Putin spreading Authoritarian Corruption?

Remove all ads!

An article I just read mentions Putin is seeking undemocratic foreign allies so he can:

1. Undercut both sanctions against Russia (while it tries to cow and even attack neighbors).

2. Prevent democracy from reaching much of Russia's Western (EU's Eastern) borders.

3. Undercut the EU as a whole.

This article struck me as interesting because a while back-year or 2(?)-there was a Hungarian poster who as sticking up for Hungary's leader as he did increasingly bad things. Now it seems these two may be trying to buddy up.

Thoughts?

 

Seeking undemocratic foreign allies for his own agenda? Doesn't sound any different from the U.S.

 

Seeking undemocractic allies isn't how I'd put it. Yes the USA has a long, and often disheartening past where it was (and often still is) willing to work with and support dictatorships.

That said there is the question of if Putin is looking to stifle democracy in other nations as a general policy-which I see as worse than the bad practice of being willing to get in bed with dictatorships or even back military coups against elected governments for specific greed or strategic nations relating to that specific nation. Long and sad list of specific hypocrisies vs a general policy.

 

Unless that dictator is doing something that the US dislikes - then they claim he has Weapons of Mass destruction/is the empire of evil/forget that they actually made him what he is.

From what he has done it does not seem to me to be that way. He meddles in countries that not too long ago belonged to the USSR just like Russia and that are his direct neighbours. The US tries for example to establish a rocketdefencesystem right next to Russias border - to protect Poland from islamistic terrorrocketeers which seems even more silly than invading Iraq and leaving a mess where every group there fights each other and is certainly as provocatice as the USSR rockets on Cuba that Kenney had to face.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
When the end result looks like Afghanistan then it wouldn´t really matter to me if it´s the soviet plan to annex it or the US plan to free it of terrorists and create some kind of democracy which both failed that made it an unstable undemocratic backwater in which warlords vie for power...

 

Sometimes it takes 2 to tango. In some cases (especially in Latin America) dictatorships were made by the US. In other cases the US simply got in bed with a dictator who already had power. Not happy with either but don't assign too much to the US in terms of creating dictators.

I think one of the reasons Poland's government was eager to welcome such a system was because of its own distrust of Russia.

Even if it is limited to nations near Russia a policy to hamper democracy is still a policy to hamper democracy. The one necessarily doesn't contradict the other.

Don't forget one of the biggest counterpoints to saying Russian interests (and its "sphere or influence") are being impacted and violated is to ask about Ukrainian interests and if they are being violated.

Perhaps, but consider 2 things.

1. That, as with Iraq, for quite some time US turned a blind eye to corruption (as well as warlords) within the Afghan government. I would argue this helped undermine democracy and encourage instability.

2. The book isn't totally closed on Afghanistan. People and institutions matter within a nation. Afghanistan just got a new president. I don't expect him to be a saint (I think it was be interesting and good if he turned out to be one), but he could lower the amount of corruption and make things that much better. Also this could help solidify a new tradition (not there yet but perhaps heading there) a that power comes and goes with elections & term limits rather than rampaging militias (which coexists are fed by rampaging corruption).

Anyway-drifting far from if Russia is or is not doing something.

What do you think of Russia sending funds to far right parties in EU nations (not that it comes close to exceeding the money the main parties have access to)?

 

The US created the ground for Ayatollah Khomeini by destabilizing the almost democratic government of PM Mosaddegh, supported the dictator of Cuba until Castro took over, supported Saddam during the time he was opposed to the Ayatollahs in Iran - the same Saddam they later accused of anything but sinking the Lusitania/Maine/Panay (ships which the US usually use as an excuse for a war). And currently one of their best allies is the monarchy in Saudi-Arabia which is the protector of the Wahhabite branch of Islam which brought for example Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan where he was supported by the US (as at that time he already was dangerously extremistic but opposed to the USSR). And that list isn´t even complete. So no, I don´t assign too much to the US in terms of creating dictators or supporting them.

Everyone who borders a larger, stronger neighbor distrusts it. Ask Mexico how it feels about Texas/California/NewMexico/Nevada/Arizona
Having a NATO defence against russian missiles stationed in Poland however was a sure way to antagonize Russia despite the feeble attempts to mask it as a defence against missiles from Iraq/Iran.
In my opinion NATO should not have taken the responsibility for any country east of Germany after the german reunification as that was a point that was at least discussed, allegedly even promised to Russia as part of the cost for the reunification with a united Germany staying in the NATO.
I can barely imagine how the reaction would have been if Canada would have joined the Warsaw Pact and Mexico would consider to get closer the the USSR in economics and then the USSR would have stationed absolutely defensive rocketdefencesystems next to the US border to defend Canada against missiles from Iran...

Sure. But why complain about Russia meddling in countries next to it´s border that have belonged to the USSR just as Russia, if the US on the other hand meddles in the whole world?

I did ask myself that question when I heard the news and my personal conclusion might be unpopular: The Krim became part of Russia before the Ukraine existed. During the USSR time it still was part of Russia. Only in 1954 did Chrustchow? transfer the Crimea to Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
as a both symbolical gift and for practical purposes. Russia had no land border to the Crimea and the Ukraine had. Both were part of the USSR and noone could at that time even imagine that both republics would someday not be part of the same state. So I personally don´t see it as a problem that Russia demande the Crimea with it´s large russian population majority back when the Ukraine started to turn around from an economical union with Russia to strengthening the ties to the EU and becoming part of the EU and perhaps even NATO in the future.

And of course that they were a foreign power supporting a regime in Kabul that would have vanished without them just as the USSR did before them.

Wishful thinking. Any strong afghan president won´t live long, any weak won´t make a difference when the country descends into areas ruled by local warlords or even the "defeated and pacified" Taliban.

Ironic wouldn´t it be? The Nationalsocialists bring WW2 almost to Moscow and Russia would support their unloved stepchildren left in Europe
However I see no problem there as long as everyone and his brother sends money to those they want to support. After all most parties are financed by someone with an agenda.

 

By creating or supporting I meant backing a dictator. The US, perhaps in shortsighted fashion, never backed Castro. I can see current Iran & Cuba being blowback from and thus accidental creations of US acts-but not as something the US wanted.

