Counter arguments to Russian apologists

[ML]

I am going to a meeting tonight at local university where a presentation/discussion will have as topic the current Ukraine - Russian situation.

The event was first promoted by a Professor who is ethnic Russian.
So I fully expect he will be telling only one side of the story.

Unless others who are much more expert than I will present the Ukrainian side - - - then I will do it the best I can.

Points I am going to make:

1) If the year 2014 is the time to rearrange borders to go back to some earlier time then let's put into play:
  a) Kaliningrad
  b) Kuril Islands

2) If the year 2014 is the time to allow votes to attain independence and create new (or recreate old) countries, republics, etc., then let's put into play:
  a) Dagestan
  b) Chechnya
  c) Karelia

Is this true:

“Russian criminal law doesn't recognize any right of the Russian citizens to voice their simple opinion in favor of independence of their regions. A peaceful call for independence from Mother Russia is a criminal act punishable by community service and/or jail time, if one transmits his pro-independence opinions using TV, newspapers, radio, the punishments are more severe - up to 5 years in prison. Anything independence related that involves arms is punishable by death without trial, since it's an act of treason.”

3) Is this true?   An acquaintance just told me: When Crimea was assigned by Kruschev to the Ukrainian Republic . . . it was a depressed area (much more so than now).  Ukraine was burdened with spending the money to develop the infrastructure for Crimea and develop the tourist industry.

4) Is this true?  At or about the same time that Crimea was assigned to Ukraine Republic, the western border of Russia Republic was moved westward into Ukrainian territory.

Short notice I know . . . but any other ideas?

[Ranetka]

Why don't you ask your Ochka? I'd imagine she knows more than people on this forum.

[dogspot]

Don't forget to tell him that he and all other Russians are "chicken shit". You know, show your true colors.

[ML]

Don't forget to tell him that he and all other Russians are "chicken shit". You know, show your true colors.

I am certainly going to say this . . . depending on how the presentation goes.  And, I won't even have to put in on my typed list to remember.

[ML]

Why don't you ask your Ochka? I'd imagine she knows more than people on this forum.

She is quite occupied in working with Ukrainian men who are recalled to military and being sent to southern areas of Ukraine.  And knowing that some of them could be killed or return home with missing arms and legs.  All thanks to a thoroughly disgusting and chicken shit Russian peoples.

[Ranetka]

[

[Jumper]

I am going to a meeting tonight at local university where a presentation/discussion will have as topic the current Ukraine - Russian situation.

The event was first promoted by a Professor who is ethnic Russian.
So I fully expect he will be telling only one side of the story.

Unless others who are much more expert than I will present the Ukrainian side - - - then I will do it the best I can.

Points I am going to make:

1) If the year 2014 is the time to rearrange borders to go back to some earlier time then let's put into play:
  a) Kaliningrad
  b) Kuril Islands

2) If the year 2014 is the time to allow votes to attain independence and create new (or recreate old) countries, republics, etc., then let's put into play:
  a) Dagestan
  b) Chechnya
  c) Karelia

Is this true:

“Russian criminal law doesn't recognize any right of the Russian citizens to voice their simple opinion in favor of independence of their regions. A peaceful call for independence from Mother Russia is a criminal act punishable by community service and/or jail time, if one transmits his pro-independence opinions using TV, newspapers, radio, the punishments are more severe - up to 5 years in prison. Anything independence related that involves arms is punishable by death without trial, since it's an act of treason.”

3) Is this true?   An acquaintance just told me: When Crimea was assigned by Kruschev to the Ukrainian Republic . . . it was a depressed area (much more so than now).  Ukraine was burdened with spending the money to develop the infrastructure for Crimea and develop the tourist industry.

4) Is this true?  At or about the same time that Crimea was assigned to Ukraine Republic, the western border of Russia Republic was moved westward into Ukrainian territory.

Short notice I know . . . but any other ideas?

Well you are running in with the assumption of his presentation, so i'd hear it out first?
That's my first idea..

A couple of points of consideration would seem to be:
1. Crimea's status, and autonmous acting gov over the years

2.Budepest 94 , UK, USA, Russia, Ukraine  and how it relates.

3.The US agreement to limit our military presence
in the Black sea to 3 warships.
Basically not using it as international waters via an *agreement*.

Only as example: If budepest 94 isn't valid internationally (which truly is debatable ) then perhaps neither is an *agreement* that the black sea isnt international waters. The Crimean ports, are useful to get to the med via istanbul..They are basically worth far less if other nations use and  patrol and use the Black sea as international water.

So do the past agreements  meet international standard or not.
Other nations can then decide to interact accordingly.
Nyet problemo.

