Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

acmilano

Military Crisis in Ukraine

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

There's a guy whose name escapes me who runs a blog on image forensics. He looked into social media posts from Russian soldiers during the initial months of the Donetsk insurgency and identified hundreds of Russian soldiers whose image geolocation data put them inside Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryanhunter_rfc

Yeah and I'm sure intelligence agencies from all over the world have done the exact same thing. Everytime I see Putin I just get a feeling of pure evil and corruption, even worse than Hitler. That is probably more so to do with the fact that we are alive at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yeah and I'm sure intelligence agencies from all over the world have done the exact same thing.

Since the end of the Cold War, not so much. Apart from the Russians anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moth

Well, this is pretty f*cking hilarious. Using a video game as proof, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jenia

I'm sick of this bullsh*t, I've been born in Ukraine, and most of my family is from Russia and Ukraine. And just reading what you people post here... I get mad. I've always loved Russia as a country, even if now I live in Spain, and I can't go back to Ukraine becuase : Either they send me to the so called 'Anti Terrorist Operation' and I get killed, or I would rot in poberty in some old 70's panel building. And you here arguing if one side is right and the other not.

 

In fact, you do not realise that people suffer from things like this, all these f*cking wars. I just could not get over the fact that a war could be in Ukraine. Do you know how much does it cost to do the weekly shopping there in Ukraine? My grandpa wich is living in Nikolaev, who has been in Afghanistan and Cuba, starves because he can't afford some bread. And why? Because some guys want this side of the country to be another, and others want to kill everyone because they do not agree with their own government? And next the 'official, legal government' starts privatizating every single buisness, company, (for example Yatsenyuk wants to privatizate Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, just to then sell it and make some money, and side effects of this are : 1-The construction of the new shelter is most likely to stop. 2- People that have been working there before and after '86 are going to loose their jobs most likely. 3- With today's status of the old shelter of the 4' block, its just matter of years to get it collapsed) just to make some money? Out of what? I tell you, out of the people that live in Ukriane.

 

They just wanna make some money, they do NOT care about the people. They think that if they enter the E.U they will get free money to spend (pretending that the money is to invest in social services, medicine, education). And tell me how much has been invested in social services or education in Ukraine in 2014? Most of the money went to the ATO. My point is that, I do NOT care what someone thinks about my own country, even if it gets invaded by Russians. After all, what's the business of the USA here in Ukraine? Its separated by a distance of 9000 km. And you tell people that Russia doesnt have rights to make their own business in a country that is just right next to them. Then why does the USA have rights like that? Is USA a country elected by god himself to estabilize democracy in every single place in the world? Has been Russia invading countries? (do not start to telling me about Chechnya, becuase its part of Russia) Has been Russia air striking other countries?

 

I will not respond to anyone, just because I'm tired. Every, single, forum has a topic about 'Military crisis in Ukraine'. Because everyone hates Russians and wants to nuke them. Because Putin is no Putin, its Putler, right? Because Russia is so evil, it invades other countires just to let Putler enjoy. It's so evil, that devil himself is scared. That's what I hear from the spanish news btw. The trouble of having an open mind is, that people will come along and try to push things in it. Prepare yourself a bunker, because if not tomorrow, atleast next year things are goingt to get hot. Very hot. Because of some piece of land. Just like always.

 

Ciao, I hope you enjoy replying me of how much I am a troll paid by putin and that im just biasing everything and that I live in my mommy's basement somewhere in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Wait, the United States is in Ukraine? When did that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Sorry, Jenia, but whatever links you claim to have to Ukraine, I'm afraid you've been suckered with some ridiculous pro-Russian bullsh*t.

 

Take, for instance, your comments about Chernobyl. You suggest that the privatisation of the Chernobyl NPP is somehow going to affect the creation of the Sarcophagus, however New Safe Confinement is actually an international commitment already under construction with the lead contractors being VINCI and Bouygues S.A (both private French civil engineering firms) and funded by the aptly-titled Chernobyl Shelter Fund, which is basically a consortium of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development plus American and Ukrainian governments supplying the capital. How on earth would the denationalisation of the remains of the plant affect that?

