thousands of people, and invading other countries.

It's not the moral equivalence some folks are pretending.


Once again.. Pot, Kettle, Black..

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Only because their stupidity got them caught out.. I'm pretty sure their superiors were aware of what was going on.. as to their status I believe it was 'alleged terrorists', like those held in Gitmo for years without charge.
As for this..
Still doesn't mean we should let Putin slide for killing thousands of people, and invading other countries.

It's not the moral equivalence some folks are pretending.


Once again.. Pot, Kettle, Black..

My experience is that you’re “pretty sure” about many things that have no basis in reality. [emoji3]

I think Walter Sobcheck said it best: You’re out of your element.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I'm going to guess that the U.S. made investments to counter Russia's moves to install a puppet government. Which is what Russia they did in Belarus..

The Russians didn't install Lukashenko in Belarus. He's been around since Soviet times, first as a Deputy to the Belarussian Supreme Soviet, then as the popular head of the anti-corruption committee of the country. He was elected president in 1994 before the Russians even sorted their own constitution out and had bigger fish to fry than their neighbors. Lukashenko was wildly popular as an effective fighter of corruption, and was honestly elected. The Russians had nothing to do with it.

And what "moves to install a puppet government" in Ukraine? Before the coup, Ukraine had swung back and forth between Russianizing presidents and westernizing ones. The president our coup overthrew, Yanukovich, was widely popular and was elected in a reasonably honest election. The Russians did not interfere in other elections which elected westernizers like Yushenko in 2004.

And they certainly never engineered a coup like we do.

So your guess would be wrong.

What give us the right to overthrow governments of other countries, anyway? We must surely hold the world's record for engineering coups to overthrow governments we don't like in other countries. This article makes chilling reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Russians didn't install Lukashenko in Belarus. He's been around since Soviet times, first as a Deputy to the Belarussian Supreme Soviet, then as the popular head of the anti-corruption committee of the country. He was elected president in 1994 before the Russians even sorted their own constitution out and had bigger fish to fry than their neighbors. Lukashenko was wildly popular as an effective fighter of corruption, and was honestly elected. The Russians had nothing to do with it.

And what "moves to install a puppet government" in Ukraine? Before the coup, Ukraine had swung back and forth between Russianizing presidents and westernizing ones. The president our coup overthrew, Yanukovich, was widely popular and was elected in a reasonably honest election. The Russians did not interfere in other elections which elected westernizers like Yushenko in 2004.

And they certainly never engineered a coup like we do.

So your guess would be wrong.

What give us the right to overthrow governments of other countries, anyway? We must surely hold the world's record for engineering coups to overthrow governments we don't like in other countries. This article makes chilling reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

So I opposed both Iraq wars, our presence in Afghanistan, the many times we toppled both dictatorships and democracies in south and Central America — all of it. It was bad policy. Especially our behavior post 9/11. Real bull in a China shop stuff.

It destroyed our claim to any moral high ground, which has been the most costly downside to all these interventions.

By the same token, I denounce the Russian aggression here. I guess my question to you is: were some of the American actions OK? Because you seem to be using them as a reason to justify the Russian actions.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

My experience is that you’re “pretty sure” about many things that have no basis in reality. [emoji3]

I think Walter Sobcheck said it best: You’re out of your element.

How would you even begin to know what my element is..
As for the rest.. look around the world and past history.
As to your question to DH.. it may not justify his actions right now but it sure as hell justifies his deep distrust.
I believe he's just signed a 30yr gas contract with Xi of China.. so that's Russian income secured and the EU stuffed.. CHECK.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

My experience is that you’re “pretty sure” about many things that have no basis in reality. [emoji3]

I think Walter Sobcheck said it best: You’re out of your element.

I don't think he is, actually.


Abu Ghraib is a small part of the picture, and it demonstrably goes all the way to the top, just like Boatie said. Certainly organizations like Amnesty International agree with Boatie, and there is plenty of documentary evidence.


Documentary evidence of official policy on "enhanced interrogation", i.e. torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos It is not credibly disputable that torture was widely practiced and officially sanctioned by U.S. forces.


I think we've had a good debate about it since and have walked back from this, but like the case of the Ukrainians and their odious "freedom fighters" in WWII, this is part of our history now which we have to take ownership of and deal with so we never do it again.


Not saying a little waterboarding is equivalent to Babi Yar, but still.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

So I opposed both Iraq wars, our presence in Afghanistan, the many times we toppled both dictatorships and democracies in south and Central America — all of it. It was bad policy. Especially our behavior post 9/11. Real bull in a China shop stuff.