There are far more other concerns,  and on both sides.

Those seem important for the nations involved to find agreement on. now, in 2014.

[Larry1]

ML,

You might make the comparison between the taking of Crimea under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians to Germany's taking of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia under the pretext of protecting ethnic Germans who lived there.

[ML]

I went, I listened, I very actively participated.

3 professors.  Two with Russian names.
One history prof, one political sci prof, and one an expert on Poland and perhaps eastern Europe.

I was boiling doing most of their initial presentations because they were definitely slanted toward Russian apologists.  I even interrupted a couple of times (imagine that) to point out some very easy to spot misrepresentations.  To their credit they acknowledged their wording errors and corrected.

The major big 'apologistic' slant was that 'Russia has a valid strategic interest in the Black Sea.'

But during the question and answer segment, two of them started backing off substantially from their 'pro Russian' slant.

A few points were quite telling:

One brainwashed student (I checked before and found there were 31 Russian students at the University vs 7 Ukrainian students) said:  "Since John McCain had conversations with the leaders of the Svoboda (spelling) party . . . that perhaps the USA's hands were just as dirty as were Putin's."  With incredulous look a professor replied:  "Can you seriously equate a Senator's conversation with the violation of a country's border."

Another student:  "Since USA had supported and recognized Kosovo, doesn't this justify Putin doing the same in Crimea."  Reply:  "There was mass murder taking place in Kosovo.  Nothing like that happened in Crimea."

Another student (not a Russian evidently) asked how Germany move into Sudenten to protect German ethnics compared to Russia moving into Crimea to protect ethnic Russians.

Answer:  Germany was smart in that they wanted to and did take over a heavily industrialized area that was important to their future war effort.  In the current case, Russia is taking over an area that has no industry, that is filled with old people, and that will be a huge drain on the Russian budget.

I heard something new to me.  Putin was actually assigned to St Petersburg as a KGB agent to keep tabs on the mayor who was initially thought to have westward leanings.   The relationship developed further . . . but it was initially a spying situation.

Others questioned why Russia had to carry out a rigged election since they could have gotten a 60% plus vote in favor anyway.  Answer:  In Russian folks mentality, a 50-60% vote does not project the strength they like to see.

But since any thinking person realizes a 97% vote cannot be true . . . why would Russia project this to the world.  Answer:  Russian leaders do not give a shit what the thinkers of the world thinks.  They only care what the stupid people will believe.

During Soviet times, the silly propaganda spewed forth was not intended to convince thinking people, but only to convince the stupid people who would buy into the Communist ideas.

Another student pointed out (new to me) that the Sevastopol port agreement contained provisions that Russia was allowed to have 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea.  In view of this, why did Russia feel the need to move in troops with no insignia and  claim they were actually citizens of Crimea.

Answer:  Putin was not really certain how things would turn out in his Crimea invasion, so he needed to keep the deniability of Russian troop involvement intact, in the event that the invasion went belly up.

In the wrap up commentary it was noted that everything Russia did was immoral and illegal and would lead to much misery for the Russian people down the road . . . but that Putin really had no choice but to do it because of his realistic fears of what might develop within Russia itself if he appeared to dither or be weak.  This was to damp down any smoldering ill content within Russia by sending a clear signal, as much as anything.

[GQBlues]

LOL.

Ochka must be tickled pink about how concern you are for her welfare knowing you're sitting at home writing creative posts on message boards about the evil empire while feeling sorry for yourself, while she's back out there to care for those important to her.

I bet she's feeling mighty fine about all this, no?     

[Gator]

ML,

Good report.  Its good listening to different, informed opinions.  The opinions expressed there were probably far more informed than many of the talking heads trotted out by the networks. 

Thanks.

[jone]

The Wrap-up  Commentary was spot on. 

[roykirk]

I wish I had time to get back here more because I miss discussions like this.  What can I do? The three girls in the house keep me too busy.      I keep using one particular analogy with American friends that seems to really help them understand what's going on in Ukraine.  I tell them to imagine a state like New Mexico.  In 2011 New Mexico was nearly 50% Mexican immigrants.  It very well could be more than that by now.  Now imagine that these majority of Mexican immigrants hold some sort of statewide referendum to rejoin Mexico.  After all, New Mexico used to belong to Mexico.  If the referendum passed, does anyone think that the United States would recognize it?  Would anyone in world recognize it outside of perhaps Mexico?  I know the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, but it works on a basic level.  Of course to make my analogy more correct I'd have to change it to say that Mexico sent a few tens of thousands of troops in to New Mexico to "protect" Mexicans.   