 

Given your complete lack of basic knowledge and understanding of this, how is anyone supposed to take anything else you say seriously? I could happily continue, individually dissecting every single ridiculous claim made in that post, but instead I feel it is probably fairer to give you the opportunity to do some background research and make amendments to your claims before subjecting you to public ridicule. I have some degree of sympathy for people with families out there who are being inadvertently fed the pro-Russian rhetoric- I mean, they're your family, so your default position is always going to be to trust them, even if they're feeding your bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moth

Has been Russia invading countries? (do not start to telling me about Chechnya, becuase its part of Russia)

Yes actually. Ukraine for one(unless you really believe that bullsh*t that it isn't Russian forces on the ground there) and the other is Georgia.(not the American state) And yes, Chechnya was it's own country after the USSR collapsed.(they fought a war and won. Then there was a second war and lost)

Edited by Moth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Also Transnistria, Tajikistan, Ingushetia and Dagestan since '91.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunrise Driver

So Russia vetoed MH17 tribunal. It's like murderer could veto court's decision and walk free even if it was clear for everyone that he's the one and evidence would confirm that.

 

Because everyone hates Russians and wants to nuke them.

Maybe because russians want to nuke us all. To destroy "evil America", "fascist Ukraine", "gay Europe" etc.

Edited by Street Mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Eutyphro, we're all clear on your views vis-a-vis Iraq and various other subjects. They don't have to be brought up quite literally every time you post on this thread. Not really relevant.

 

This can only realistically be interpreted as a tacit admission of Russian guilt. I mean, we all pretty much know they were culpable because all of the evidence points to them being do, but their behaviour smacks of desperate cynicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It is relevant. It is a a parallel example, which points out our desire to convict others for crimes and our outrage at Russia from blocking it is completely hypocritical. But if you want to censor it fine.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

It is relevant. It is a a parallel example, which points out our desire to convict others for crimes and our outrage at Russia from blocking it is completely hypocritical. But if you want to censor it fine.

The difference is we flew a huge banner that said Mission Accomplished. Russia still maintains that they never interfered militarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

Next time I kill someone I'll cover him in a huge banner saying 'Mission Accomplished', that'll not make it a crime.



Spoilertagged that, as I've gotten two warnings now for similar short cynical US critical comments... But anyway, the fact that international justice only serves to punish those the west does not like, is completely relevant to this topic.

I don't really see what admitting your crime has to do with guilt (regarding the banner).MH17 in this respect is slightly different, considering we don't know to what extent the seperatists are under direct command from the Russian state, and thus to what extent the Russian state is responsible for the crime. We know the seperatists completely depend on Russian support though, that much is obvious. They are a proxy force of Russia, but I don't know how proxy forces are considered under international law. I know the US was condemned for illegal force by the use of a proxy force (the Contra's), but the ruling says there was proof the US commanded the forces to commit atrocities. I'm not sure whether this is true in the case of MH17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

It's not a crime, though. Where is the war crime in the invasion of Iraq? Sivis has been through this with you I believe. The reason I brought up the mission accomplished banner was not to make a joke, that stuff is all relevant in the law of war. Russia has openly denied even being slightly involved in this crisis. That's, you know, not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Both are illegal, Russian proxy force in Ukraine and the Iraq war. Both are use of force without a proper mandate. The Dutch government actually did a major enquiry that concluded the Iraq war was illegal. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissie-Davids(I can't find English language info on this enquiry...)

But it is true we have debated on R2P, Humanitarian Intervention etc in the case it lacked a UN mandate, and we disagreed on it, but it might not be that useful to rehash that.

You seem to be saying covert action is illegal, but I'm not sure whether that is true, though if you can point out otherwise please do. Though covert action in general tends to lack a mandate, except for when it is self defence, though covert self defence makes no sense..

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

International law only works for as long as countries are willing to uphold them. The UN has no power to uphold its own resolutions, it can only rely on the whim of its members. The United States have not submitted to any form supranational judicial system like EU member states have. If the Iraq war is not considered illegal in the United States, then it is not illegal. If it is considered illegal in the EU or the Netherlands, that has little impact on the US. But it might be a problem for the United Kingdom and Poland, both of which participated in the invasion phase. But EU law has very little on the books about war, only really the UN talks about that. And that's mostly guidelines, because they cannot actually be laws.