There were actual missiles rather than defensive systems in the Cuban Missile crisis. Perhaps Russian can be unhappy NATO expanded, but there are some people in the Baltic who are very happy it did.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Russia was basically given observer status within NATO so that it could be sure NATO wouldn't launch an attack on it.

Are you for or against meddling? Either it is ok for the US to do it or not. And if you seem to be saying not then the same should stand for Russia even it is limited to nations that were once close proximity vassal states (and don't want to be again/still).

Since you mentioned Canada before I suspect the Ukraine would've been happier if Russia treated it like the US treats Canada. But it isn't. So why should the Ukraine be happy with Russia?

There is good reason not to be surprised Crimea was part of the Ukraine. When the Ukraine gave up its nukes it did so with Russian & US guarantees that its territory would be respected.

Ethnic Russians or no, Moscow already made a promise to the Ukraine that it would keep the land Russia gave as a "gift" it in the 1950s.

Also I'm even less sympathetic to the whole "ethnic Russians" issue because Stalin-among others-was quite willing to move ethnic groups in or out of an area to maintain control. Many of the Russians living in nearby nations today have ancestors who were put there as colonists to maintain the loyalty of the area-arguably something more permanent than an occupying army.

Does that justify treating Russians today as 2nd class citizens, no. But it doesn't justify Moscow grabbing territory-especially since it promised it wouldn't.

It may or may not. Will see when the last US troops leave. As it is there seem to be less Afghans interested in kicking the US out than with Russia.

Or you're being too pessimistic. I'd wager neither of us can be sure what Afghanistan will look like in 10 years. But if it does hold together (an if but one to be considered) then let it can work out just how federalized it wants to be. Even if the Afghan president is weak and stays such that doesn't mean the nation as a whole failed.

Sadly yes they are (part of why I like the idea of public financing for elections).

But back to Russia & the EU. You said "wouldn't it be". Last I heard Russia actually was already.

A historical irony to be sure but, if true, could be part of an attempt to weaken EU unity. If the EU actually holds together (something austerity measures may not be helping.) Then the Ukraine may eventually choose to join it.

Perhaps Putin is hoping that it'll brake from within (many extreme rightwing parties are anti-EU) and thus leave the Ukraine (and other states) no option but to turn to Russia.

Stategic thinking perhaps, but not based on how great it would be to be Russian or united with Russia.

Or perhaps it does recognize how great-or not-it is to be in or united with Russia and that is why Putin is looking for ways to remove alternative options rather than compete with by showing off benefits. If Ukrainians would do better by being in or with the EU why wouldn't they choose it over Russia?

 

Not Castro. They backed the corrupt Batista regime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Support_of_U.S._business_and_government
which ensured that Castro would be seen as the liberating hero at the time of the revolution.

Of course not. They wanted a submissive iranian regime that would dance according to their pipe and worked against an almost democratic government to achieve that. That then the Shah took over and got more and more autocratic which lead to a majority of the population wanting him gone and supporting Khomeine was just another accident of US politics. That they should not have done that in the first place because working against democratic governments is against everything they claim to stand for should be obvious and puts them in the same boat with what Putin does currently.

I was talking about a hypothetical scenario in which the world would have developed the other way around. Instead of Poland joining the NATO, receiving missiles and Ukraine considering to join EU in a few years my scenario had Canada joining the Warsaw pact with USSR defensive missiles and Mexico on the verge of going into an economic union with the USSR. It was just an example to make clear how the expansion of NATO and the placement of missiles there would look to the other side.

However as you mention the Cuban missile crisis - that has neatly been solved by the US withdrawing their missiles from Turkey and the USSR theirs from Cuba.

As long as they assume that NATO can and would protect them. The georgian war showed that Russia won´t hesitate to invade a neighbour and neither Ukraine (who were allied with Georgia) nor anyone else did much or could do much to stop them from establishing two defacto regimes of minorities that now are outside georgian control.
IMO NATO and EU are both to happily taking in new countries without actually having the means to provide effective defence in cases like that.
I still remember the times where e.g. an early french plan considered to defend against the Warsaw Pact *on the rhine* because of the numbers of conventional forces they had. With german defence budget at a very low value, drafting effectively stopped and it´s force being less than half what it was when the USSR still existed I doubt that we could stop Russia at e.g. the Lithuanian border. And if we can´t then we should not have taken Lithuania into the NATO.

Right. But consider my example from above. How would the US feel if they would have been given observer status in the Warsaw Pact that included Canada with USSR defensive missiles stationed there? Most people won´t feel threatened by "defensive" missiles but in a scenario where the nuclear balance hings on the guarantee of mutual destruction things like SSI or a missile defence shield can make the other side very nervous.

NATO miscalculated USSR feelings several times before, e.g. during the "Able Archer" maneuver which the USSR took as a preparation for a firststrike as later was revealed.

I´m neither for or against meddling. If and when to meddle in foreign affairs is something dependent on the situation.

I´m merely pointing out that one can´t criticise Russia for meddling in Georgia or Ukraine and ignore that the main state opposing it had done it and is still doing it despite lots and lots of mistakes and failures. And even worse is that Germany within the EU wants to interfere with Russia when they still remember the last time Germany was involved in the region

Vassal states is not the right descripton. They were part of the same state within the USSR. It´s like the American civil war would have been not as bloody but succesfull and there would be half a dozen states on the territory of the US that Washington would still take an interest in. I mean Washington could have simply let Richmond go and stop meddling there like most of the world expects from Russia, right?

How does the US treat Canada? I mean after 1812 there was not another real attempt at invasion but the purchase of Alaska was clearly a sign to them to consider joining "willingly" as they were now in between US land. And after e.g. the pig "war" to this day there are still issues with the border...
Canada is part of NATO and the US are content with that. Russia would be happy with the Ukraine allied to them. But that is not the case and is part of the cause for the russian interventions.

You mean having setlers of your own somewhere is no reason to interfere?
How do you think the Kingdom of Hawaii, the republic of California or even the lonestarstate Texas became part of the US?