My wife and I have some wonderful discussions about this.  She entered this country as a glassy eyed Putin fan, as most are.  Now that she's seen what he's capable of from an international view, she's mortified.  We wonder how long before Putin is sending troops in to places like Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic States, etc, all to "protect" Russians who live there. 

[Muzh]

I went, I listened, I very actively participated.

3 professors.  Two with Russian names.
One history prof, one political sci prof, and one an expert on Poland and perhaps eastern Europe.

I was boiling doing most of their initial presentations because they were definitely slanted toward Russian apologists.  I even interrupted a couple of times (imagine that) to point out some very easy to spot misrepresentations.  To their credit they acknowledged their wording errors and corrected.

The major big 'apologistic' slant was that 'Russia has a valid strategic interest in the Black Sea.'

Oh, the good old days.
 

 

I know the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, but it works on a basic level. 
 

LMAO
 
The analogy doesn't fit at all. Good try though.
 
For it to fit, Ukraine would had to be an economic powerhouse with the rule of law. But sure, keep trying.
 

My wife and I have some wonderful discussions about this.  She entered this country as a glassy eyed Putin fan, as most are.  Now that she's seen what he's capable of from an international view, she's mortified.  We wonder how long before Putin is sending troops in to places like Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic States, etc, all to "protect" Russians who live there.

Tell your wife she should draw the line on Brighton Beach.

[roykirk]

Well, I do have a certain grudging level of respect for some of the Russians I've spoken to who say, "Ukraine is puny bankrupt country.  We are Russian.  We take what we want."   

[Gator]

 
The analogy doesn't fit at all. Good try though.
 
For it to fit, Ukraine would had to be an economic powerhouse with the rule of law. But sure, keep trying.
 

I understand your point, yet New Mexico is as good as it gets.  Consider its human history  (the oldest in North America - google Clovis).

Native Indians - both settled and migratory
Spanish exploration
Spanish colonization - conquest, withdrawal, reconquest
Mexican territory - state of flux during revolution for independence, subsequent political movements
Claimed by Republic of Texas
Short war between outnumbered Mexico and aggressive, conquesting US
Mexico cedes territory (incl. California) to US under gunpoint (something that still angers Mexico)
Anglo mistreating of Hispanic settlers (including seizure of land). 

The key point - legal borders, however created in the world order, need to be recognized and protected.  Russia did not recognize Ukraine's legal borders. 

[Misha]

Well, I do have a certain grudging level of respect for some of the Russians I've spoken to who say, "Ukraine is puny bankrupt country.  We are Russian.  We take what we want."   

Why? Do you believe that might makes right? If (or perhaps more precisely when) Russia suffers through another economic crisis, would it be acceptable for China, Turkey, Iran or any other country to take bits and pieces because they too can take what they want 

[jone]

I expect that China is taking plenty from Russia as we speak.

[roykirk]

Why? Do you believe that might makes right? If (or perhaps more precisely when) Russia suffers through another economic crisis, would it be acceptable for China, Turkey, Iran or any other country to take bits and pieces because they too can take what they want 

Sorry, no, that was sort of a joke.  I guess I meant that I have more respect for the person who can just admit they want what they want instead of hiding behind some BS excuse like "we need to protect Russians."  But man, Putin has that propaganda machine well oiled.  I've spoken to people who have said that "of course Putin had to invade, and he should have just marched all the way to Kiev, because Russians are being murdered in the streets for just speaking Russian!  Haven't you heard?!" 

But most Americans can't lay claim to the high moral ground either since well over half of the country jumped on board when Bush told them Iraq had WMD.  Heck, 90% of the Republican party still refuse to believe that they didn't have WMD.  Both Russia and the U.S. have their sheep.   

[cc3]

Well, I do have a certain grudging level of respect for some of the Russians I've spoken to who say, "Ukraine is puny bankrupt country.  We are Russian.  We take what we want."   

Sounds like you would have had the same grudging level of respect for Hitler and his German aggressors in 1938.

[roykirk]

Sounds like you would have had the same grudging level of respect for Hitler and his German aggressors in 1938.

Once again, it was satire, tongue in cheek, a JOKE.  боже мой!   

[cc3]

Once again, it was satire, tongue in cheek, a JOKE.  боже мой!   

When one's loved ones live in the eastern Ukraine danger zone (Luhansk), it's difficult to appreciate your attempt at humor.

[2tallbill]

LOL.

Ochka must be tickled pink about how concern you are for her welfare knowing you're sitting at home writing creative posts on message boards about the evil empire while feeling sorry for yourself, while she's back out there to care for those important to her.

I bet she's feeling mighty fine about all this, no? 

There is no reason to bring a spouse / significant other into this.

What's he supposed to do? invade Russia?