It destroyed our claim to any moral high ground, which has been the most costly downside to all these interventions.

By the same token, I denounce the Russian aggression here. I guess my question to you is: were some of the American actions OK? Because you seem to be using them as a reason to justify the Russian actions.

You and I are in complete agreement, actually.

Why is it so hard to understand that explaining is not the same as justifying? Of COURSE the Russians are wrong. I wrote it only about a thousand times in this thread.

Talking about our own villainy in Ukraine in NO WAY justifies the Russians doing their own villainy. It EXPLAINS WHY, they have the positions they do, and make the decision they do, that's all.

For the record, I categorically condemn Russian military action in Ukraine, like any reasonable person does. It's barbaric. And I know a lot of people in Russia, and not a single Russian I've talked with during the last week or so feels any different from me. They think it's both wrong, AND a bad idea. They are as horrified or more horrified than I am, that this is happening.

But I also condemn what we did in Ukraine, which was breathtakingly craven and which led INEVITABLY to this reaction from the Russians. We need to own up to this, stop believing our own propaganda, and stop letting apparatchiki like Nuland and Elliot Abrams make policy which is so harmful to American interests, not to mention to the "little peoples" like the Ukrainians, who get thrown under the bus as a result of our scheming.

Is that clear enough now?

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You and I are in complete agreement, actually.

Why is it so hard to understand that explaining is not the same as justifying? Of COURSE the Russians are wrong. I wrote it only about a thousand times in this thread.

Talking about our own villainy in Ukraine in NO WAY justifies the Russians doing their own villainy. It EXPLAINS WHY, they have the positions they do, and make the decision they do, that's all.

For the record, I categorically condemn Russian military action in Ukraine, like any reasonable person does. It's barbaric. And I know a lot of people in Russia, and not a single Russian I've talked with during the last week or so feels any different from me. They think it's both wrong, AND a bad idea. They are as horrified or more horrified than I am, that this is happening.

But I also condemn what we did in Ukraine, which was breathtakingly craven and which led INEVITABLY to this reaction from the Russians. We need to own up to this, stop believing our own propaganda, and stop letting apparatchiki like Nuland and Elliot Abrams make policy which is so harmful to American interests, not to mention to the "little peoples" like the Ukrainians, who get thrown under the bus as a result of our scheming.

Is that clear enough now?

Crystal.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You and I are in complete agreement, actually.

Why is it so hard to understand that explaining is not the same as justifying? Of COURSE the Russians are wrong. I wrote it only about a thousand times in this thread.

Talking about our own villainy in Ukraine in NO WAY justifies the Russians doing their own villainy. It EXPLAINS WHY, they have the positions they do, and make the decision they do, that's all.

For the record, I categorically condemn Russian military action in Ukraine, like any reasonable person does. It's barbaric. And I know a lot of people in Russia, and not a single Russian I've talked with during the last week or so feels any different from me. They think it's both wrong, AND a bad idea. They are as horrified or more horrified than I am, that this is happening.

But I also condemn what we did in Ukraine, which was breathtakingly craven and which led INEVITABLY to this reaction from the Russians. We need to own up to this, stop believing our own propaganda, and stop letting apparatchiki like Nuland and Elliot Abrams make policy which is so harmful to American interests, not to mention to the "little peoples" like the Ukrainians, who get thrown under the bus as a result of our scheming.

Is that clear enough now?

You're drawing a moral equivalence that just isn't there. The terms you use betray your argument. Terms like "our villainy" or "breathtakingly craven" overplay your hand. Sure we invest in democracies. Does it rise to the level of inserting a puppet government? This I'm less convinced of. Is the current government a puppet government? I see no evidence of that.

Yes, you're attempting to justify what the Russians are doing. And yes, you're attempting to paint the U.S. as the bullies. Using the term "explaining" vs "justifying" is a distinction without a difference.

It's Russia who is breaking international law by invading another sovereign country.

You're very knowledgeable about the topic, but you're also completely characterizing this from a very, VERY myopic perspective, and disregarding any facts that are inconvenient to Putin's perspective.

We get it. It's complex geopolitics. This in no way justifies what Russia is doing, and doesn't make the U.S. responsible for their actions.

This isn't little old Russia, just trying to preserve her safety. Their back is in no way against a wall. This is Russia doing a land grab, and attempting to increase it's political power. This wasn't inevitable. Russia has a choice.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And what "moves to install a puppet government" in Ukraine? Before the coup, Ukraine had swung back and forth between Russianizing presidents and westernizing ones. The president our coup overthrew, Yanukovich, was widely popular and was elected in a reasonably honest election. The Russians did not interfere in other elections which elected westernizers like Yushenko in 2004.