 

War crimes were definitely committed in the Iraq war by Coalition forces including the US, even the United States admits this. And I will heavily criticise the Iraq war, both its strategy, its premise and its arguments. But I cannot consider it illegal.

 

While that was deceptive in its argument, the Russians are deceptive in their execution in Ukraine. There are so many different variables between the two, that I do not believe they are fully comparable. Moreover, I don't understand the argument to compare Russian intervention in Ukraine to the Iraq war. It seems like a silly argument that what Russia is doing is suddenly more acceptable, because the United States did something almost equally terrible. You can probably imagine what sort of horrible things we would allow if this argument was valid. We ought to be moving away from this.

 

Additionally, the current presidency in the United States have been distancing itself from the Iraq war's purpose. In a way, the US have owned up to its mistake. Russia have done nothing of the kind, in fact Putin almost proudly stated that it was actually Russian troops in Crimea after the fact.

 

The US and Coalition members in Iraq should absolutely be able to condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine, because it should also be considered additionally a recognition of past mistakes by these nations. The counter argument that it is hypocritical is thin, considering that governments have changed in almost all of the the democratic nations involved. How long does this thing stick around? If the Iraq war had begun two years ago, yes, then it would be hypocritical to criticise Russia for similar actions, but it happened almost a decade earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Oke.. Let's put that through some analysis.

International law only works for as long as countries are willing to uphold them. The UN has no power to uphold its own resolutions, it can only rely on the whim of its members. The United States have not submitted to any form supranational judicial system like EU member states have. If the Iraq war is not considered illegal in the United States, then it is not illegal [...] But EU law has very little on the books about war, only really the UN talks about that. And that's mostly guidelines, because they cannot actually be laws.

War crimes were definitely committed in the Iraq war by Coalition forces including the US, even the United States admits this. And I will heavily criticise the Iraq war, both its strategy, its premise and its arguments. But I cannot consider it illegal.

So your first premise is that the US does not have to respect international law because it can't be enforced on them by force, thus it does not apply to them. That's a 'Hobbesian' justification. I don't agree, considering force in this realm of power tends to mean destruction on a scale so large that it is a threat to the species, but it's not evidently false. The next premise, that the US did not submit to a supranational judicial system is false. The US as a UN member state has submitted to UN conventions and treaties, among them the established ICJ, though the US has verbally withdrawn from ICJ jurisdiction after the Nicaragua case, though they still approve of it as a means to hold others liable for crimes. The ICJ is not able to force the United States into respecting international law, as the US has a Security Council veto. The same thing is true relating to Russia and MH17 (veto power).

Your third premise, that the UN does not establish laws, is obviously false.. I'm not really sure what more to say about that. It's called international law for a reason. Your fourth premise, that the United States has admitted to war crimes, to my knowledge is false, but if you have proof indicating otherwise, then please show me.

While that was deceptive in its argument, the Russians are deceptive in their execution in Ukraine. There are so many different variables between the two, that I do not believe they are fully comparable. Moreover, I don't understand the argument to compare Russian intervention in Ukraine to the Iraq war. It seems like a silly argument that what Russia is doing is suddenly more acceptable, because the United States did something almost equally terrible. You can probably imagine what sort of horrible things we would allow if this argument was valid. We ought to be moving away from this.

 

Additionally, the current presidency in the United States have been distancing itself from the Iraq war's purpose. In a way, the US have owned up to its mistake. Russia have done nothing of the kind, in fact Putin almost proudly stated that it was actually Russian troops in Crimea after the fact.

Did you just call yourself deceptive...? Furthermore, it is not equally terrible. The Iraq war is far more terrible because it killed far more people, and people are actually still dying because of it right now at a rate most likely much higher than in Eastern Ukraine. I never justified Russian action in Eastern Ukraine, all I did was point out hipocrisy. Russian action in Eastern Ukraine is illegal and should be punished using international law. Russia often uses actions by the US as precedents and justification for their actions, which makes it extra relevant.

Most modern American politicians have admitted Iraq was a major strategical error and failure, but they have not admitted guilt, or called it a crime. It is similar to when I'd kill someone and I'd say it was an error because it made me worse off. That's not an admission of guilt.