Actually it does. If Ukraine would have acted the same as before then there would be no need for Russia to intervene. But with Ukraine negotiating with the EU about a treaty of joining the common market (which at the same time means that Ukraine would not be allowed to have a toll or economical union with Russia and White Russia anymore), disallowing the russian language as an official language in the parts of Ukraine where lots of russian live and a government that came to power by a revolt against an elected president are good reasons to worry that it they had to act.

Really? Did they interview the afghan population about that?
Perhaps it´s just that during the USSR occupation a whole army was stationed there and afghan fighters were supported by the US (e.g. with stingers) through a friendly Pakistan and it´s nothing like that currently. Looks more like Vietnam with garrisons in fortified places and a reliance on an unreliable local army. Hopefully the afghan army will maintain it´s integrity longer than the iraqi army when faced by something like the IS.

If the president and his government do not control what happens in regions distant from the capital then the state already failed. If they would want to put an end to that they should finally dismiss the colonial british Durandline and put the Pashtuns in one state.

Do you actually mean *brake* or break?

 

Why the link as I already know about this?

Great, then we agree to an extent.

And if it was wrong for the US to do what it did to Iran several decades ago then what Russia is doing now is also wrong.

Ok. Though I would argue the population of the states in your hypothetical scenario were never as eager to join the EU as Ukrainians are now. So this isn't just about strategic maps.

Yes it was.

I doubt we could stop Russians at the border either. As with the Philippines in WW2 the point would be to hold some part of the state as best as possible until reinforced and failing that (as happened) withdraw until massed troops can stage a counter-invasion. At the end of the war a nation still exists (though it's government may have to go into exile temporarily).

Don't forget that mutually assured destruction almost failed in the Cuban missile crisis. So even standing theories & practices cannot always be relied on.

Agreed.

How is Germany interfering with Russia?

No. I disagree with the idea the USSR was 1 state. It was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics just as the Warsaw Pact was supposedly a group of states forming an alliance.

When several states decided to leave the USA (out of paranoia that they would loose their ability to keep black people enslaved) they had actually been part of the USA.

I'll agree to the notion the US Civil War centralized power in the US Federal government more than it had been before and that Russia was the leader of the USSR-but I disagree with the notion the USSR was 1 state.

Even more than that the USSR broke up years ago and the states other than Russia have been very clearly different nation-states.

I'll admit to not being familiar with something named "the pig 'war'".

I'd argue the failure by the US to take much of Canadian territory during land invasions in the 1812 war made Canada (or at least parts of it) feel more of capable and its own nation than before.

I'm not sure the purchase of Alaska had all that much of an impact on Canada as it simply had even more border with the USA when it already had existed with a very long border.

Texas was initially a revolt for independence from Mexico and only became part of the US later.

California (and a bunch of the rest of the SW USA) was part of Mexico until it was on the loosing side of the Mexican-American war. No I won't make much in the way of excuses for when the US was in an expansionist mode.

Hawaii is almost an opposite example. In Hawaii it wasn't just settlers but a group of businessmen and planation owners (and racists) that overthrew the sitting government of Hawaii and then wanted to join the US.

The new US president was so disgusted with what they did that he refused to let them join-a different president that came later allowed Hawaii to join the USA. Compare that to Putin today who sent troops into Crimea early on and wanted it to join Russia.

1. You missed that the already sitting Ukrainian parliament approved new elections for president and a new president was elected.

2. The president that people protested & ultimately removed from power was elected after making the promise he would sign a treaty with the EU. He arguably betrayed many of the voters who elected him when he didn't.

(I think it would have been better to force him to run for re-election & loose to a different person but that doesn't change the fact that he betrayed many voters and the current president of Ukraine has been elected.)

3. The final decision for if Ukraine makes treaties with the EU or not belongs to the Ukraine and not to Russia.

4. Disallowing Russian seems stupid to me. If that really happened and if it did was it before or after the start of the current war where tensions between Ukraine & Russia are high? Even then if it did happen and in that way I don't care for it and think the Ukraine should adopt a policy similar to Canada & how it treats the french language.

Actually they did. For multiple years after the Taliban was overthrown the majority of Afghans (as measured by annual polls) wanted US troops to stay.

Plus if the current Afghan president has wanted US troops to leave they would have (as US troops did leave when the last prime minister of Iraq wanted US troops to leave).

Fortunately the new Afghan president doesn't look like he will stir internal tensions like Iraq's former prime minister did (Who was handed a semi-stable nation and managed to reignite Sunni-Shia tensions and undo the peace the US achieved in Anbar).

"break", I see I missed one of my many typos.

 

Because in my earlier post you misunderstood me. You understood that I were saying that the US supported Castro when I meant that they supported Batista.

Iran is far more distant to the US than Ukraine is to Russia and as far as I know Iran has no sizeable american population. I would agree to that the meddling of the US in Iran is as wrong as that of the British Empire and the Soviets in Iran.

The Phillipines are not a good example of an elastic or heroic defence of an allied state. The US "freed" the Phillipines from spanish rule (in the spanish-american war in which they took Puerto Rico and Cubat too) but then subdued the philippine population who wanted their own free state in a bloody war to stay there as the new colonial master. And then McArthur failed miseraby in it´s defence despite his ensuring confirmations after Pearl Harbour.

As for the new members of NATO: I don´t assume that any of them joined NATO with the clear thought "in case of war with Russia my country will be occupied until NATO can liberate it´s ruins a few years later". What can happen to exiled governments you can see in case of the polish exile government that fled to London - only to be replaced by one more fitting to the new overlord of Poland after the war as political powerplay needed to sacrifice them.

On the contrary. The mutual destruction would have worked just fine back then. And it did work as a deterrent to poker for higher stakes so that a diplomatic solution could be found.

Chancellor Merkel for example demands that Putin influences "his" rebels in eastern Ukraine to put down arms, reminds now and then that the illegal annexation of the Crimea won´t be forgotten and supports the EU´s economical pressure against Russia. Putin once stated that he expected more gratitude from Germany (for allowing the re-unification of Germany) and more understanding for his reasons to support the russians in Ukraine to the point to taking them back into one Russia.