And they certainly never engineered a coup like we do.

Are you suggesting that the Russians don't interfere with elections and politics in other countries?

For a knowledgeable guy, you have a huge blind spot where the Russians are concerned.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You're drawing a moral equivalence that just isn't there. The terms you use betray your argument. Terms like "our villainy" or "breathtakingly craven" overplay your hand. Sure we invest in democracies. Does it rise to the level of inserting a puppet government? This I'm less convinced of. Is the current government a puppet government? I see no evidence of that.

Yes, you're attempting to justify what the Russians are doing. And yes, you're attempting to paint the U.S. as the bullies. Using the term "explaining" vs "justifying" is a distinction without a difference.

It's Russia who is breaking international law by invading another sovereign country.

You're very knowledgeable about the topic, but you're also completely characterizing this from a very, VERY myopic perspective, and disregarding any facts that are inconvenient to Putin's perspective.

We get it. It's complex geopolitics. This in no way justifies what Russia is doing, and doesn't make the U.S. responsible for their actions.

This isn't little old Russia, just trying to preserve her safety. Their back is in no way against a wall. This is Russia doing a land grab, and attempting to increase it's political power.

International law is a contradiction.
In the sense there can be no "international" law as long as there are sovereign nation states around and with sovereign nation states around powerful enough to ignore them. Each country has its own laws.

You could get some countries together to agree to certain laws that should apply to all of them, laws that are outside of their own national laws, all of which will be different.

However.
Any country that has not agreed to those laws are under no obligation to follow them, neither do those laws apply to them because they have not signed any agreement.

For the time being the United States, Russia and China are powerful enough to prevent lesser countries(s) to impose agreed upon "international" law.

They can pretty much throw their weight around, which Russia is doing right now in Ukraine and I believe China is busy doing in the South China Sea.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You're drawing a moral equivalence that just isn't there.

Sorry, there's geopolitical mud aplenty on both sides. No side is discernably cleaner in that arena.

You're struggling to establish a moral high ground that isn't there. And it isn't useful, even if it existed. No amount of moral outrage on your part will change things. It's naive and not helpful to keep beating that drum.

It would be best for everyone to just focus on the realities, and on ways to absolutely minimize the real harm that is imminent.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

International law is a contradiction.
In the sense there can be no "international" law as long as there are sovereign nation states around and with sovereign nation states around powerful enough to ignore them. Each country has its own laws.

You could get some countries together to agree to certain laws that should apply to all of them, laws that are outside of their own national laws, all of which will be different.

However.
Any country that has not agreed to those laws are under no obligation to follow them, neither do those laws apply to them because they have not signed any agreement.

For the time being the United States, Russia and China are powerful enough to prevent lesser countries(s) to impose agreed upon "international" law.

They can pretty much throw their weight around, which Russia is doing right now in Ukraine and I believe China is busy doing in the South China Sea.

There is international law. Russia is a member of the UN. Further, they've already agreed to the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum.

But you have a point. International law is only as valid as your ability to enforce it. The goal of the UN is to have a community of nations who can enforce international norms as a collective. Clearly, it has it's limits.

With the entrance of Ukraine into the international order as a non-nuclear state, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. pledged to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The memo reaffirmed their obligation to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” The signatories also reaffirmed their commitment to “seek immediate” UN Security Council action “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.” These assurances upheld obligations contained in the U.N. charter and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Ukraine, in turn, gave up the nuclear weapons within its borders, sending them to Russia for dismantling.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, there's geopolitical mud aplenty on both sides. No side is discernably cleaner in that arena.

You're struggling to establish a moral high ground that isn't there. And it isn't useful, even if it existed. No amount of moral outrage on your part will change things. It's naive and not helpful to keep beating that drum.

It would be best for everyone to just focus on the realities, and on ways to absolutely minimize the real harm that is imminent.

I'm saying I disagree with Dockhead. He's pretending there is a moral equivalence between investment in a country and military invasion. He's also bandying about some accusations, some valid, and some unsupported.

He's further claiming that Russia's back is against the wall regarding it's security. It's not. Nobody is threatening to invade Russia.

The United State's primary interest here isn't to threaten Russia. It's to ensure the sovereignty of the Ukraine, and to protect Europe.

Yes, there is a difference. Which is why your country today imposed sanctions on Russia.

I'm not pretending the U.S. is perfect, or that I agree with everything they do. But none of this justifies Russia invading the Ukraine. And if you think it does, you're the one being naive.