The US and Coalition members in Iraq should absolutely be able to condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine, because it should also be considered additionally a recognition of past mistakes by these nations. The counter argument that it is hypocritical is thin, considering that governments have changed in almost all of the the democratic nations involved. How long does this thing stick around? If the Iraq war had begun two years ago, yes, then it would be hypocritical to criticise Russia for similar actions, but it happened almost a decade earlier.

How is it an act of recognition when you punish war criminals in other countries, but don't punish your own? That's the opposite of recognition, denial. So you think war crimes expire after only ten years? I find that a rather short time span for such crimes to expire. A few weeks ago Germany was still convicting a Nazi collaborator, and he didn't even kill anyone himself. In fact, the only reason his crimes came to light was because he had regret, and wanted to refute holocaust denial with his witness account.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

which points out our desire to convict others for crimes and our outrage at Russia from blocking it is completely hypocritical.

Which itself is irrelevant, because hypocrisy manifests itself in basically every sphere of human existence. We don't need it pointed out every 5 minutes. If you want to interpret it as censorship and make subtle digs about being warned, apparently for expressing anti-American views (unlikely) then be my guest, but playing the victim isn't going to make your posts any more on topic.

 

All nations are endemically hypocritical in their behaviour. They always hold other nations to standards they don't apply to themselves. Pretending it's solely an American thing is hilariously disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

When the most powerful country in the world (the US) wants to consistently impose norms on others it consistently refuses to apply to itself, then how is that not relevant? Especially considering all the major news outlets are airing how appalled the US is by Russia's disregard for international law. The US-Russia relations are especially relevant to this topic, as they are majorly relevant to international politics in general, have been among the most influential factor in international politics post WW2, and because relations have increasingly worsened recently...

The digs are not meant as digs, but I'll not discuss that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

So your first premise is that the US does not have to respect international law because it can't be enforced on them by force, thus it does not apply to them. That's a 'Hobbesian' justification. I don't agree, considering force in this realm of power tends to mean destruction on a scale so large that it is a threat to the species, but it's not evidently false.

 

That's the unfortunate state of international law, it only applies when states feels like it. You are also confusing it for me condoning the US circumventing international laws, when they feel like it, I don't. The United States should definitely be held the same standards as they preach.

 

The next premise, that the US did not submit to a supranational judicial system is false. The US as a UN member state has submitted to UN conventions and treaties, among them the established ICJ, though the US has verbally withdrawn from ICJ jurisdiction after the Nicaragua case, though they still approve of it as a means to hold others liable for crimes. The ICJ is not able to force the United States into respecting international law, as the US has a Security Council veto. The same thing is true relating to Russia and MH17 (veto power).

 

So de facto, the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the United States. That seems to fit my perception. I know they used to think it was a good idea, until they realised it could be used against them. Another action I don't condone either.

 

Your third premise, that the UN does not establish laws, is obviously false.. I'm not really sure what more to say about that. It's called international law for a reason.

 

It's called international law, because the hope is that they will become law, but de facto they are not. States ignore them as they see fit, if there are no consequences for doing so. The only punishment the UN "has" are sanctions, and that's not the UN enforcing them, merely its member states. Conventions, treaties and so on are great, but they are not laws in the traditional sense. That's not to say they shouldn't be upheld and followed, but it does make it problematic calling a war illegal. From a legal perspective.

 

Your fourth premise, that the United States has admitted to war crimes, to my knowledge is false, but if you have proof indicating otherwise, then please show me.

 

You are reading my statement wrong, I am not saying the United States have admitted to committing war crimes directly, but that members of its armed forces has. I realise this is a bit thin, considering the convictions the soldiers at Abu Graib got, but it's close to an admission.

 

Did you just call yourself deceptive...?

 

No, I called the argument for the Iraq war deceptive.

 

Furthermore, it is not equally terrible. The Iraq war is far more terrible because it killed far more people, and people are actually still dying because of it right now at a rate most likely much higher than in Eastern Ukraine.

 

I agree. I am speaking in terms of 'legality'.

 

I never justified Russian action in Eastern Ukraine, all I did was point out hipocrisy. Russian action in Eastern Ukraine is illegal and should be punished using international law. Russia often uses actions by the US as precedents and justification for their actions, which makes it extra relevant.