That would be wishful thinking of those states that wanted to be free of Imperial Russia or later the USSR. None of the republics within the USSR was a sovereign state according to international law. And regarding your argument here:

You see Ukraine as an independant state that was just for a few years forced into the USSR but e.g. Texas as an integral part of the USA that had no right to leave? Ukraine had been part of imperial Russia (since it´s conquest from the Ottomans) even before the USSR was founded and was the central part of the Rus with Kiev of which Muscow was only a minor part at the outskirts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

Then why did the British Empire react so quickly to it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase

You mean just like Crimea?
It´s a old habit to pretend a show of legitimacy by first having someone declare independance (yay! everyone loves independance) and then later willingly join another state (can´t say internationally anything against a nation joining another willingly). Looks much better than simply annexing part of another nations territorry.

The Californian Republic tried to be independant despite the mexican-US war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic

With the support of the US navy that prevented the kingdom of Hawaii to use the the full force against the US citizens that were inciting the revolt.

So Hawai first became an independant republic and a while later joined the US. Works almost everytime.

Was that within their legal rights?

Well to me it looked like he tried sitting on the fence both negotiating with the EU *and* Russia while the EU made clear that when the Ukraine joined the EU that it would not be possible to maintain the economical relations with Russia.

However breaking promises made in an election is never a legal reason to depose of the government violently. We would have a world in flames if every broken election promise would be followed by a revolt...

As far as I read the news he refused to participate in a new election because he insisted that he legally still was the president. He *might* have stated that because he feared to lose a new election but IMO he was legally right.

And the Ukraine is represented by it´s government and it´s president isn´t it? So inciting a revolt to coup the state to prevent the President from signing a similar treaty with Russia instead of the EU is legally wrong.

Exactly - or like Switzerland with it´s german/french/italian/rätoroman official languages, or even Belgium with dutch/french/german.

Sure - and as an example of a similar poll: The eastern cantons of Belgium (those with a german majority that were annexed after WW1) wanted to stay in Belgium after WW1. That the poll was flawed by the armed presence of belgian forces hindering voters to vote or threatening them to lose their home and be forced to relocate to Germany did not hinder it to become an official poll.

Churchill once said that he believes only those statistics he forged himself or something similar.

A poll held in occupied territorry is always prone to show what the occupants want to prove.

Well, perhaps I´m too pessimistic but I rather believe that they left because of the costs and election promises by the american president and a lack of support by the US population to garrison just another country for just another decade and of course that the oil would continue to flow even after they left. If that would have been different the Iraqi prime minister could have issued his wish to a dozen djinnis and the troops still would have stayed.

 

I didn't. The issue of allying with dictators how the issue of creating/supporting dictators first arose. I understand how the US-by accident-had a hand in creating modern Iran & Cuba. But we both agree that is different from allying with/supporting a dictator.

The supposed reason of distance doesn't make what the US did less just as the geographic closeness of Ukraine to Russia doesn't make it just for Russia to stifle democracy there.

You seem to have missed how I said in WW2-which wasn't the Spanish-American war.

As it was the Philippines were already well on their way to independence and that was actually slowed down by Japanese Imperialism.

My impression is that the US and Philippines already had an understanding that the Philippines was going to be independent at the time Japan decided the Philippines would be come part of its empire.

Which is why rebels in Philippines fought against Japan rather than seeing them as liberators. And it is also why after WW2 was over the US cooperated with the Philippines attaining independence.

Are you looking for ways to point out that Poland didn't want to be a Russian vassal state and why they (and others such as the Baltic states where Russia attempted to make them vassal states and colonies them to maintain control-not just settlers but as a political power play) should be wary of Russia to this day?

It survived by the skin of its teeth. Had it not been for a single officer on one of the Soviet subs stopping the launch of nuclear weapons there would have been a nuclear war. But this is getting

Considering the troops that initially took control of Crimea were Russia troops from the state of Russia and their patches removed-plus that Putin at one point admitted he had put Russian troops in Crimea prior to its supposed joining of Russia I'd say Merkel is correct to suppose Putin has Russian troops in E. Ukraine as well. I'll readily admit some of the people fighting Ukrainian troops are in fact local ethnic Russians but their equipment and reinforcements seem to be coming from outside of the Ukraine.

Yet the Ukraine still voted for independence (there was a referendum on this) from the USSR in the 1990s and was promised to have its territory respected by a treaty which Russia signed afterward.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

So it did. But not in the fashion you implied. The British reaction was to incorporate territory near Alaska into Canada so that there would not be a continual land link internally from the mainland US to Alaska. Not exactly giving in to the USA.

Yes and no. Texas operated as a separate state for nearly a decade and won the war for its independence without actual US army units being sent in to support it.

Russian military units were sent into the Crimea to break Ukrainian governmental control over the area and then supposed Crimean independence didn't even last a year (since it was never intended to).

The Californian Republic was an attempt to break away from Mexico that didn't go terribly far. Not the same. And the Mexican-American war was fought at the same time so members of it largely signed on with the US. There wasn't an attempt on the US's part to hide that it was at war with Mexico. Russia hasn't admitted it is at war with Ukraine's government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#History

And the officials were seen as having abused their power and resigned when then US President Cleveland, like I said, refused their (those who revolted took control of Hawaii) request to be annexed by the US and put a stop to discussion of annexation during his time in office.

I'm pretty sure Putin is no Cleveland.

I'm not sure if it was specifically spelled out somewhere one of the Ukrainian parliament's duties and responsibilities but as it was at the time this was the highest continuing institution & body of the Ukrainian government.

Plus the election itself held in a largely free and fair manner-meaning the current president of the Ukraine can and should be seen as the chosen President of the Ukraine & and its citizens.

http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/119081

Perhaps, but here in Wisconsin dishonesty was cited as reason for a recall election (against a sitting state official) when the law for recall elections was first put in place. So honest counts for something when it relates to voters expectations.

Also I'm not sure that the EU said Ukraine couldn't do business with Russia. It may have said that Ukraine would be required to have standards of transparency which would hopefully lead to less corruption, less looting of the nation by oligarchs and corrupt officials and so on.

Which may be why Putin felt threatened by it-why have an example more transparent government and business dealings on your nations border when you can sit at the head of a kleptocracy and amass billions for yourself and those oligarchs & corrupt officials who work with or under you.

Or he knew he would've lost in a landslide and was opting to preserve his pride if he couldn't keep his power.

The parliament was part of that government and I'll argue the feelings of the population had more to do with the success of any revolt-and this is assuming the US had anything to do with inciting it rather than embracing it once it happened or was already in the process of happening.

Then we agree on something.

Then why didn't the US rig similar polls-not to mention the election for officials-in Iraq.

It is possible to rig polls but I haven't seen indications that the US did so in Afghanistan.

Could be a combined effect. But I guess election promises do matter then.


To add to the point I once spoke with someone in Russia years ago (long before this) and he told me he felt Putin was starting the fear back that characterized and maintained government control during the Soviet days. As time passes and his control over Crimea solidifies I'd keep on eye for decreasing freedom and transparency-as could be recently evidenced by Russian closing independent media such as that of the Tartars (a local ethnic group that didn't want Russian control and a large portion of which had returned in recent decades after they and their parents had been expelled from the area by Stalin in one of his many attempts to solidify control over an area.)

Just realized the time here and I'll post this and correct typos I've missed later.

 

Like with Saddam Hussein when he still was Washingtons ally to stop the evil Iran?
If a habit is repeated again and again it´s no longer an accident. It´s far simpler: The US as most states try to exert their influence where they see necessary. Usually by proxy and they are notoriously bad at chosing their proxy.
Stating that Putin "spreads authoritarian corruption" when the US supported e.g. the corrupt Batista regime or the Baath regime is closing ones eyes to reality. It´s politics and powerplay, not the defenders of democracy against another evil empire. Otherwise you would need to say too, that the US "spread islamic terrorism (they made Osama while supporting the Taliban) support genocide (they supported Saddam who a bit later used gas on the kurds) and support autocratic corrupt regimes all over the world (e.g. the Schah in Persia, Batista in Cuba)".

Democracy? The elected president was driven off by a riot fueled by parties that did not agree to his politics and replaced by an interim government. He was not impeached or in the next normal election normally replaced by the next candidate. Even Nixon was not simply thrown out of office - he resigned just before the impeachment became serious.
Not more democracy in the Ukraine than in Iran when the US decided to bring down Mosaddegh - so nothing to complain about unless the US would stop trying to take the moral highground of "protecting democracy".

The US were in the Phillipines because of the Spanish-American war and replacing the spanish as colonial masters there.

If the US had wanted an independant Phillipines then there was no need for occupation. The people there already had taken most of the islands from Spain before the US decimated the spanish navy and they already had proclaimed an independant republic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Revolution

The Phillipines have a habit of fighting foreign invaders - regardless if those are spanish, US or japanese invaders.
Either the US had left after WW2 or they would have faced yet another Vietnam there.
The Philllipines had already fought 3 years against the US after fighting against the spanish before.

Poland became a vassal state of the USSR because Churchill sold them out to gain Stalins support against Hitler and the US agreed in Teheran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Underground_State#1944.E2.80.931945:_Decline_and_dissolution
So Poland has a right to be wary of each and everyone from Germany to the western allies and Russia too.

Well, Russia *legally* had troops in the Crimea even before those events. Sevastopol was the harbour for the russian Black Sea fleet and leant to Russia until 2017 (or later when the treaty would be prolonged) and Russia was allowed to station 25000 soldiers in the Crimea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet
And replacing the president of the Republic of Crimea by force and finding some crimeans willing to vote for independance from Ukraine seems pretty normal when Ukraines president was forced to flee the country by his opponents...

In that we agree. However I do think that Putin does not have the complete control over all those rebel factions as they seem to assume when demands are made from Putin to stop "his" rebels.

Sure. and Crimea voted for independace from Ukraine. Voting for independance is good isn´t it?

Well, you suggested that the USSR republics were actually independant sovereign states. A point that I do not share - however just for the sake of argument: How is Crimea not an independant autonomous republic within Ukraine when you say that Ukraine was within the USSR?

And when Crimea then voted to become part of Russia, Russia actually hesitated at first (just like the US when Hawaii wanted to join) but despite the perceived problems they allowed them to become part of Russia with open arms

The funny part about that is that Putin practically *announced* that he would do something like that years before when NATO supported the albanian uprising in southern Serbia that wanted independance as Kosovo. Putin pointed out that some part of a state simply declaring independance is illegal and that if that was accepted and supported by the west it would be a dangerous precedent...

They needed no actual US army units because the Texian army consisted in major part of US citizens after the Alamo. Even most officers of the army were born in the US and moved to Texas to support the US settlers there that outnumberd the original spanish/mexican settlers after 1840
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texian_Army

Actually Crimea was a self-governing autonomous republic within Ukraine that had several issues with Ukraine even before that crisis. So it was not that hard and Russia certainly was not completely unwelcome when throwing the Ukrainian troops out. Why should it last more than a year? You know - declaring independance is great and simply a show of legitimacy before annexation.

Well Ukraines government, I mean the legally elected president, was in Russia at that time, wasn´t he?
And why should Russia be at war with Ukraine when they simply support the independant Republic of Crimea asserting its autonomours rights?

I really don´t care that 1 US president hesitated to get his hands bloody when the next one annexed Hawaií. If they wanted to be honest they should have left the US citizens/plantation owners in Hawaii rotting and close their borders for fruit imports until the rightful government would have been reestablished. They could embargo Cuba and Japan why not Hawaii?

Continuing institution? So is the english monarch. Does he have the right to send the parliament home and order new elections when that pesky Prime Minister would dare to leave the EU and join the EEU and a few thousand english would besiege Trafalgar Square? No? Then why on Maidan?