 

While I agree I cannot consider it illegal, for the reasons I pointed out above, I do find Russia's argument more problematic, because they are lying above their involvement and Russia had specifically pledged not to violate Ukrainian sovereignty in the Budapest Memoriam.

 

I understand that realpolitik wriggle room between what we allow our allies to do and what we allow our cordial partners to do. While European states were outspoken in their criticism of the Iraq war (particularly France), none of them would sanction the US (because it would require EU level sanctions anyway), because they are an important trade partner. And of course, Iraq, that's far away, so we weren't so overly concerned.

 

Sanctioning Russia is more acceptable to Europeans (even if Russia is an important export market for Europe), because Russia is not as close an ally as the US and Ukraine is in our backyard, so now we are scared.

 

What you may call hypocrisy, I would call pragmatism, which usually means to abandon your ideals ... most of the time.

 

How is it an act of recognition when you punish war criminals in other countries, but don't punish your own? That's the opposite of recognition, denial. So you think war crimes expire after only ten years? I find that a rather short time span for such crimes to expire. A few weeks ago Germany was still convicting a Nazi collaborator, and he didn't even kill anyone himself. In fact, the only reason his crimes came to light was because he had regret, and wanted to refute holocaust denial with his witness account.

 

OK, an act of recognition may be a bit over the top. Or at least, over-optimistic on my part. But hey, no one went to jail for causing the financial crisis either. So the United States don't really believe in punishment for crimes that actually matter.

 

But all this aside, we are talking about Russian intervention in Ukraine, talking about comparable wars only distracts from the topic at hand. What the US did was deplorable. And what Russia is doing is also deplorable. Talking about whether they are equal is like making a contest out of who had the worst terrorist attacks by death toll. They should all be condemned in the strongest possible language. And hopefully accompanied with a proportional response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

When the most powerful country in the world (the US) wants to consistently impose norms on others it consistently refuses to apply to itself, then how is that not relevant?

Because it has nothing explicitly or implicitly to do with the subject at hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

You are selectively quoting. I said more than that. I argued why US-Russia relations are specifically relevant to this topic, and I've also pointed out in another post that Russia uses US action as a precedent and justification. Apart from that, I've never claimed being hypocritical is "solely a US thing" like you posted, which is a strawman.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/30/mh17-julie-bishop-savages-russia-vetoing-un-tribunal-proposal
"The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said [..] 'It is tragic that Russia has used the privilege entrusted to it in order to advance international peace and security ... to frustrate international peace and security.'" How can you read that without becoming cynical considering the history of the US veto..? That is what I'm wondering. But forget about it. If you don't care then that's fine.

 

For anyone interested, here is the RT article, which is completely ridiculous, but an interesting read anyway. http://www.rt.com/news/311109-russia-veto-un-tribunal-mh17/

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I argued why US-Russia relations are specifically relevant to this topic

Which they are, but I don't see how calling the US out on supposed hypocrisy is...

 

I've also pointed out in another post that Russia uses US action as a precedent and justification.

Russia may use American actions as a public excuse for their actions, but it's abundantly clear to just about anyone they're not used as a justification for Russian decision makers. Russian policy is driven solely by Eurasianist expansionism and Russian ethnic exceptionism; the loose correlation between their actions and those of the US is merely happy coincidence.

 

Apart from that, I've never claimed being hypocritical is "solely a US thing" like you posted, which is a strawman.

 

It's not a straw man. You can't have it both ways by simultaneously claiming that your statements on American violations of UN protocol deserve specific mention in the context of recent events involving Russia and the UN, but those American violations are unexceptional. Well, not without a) looking like a hypocrite and b) coming across as unduly obsessed with the alleged wrongs committed by the US, and therefore being well off-topic.

 

As entertaining as this back and forth has been, I've made my point. Next time you decide to bring up the US in this thread in a similar context to your last posts on the subject you'd better have good and thoroughly explained justification rather than just dumping flippant vitriol in the thread whenever you feel like it and playing the game of "pin the justification on the hyperbole" after the fact.

 

If not, take it to the general political discussion thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

If the Iraq war had begun two years ago, yes, then it would be hypocritical to criticise Russia for similar actions, but it happened almost a decade earlier.