The president of the Ukraine is elected for a 5year term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine#Election_and_eligibility
so Yanukowich who started in 2/2010 would have ended his presidency in 2/2015. And as he never was impeached in the legal procedure that election could be seen as illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Vote_to_remove_from_presidency

Oh, Ukraine could still do business with Russia. Currently german farmers are complaining because of the embargos they can´t export apples to Russia that they were used to export there. However if Ukraine would have become a member of the EU that would exclude becoming a member of the EEU, and the free travelling with no border controls inside the EU would mean that the EU outer border would be between Ukraine and Russia excluding free travel between Ukraine and Russia. So something as desirable like the border of the US and Mexico. Russia actually wanted the same - just not with Ukraine in the EU but in the EEU and sharing a common market and free travelling with Belarus and Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_Eurasian_Economic_Union#Ukraine

I doubt that. Putin was content while Yanukowich stated that Ukraine would not join NATO or the EU. There was no need for intervention at that time. Only after the president was couped out of office did Russia intervene - for democracy!

You can´t lose in a landslide if the election is not legally held. They should have waited until the end of his presidency or impeached him in the right way. And they couldn´t do that despite firing some judges that pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution does not work that way.

Didn´t they? Then how does it come that when they left the Shiite minority held most positions of power and before their arrival the sunnite majority?

Well, *I* would vote for the guys with the rifles around my house if I would live in Afghanistan.
My house is prettier than Guantanamo and I could just see anyone voting "Taliban were the rightful government, US go home" flying to the beaches of Guantanamo.

 

A power play back then to be sure. Funny thing it was a power play to be critical of and question the justice in. Also the most recent example you gave was at least a couple of decades ago.

Putin is cutting deals with and promoting dictatorships now. And with no-need an enemy as a friend against this other bad enemy-type excuse. So it is as bad if not worse.

Yet I don't see you direct much criticism Putin's way-even to acknowledge all the bad things he has done outside of the war with the Ukraine.

No there is a great deal more democracy. Ukraine's current president was elected in elections observers noticed were largely fair and valid.

At this point you're attempting to ignore the will of the Ukrainian people (as expressed not just by protests-which were often peaceful) but by a largely accurate count of votes after the most recent presidential election.

And you're doing it for someone I'll argue couldn't win another election because he won the last by making false promises that Ukrainians expected to be fulfilled.

I pointed to the Philippines at WW2 and my example is still right. When I reemphasized the time period of WW2 I see you then ignored that point for most of your reply.

I have no problem acknowledging that Spain gave the US the Philippines simply because they didn't wan't to loose it to rebels directly and the US got itself into bigotry laden war of Imperialism. But that ended prior to WW2 when the US and Philippines were already coming to agree on Philippine independence.

Something you seem to still be having trouble acknowledging as-and correct me if I'm wrong-you seem only to mention how Filipinos fought against the US. Are you willfully ignoring that Filipinos worked with (including joint operations) the US military to fight the Japanese?

And then after the Philippines was in US hands post WW2 the nation received its independence without any new fighting between itself and the US.

Strikes as selective history.

Yet they only ended up under Russian occupation post WW2. Meaning Poles have good reason to be more wary of Russia any other state-had Stalin not had designs on Poland Churchill would never have felt pressure to sell them out. Plus had Stalin's Russia not decided to occupy Poland, Poles wouldn't have had to worry about Russians dragging them off to prisons run by Russian/Soviet secret police.

One particularly bloody act done by Stalin and relating to both his designs on Poland and his ruthlessness to enact them can be seen with this.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

No, not legally. Russia could legally keep troops on in its installations in Crimea or let them leave the base in their spare time but they were not legally allowed to drive Ukrainians out of their own military bases nor seize control of Crimea.

By "opponents" do you mean the majority of Ukrainians (whom he lied to and stole from?)

If he doesn't have control perhaps he should stop supplying them with military equipment and professional soldiers. If local rebels feel they have gotten too powerful to heed his desires then why can't he let them fight on their own?

No nation invaded republics that were once part of the USSR and then had them vote to either declare independence or join whatever nation who troops were there. The populations of those republics voted in referendums to be either independent or stay part of the USSR-they largely chose to leave.

Staying part of the Ukraine not even an option on the ballots provided in Crimea and a foreign military had seized control of the area where the election was held.

Serbs had been killing and oppressing muslims (the religion of most Albanians)-you have heard of "ethnic cleansing" I assume.

I'm pretty sure Ukraine's government had not engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against ethnic Russians in Crimea.

1840!!!!

The war for Texas independence from Mexico was over by the mid 1830s-I think it ended during 1836 to be exact.

While some of the people in the pro-independence army were recently from the US a great deal of them were not.

From the wikipedia link you provided (put in quotes to separate it from when I quoted you.) :

"By the end of the war, the army had grown to include three distinct divisions. Members of the regular army enlisted for two years and were subject to army discipline and the army's chain of command. A squad of permanent volunteers enlisted for the duration of the war. This group was permitted to elect its own officers, outside the oversight of the army commander-in-chief. Most of the men who joined the permanent volunteers had settled in Texas before the war had begun, both Tejano and Texan. "

So let it have problems with Ukraine's central government. Perhaps they will settle matters like people in Quebec have with Canada or how Scotland is in the process of doing with the UK. At no point were was the Ukrainian government committing ethnic cleansing within the Crimea against people living there.

And Russian troops seizing control of the area was still a blatant violation of treaties Russia made with the Ukraine.

No. Ukraine's government was still functioning in Kiev and had set forth a time table for new elections that former president of the Ukraine was not likely to do well in.

Did you read the information in the link? President Cleveland didn't hesitate, to claim he hesitated misrepresents what he did. He out refused to accept Hawaii's new government and made it his administration's stance that the Queen's government (the prior government of Hawaii) be restored.