 

How about Libya then? That was much more recent. And we came pretty close to a similar campaign against Assad in Syria too, but the UK parliament voted against it which also meant no U.S. involvement since they clearly wanted a partner. I think it's definitely hypocritical for the West to undertake these wars/conflicts, and also just incredibly stupid to adopt a foreign policy that is so threatening to Russian interests and to expect them to not do anything.

 

The Cold War and 20th century may be behind us, although now more and more the Cold War less so, but the concept and reality of spheres of influence is still here. We were already supporting Syrian rebels and came very close to enacting a direct campaign designed to remove Assad. Then we interfered in Ukraine and supported what was effectively a coup. Russia obviously is going to push back and resist these actions which it would regard as antagonistic and hostile to it's interests. And you could argue from an objective view point that they were right to do so in the face of Western antagonism. Certainly the rest of the world seems to think so, or at least simply don't care all that much.

 

Sanctions_2014_Russia2.png

 

The sanctions against Russia are purely from the West, nobody else. They are not international sanctions as is often stated, they are purely Western. The countries in green are the ones who are enacting sanctions against Russia. Even major NATO members like Turkey aren't interested. That is also partly due to not wanting to face economic damage, since sanctions also hurt the country imposing them. In fact the damage to EU countries is estimated at 100 billion Euros. There is no outrage at what Russia has done, from the international community, because they haven't done much at all. And certainly nothing which the West hasn't recently done, although Russia has obviously gone about it in a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

You can disagree on whether we should have intervened in Libya, that's fine. But it is definitely not comparable to either of these two crisis. The intervention was based on the opposition to Gaddafi crying out for international support, Gaddafi bombing his own citizens and the case was presented exactly that way to the citizens of the countries intervening. Even if we had intervened in Syria, it would still have been based on an immediate threat/crisis. Neither Iraq nor Ukraine were immediate threats/crisis to the United States or Russia, respectively, when their interventions was initiated.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I don't recall Japan being Western. It's kind of the polar opposite.

 

Also, we (the West) never directly intervened in Ukraine. Plus Libya was UN sanctioned.

 

Also worth pointing out that the countries currently sanctioning Russia cumulatively account for nearly 50% of the GDP of the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I don't recall Japan being Western. It's kind of the polar opposite.

Most people consider Japan partially Western, I'm surprised you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Western aligned, but not really Western IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

You can disagree on whether we should have intervened in Libya, that's fine. But it is definitely not comparable to either of these two crisis. The intervention was based on the opposition to Gaddafi crying out for international support, Gaddafi bombing his own citizens and the case was presented exactly that way to the citizens of the countries intervening. Even if we had intervened in Syria, it would still have been based on an immediate threat/crisis. Neither Iraq nor Ukraine were immediate threats/crisis to the United States or Russia, respectively, when their interventions was initiated.

 

With regards to the way the case for Libya was made to the public, Gaddafi supposedly threatening to massacre civilians by the tens of thousands in Benghazi played a very big part. It was one of the main justifications. It was basically a "we have to stop this attrocity from happening" deal. That wasn't the only justification obviously, but it was one of the main ones and was used to make it look like a morally driven action. Obama said not taking action "would stain the conscience of the world" and other leaders and politicians made similar remarks. It was all bollocks of course, and there was no genuine reason to believe any such massacre would take place. It was no more morally justifiable than Iraq in 2003.

 

The proposed intervention in Syria wasn't based on an immediate threat or crisis, it was simply the next move in the plan, which had been there all along, of getting rid of Assad. Because the rebels clearly were never going to win or regain the initiative they'd had previously. There had been a hope that funding and arming the opposition would be enough, but when that wasn't working, plan B, which had been in place from the very beginning, was attempted. But it obviously never materialised since public opinion was too against it.

 

Despite having said all that, I'm not necessarily against those interventions and wars. My point is just that it's a double standard for people to be fine with the West doing these sorts of things, but to then call Russia out on it. Especially when Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine are a reaction to even more Western interference and intervention, that happens to be in Russia's back yard this time. We provoked Russia. You can't just pretend we live in a world where the West can do whatever it wants without suffering the consequences of angering and antagonising other powers, who will then take action.

 

It's irresponsible and ultimately has worked against us. Relations were always sticky, but they had been improving. Russia had changed to just being a competitor, it is now an enemy again. We got over confident and too bold. Interfering in Ukraine was very stupid

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.