"Vote to remove from presidency[edit]
On 22 February 2014, 328 of 447 members of the Ukrainian parliament (MPs)—or about 73% of the MPs—voted to "remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine" on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties[13] and to hold early presidential elections on 25 May.[15] The vote came an hour after Yanukovych said in a televised address that he would not resign. He subsequently declared himself to still be "the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state elected in a free vote by Ukrainian citizens".[22]"

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Religion

Or common corruption (why share borders when Putin & Yanukovich could loot their respective countries together-provided Putin received his cut):

'In a feature with photos on Yanukovych's residence (estimated to have cost more than $75 million U.S. dollars), Sergii Leshchenko notes, "For most of [Yanukovych's] career he was a public servant or parliament deputy, where his salary never exceeded 2000 US dollars per month." Under a photo showing the new home's ornate ceiling, Leschenko remarks, "In a country where 35% of the population live below the poverty line, spending 100 000 dollars on each individual chandelier seems excessive, to say the least." Crowned with a pure copper roof, the mansion was the largest wooden structure ever created by Finnish log home builder Honka, whose representative suggested to Yanukovych that it be nominated for the The Guinness Book of Records. The property contained a private zoo, underground shooting range, 18-hole golf course, tennis, and bowling. After describing the mansion's complicated ownership scheme, the article author noted, "The story of Viktor Yanukovych and his residence highlights a paradox. Having completely rejected such European values as human rights and democracy, the Ukrainian president uses Europe as a place to hide his dirty money with impunity." [180]

Documents recovered from the compound show, among other expenses, $800 medical treatment for fish, $14,500 spent on tablecloths, and a nearly 42 million dollar order for light fixtures. Also recovered were files on Yanukovych's perceived enemies, especially media members, including beating victim Tetyana Chornovol. The cost of monitoring the mass media was reportedly $5.7 million just for the month of December 2010.[181]'

also from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Religion

You mean when Yanukovich fled rather than face justice after his people saw the depths to which he had lied to and stole from them.



On Yanukovich & democracy:

'Yanukovych has been accused, by Amnesty International among others, of using the Berkut to threaten, attack, and torture Ukrainian protesters. The Berkut, recently disbanded, were a controversial national police force under his personal command. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe confirmed witness accounts of voters being blocked from access to polls and being attacked along with local election officials who tried to frustrate the Berkut's practice of falsifying voters' ballots in favor of Yanukovych's Party of Regions candidates. Individual cases have been reported of citizens grouping together and fighting back against the Berkut in order to preserve election integrity and results.[7] Upon coming to power Yanukovych had reversed oversight measures established during the Yushchenko administration to restrain the Berkut's abuse of citizens whereupon the special force "upped its brutality."'

"According to an April 2014 poll conducted by the Razumkov Centre, only 4.9% of respondents would have liked to see Yanukovych return to the presidency."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Religion

As I pointed out already the vast majority of the parliament voted on his no longer being president-as the next highest body of government authority it is within their responsibilities.

When the USA left Iraq Anbar province was largely at peace and Sunni muslims policed it. The Shiite prime minister started throwing Sunni leaders out of their offices and oppress Sunni's more broadly that they allowed ISIS to gain strength.

Now the Iraqi population has 3 major groups Arab Sunni, Arab Shia, & Kurdish (Sunni but ethnically & culturally different from Arab Sunnis). No one of these groups holds and outright majority of the Iraqi population. Concentrating power in the hands of only one ignored the concerns and size of the other 2.

Yet you treat polls carried out by Russian guys with guns as trustworthy and to be respected..?

Inconsistant.

And I noticed you have yet to respond to concerns Putin was increasing fear and authoritarianism at home-such as through vote rigging and suppression of independent press.

 

The results of their support haunt them to this day until the last US soldier is able to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. But if you want a recent example take the Saudi monarchy who is an US ally.

Actually it´s exactly the same. NATO encroaches on the lands that border Russia. Ukraine threatens to join EU and NATO in a few years so Russia would be even more surrounded by an alliance which was founded to oppose the Soviets and still is largely opposed to Russia with missiles stationed in Poland that don´t serve the use they are claimed to have and the realistic estimation that a NATO Ukraine won´t any longer lend Sevastopol to Russia. Even if the states of the former Warsaw Pact or former parts of the USSR want that, to do so in the manner it´s done is not exactly a diplomatic way to act in the region. In any wargame (e.g. Hearts of Iron that I play occasionally) if I would play Russia I would see that as a threat.

What would be the need for that? Dictators or at least authoritarian presidents usually act like that in most countries. And just like the occupation of Tibet it should be ignored by other states what happens there unless those other states want to be judged on their failures too. Unless the USA is (again) planning to finance the tibetans and start an invasion of Lhasa to take back their country from China? No? Then it certainly is not the US love for the freedom of smaller nations that currently has some senators demanding to supply the Ukraine with weapons.

How can that be when the old president was still in office and the election therefore could be seen as void until the old president resigned officially or his office period ended?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Vote_to_remove_from_presidency

Very peacful. Nearly as peaceful as the Intifada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrai...yiv,_Ukraine._Events_of_February_18,_2014.jpg

So? When the elected president has to flee the country and revolters can´t be any longer contained by the police then who would vote against the people with the rifles?

I´m not doing anything *for someone*. I´ll argue your thesis because I see it as flawed and biased against a country while other countries do similar things.

So? It should be hard to find one president even of a real democracy who never made a promise during the election that after the election was not kept as promised. Chancellor Kohl once claimed during his re-election that the re-unification of Germany would not mean that taxes would be raised

For the comparison: Kohl still lives peacefully in Germany and no armed revolt broke loose despite that we are still paying the additional taxes to this day.

You mean that the US (who shouldn´t have been in the Phillipines at all as a democracy) failed to defend the Phillipines against the japanese and that all was well after they came back? That was more due to the fact of hurt national pride by Pearl Harbour and that their colonial garrison in the Phillipines was routed that the US actually cared about liberating the Phillipines. Ukraine certainly would not see the same effort taken to defend or liberate it as it´s neither an US colony nor a member of NATO.

Already? After the end of the US-spanish war the US waged a 3years war against the phillipine population - that is a pretty long time for a democracy to find out that that just seems to be a wee bit wrong and it would be better to talk with the people living there to grant them the independance (that they already had defacto won themselves from spain) while still keeping them effectively as a semi-independent colony and military base in Asia with the always delayed promise to be really independant *real soon* and that promise only was delayed due to WW2...
As far as I remember the Monroe doctrine of the US states that the US don´t take kindly on european states establishing new colonies in the Americas or re-conquering old colonies there again - wonder if any US government ever understood the irony of the US conquering a colony in Asia.

Devil and Beelzebub again? The people in the phillipines fought any outside invader regardless if spanish, US or japanese - the US at the time were just the lesser evil. They were like Saddam and Japan Khomeini to them.

Well with Communist China winning against Chiang the opendoor policy of the US had failed and there was no need to occupy the Phillipines any more except for a select few military bases.

No, as having a memory and not forgetting what one side has done when another side is criticised by them.

You do know that Poland was partitioned between Prussia, Austria and Russia and the russian czar was for a while the king of poland too after 1812?
And eastern Poland was already occupied *during* WW2 by the Soviets as in their agreement with Germany and that was acknowledged by the allies too when they later annexed that part and pushed Poland further west.

Well, actually they can be as wary towards France and the UK - after all in WW2 those were allies and had promised to launch a major offensive towards the Rhine into Germany as soon as Poland was attacked. And then nothing happened until Poland was defeated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#1939

Yes that massacre was already used during WW2 by the germans to show that the Communists were just as evil or moreso than them. Didn´t impress Churchill as he already had changed his mind once from seeing the Communists as the most evil of all to Germany as the most evil of all and that sacrificing Poland was the price to pay for the Soviets as allies against Germany.

Sevastopol and the military harbour used by the russian navy are located on the crimean peninsula - so the russians could legally have 25000 soldiers stationed there even before the crimean crisis just as I wrote. And they did not drive Ukrainians from their own military bases - they aided the Crimean Republic to assert it´s independance (remember indepandance is good) from Ukraine after the coup there.

So? Then why was he not imprisoned and judged legally? Or impeached as the constitution allows? An armed revolt, an illegal vote in the parliarment after violent riots and the move against some of the judges who refused to act like the revolters wanted were simply illegal. And during that time the majority of ukrainians simply stayed home. Even a large place filled with people like the Euromaidan is not an "all-thing" of the majority of the population.

Because then the Ukrainian government might defeat them and establish full control over eastern Ukraine that has always been pro-Russia due to it´s large russian population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Ukraine

It´s the same procedure like in Kosovo (taken from Serbia), Transnistria (taken from Moldavia) and so on.

You mean they voted to leave just as Crimea left the Ukraine? Yes, independace is good for everyone

So you´re arguing on a legal basis now when Ukrainean revolters had just illegally driven it´s elected president into exile and taken over the administration? Didn´t those revolters seize control of the Euromaidan and Ukraine before too?

Sure it happens everywhere in the world. The funny part about Kosovo is that after they gained their independance a lot of people are fleeing from there to the EU and are rejected because they flee poverty and are not pursued in their own country - and Serbia might become part of the EU in a few years with the right to travel and work freely in the EU

They already started by disallowing the russian language as an official language in the regions in which russianspeaking ukrainians live
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine
And considering what rightwing parties became prominent or at least acceptable in Ukraine during the Euromaidan I would have worried if I would be a russianspeaking ukrainean.

So? The republic of Texas was practically based on american settlers that opposed the original smaller spanish population that it continued to outgrow by ever more american settlers. And most of it´s army was made up of people who were born in the US and moved to Texas. I don´t discriminate here between US citizens who moved to Texas before or after their war against Mexico started.

That´s good. And now they won´t have the problem to decide if they want to.

With the legal government of the Ukraine. No one can care what the revolters in Ukraine want that took over control after the real president fled the country to avoid their villainous violence

Isn´t the president the head of the government in Ukraine? Thought so.

Yes for his period in office. And the next president annexed them. That makes Cleveland a honest man but the US still did the wrong thing there with just a bit of delay.

You cite only the first part in that article about that vote. A bit down comes the critic that this vote was illegal, 5 judges had to be removed from office who assumingly would not take part in that illegal takeover (as required by the constitution and that the vote itself had no legal basis because it lacked 10 votes to be legal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Vote_to_remove_from_presidency

One can´t ignore the constitution when one wants to take over the power in a country legally.

That´s what legislation and judicative have to check not an armed revolt.

Yanukowich has a heart for animals too? He should be a saint

How much is the spending of the NSA on spying on it´s NATO allies in comparison? Spying on enemies is something that I can at least understand

Huh? It´s bad to say that all churches and religious organizations are equal for the state? Isn´t that what most democracys strive for: religious freedom?

Justice? By an armed revolt, a mere lynchmob that even had to remove *real* judges from court just to have a bit of a seemingly legal excuse to vote him out of office?

So? Even Germany is criticized by AI for torture and similar things when those instances are tiny compared to the stuff happening e.g. in Guantanamo. When the US disband Guantanamo (or simply use normal US laws there) *then* they could point a finger to someone else.

Seems to be a habit in Ukraine for all parties involved. Nothing I would wonder about, most former USSR republics like White Russia/Belarus/Uzbekistan or Ukraine have a long way to go before a real democracy is established there.

You mean after the violent, armed revolt in which the real president proved unable to maintain order and had to flee - leaving the state in the control of the revolters that included almost fascist parties - people don´t openly declare that they want him back? Wonder why that is

No it´s not. Red the WIKI article about Yanukovych that you quoted yourself - especially the part where its explained how the elected president could legally be deposed and how that did not happen.

How could he - unless the US did either not really care who got into power after they left or they supported again the wrong proxy.

No, I don´t trust *any* polls that are held while a foreign army or a revolting mob is occupying a country.
However I don´t see the poll as the legal basis for anything. As I see it Russia simply took Crimea back that it had gifted to Ukraine on the basis that Ukraine was part of the USSR just as Russia and that it allowed them to keep because they saw Ukraine as "part of the family" just like Belarus. With a coup and a party in power that wants to join EU and NATO Russia could not let Ukraine keep Crimea.

You mean he makes something as stupid as the PATRIOT act? As long as it´s in Russia fine for me.

Edit: Wow - with all the quotes that has to be my longest post in a forum ever

 

We retook the Phillipines to appease the ego of MacArthur, which was causing strife with joint missions with the Navy. But we also HAD to retake it for a more important reason. We couldnt leave it to the Japanese and mask our overall strategy af the same time. It forced the Japanese hand with their Navy. Retaking the Phillipines was. A huge stepping stone in the war for the US.