European Politics

Forostar said:
Do explain how the West engaged the very same practise.
Click to expand...
Exactly as Perun illustrates: the unilateral, illegal invasions of sovereign states; on "trumped-up pretext"(s) (Kerry' words in regard to this crisis). I didn't see NATO saying a great deal about the UK & USA's incursions into Afghanistan & Iraq. The West (the US & UK in particular) simply cannot maintain any credibility in this face of this utter hypocrisy. I'm not saying I agree with what Russia is doing or planning. I'm saying the hypocrisy reeks.
 
It doesn't. These were different situations. Not saying the invasions you mention were (entirely) justified, but still I wonder what you find so much the same.
 
The US and its coalition attacked and invaded Iraq in 2003 without any sort of provocation or justification, for the sole purpose of maintaining its position of power. It's exactly the same thing.
 
Perun said:
The US and its coalition attacked and invaded Iraq in 2003 without any sort of provocation or justification, for the sole purpose of maintaining its position of power. It's exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...


It is not the same thing ... I assume we are just talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

However, some good news on Ukraine

Berlin — Russia's Vladimir Putin has agreed to a proposal from Angela Merkel to set up a contact group on Ukraine, the German government said Sunday.

The German chancellor put the proposal to Putin in a telephone conversation late Sunday in which she also "accused the Russian president of violating international law with the unacceptable Russian intervention in Crimea," said a government statement.

"President Putin accepted the German chancellor's proposal to immediately establish a mission of enquiry as well as a contact group, possibly under the direction of the OSCE, to open a political dialogue," it said.

Western allies have condemned Russia's threat to invade its Western-leaning neighbour, which analysts say risks sparking the worst crisis since the Cold War.

Merkel told Putin the intervention was a violation of a 1994 Budapest memorandum on security assurances in which Russia committed itself to respecting the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in its existing borders, as well as the 1997 treaty on the Russian Black Sea fleet, based in Crimea.

The memorandum was signed by Britain, Ukraine, Russia and the United States.

The statement said Merkel called on Putin to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
 
There had been gross violations of human rights in Iraq. Even if you say that these don't justify an invasion, I still haven't seen any of it in the Ukraine.
Different things went on before the invasions took place.
 
bearfan said:
It is not the same thing ... I assume we are just talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I only mentioned Iraq. From my point of view, there is no difference at all. A world power attacking independent countries for the sake of maintaining its power.

Forostar said:
There had been gross violations of human rights. Even if you say that these don't justify an invasion, I still haven't seen any of it in the Ukraine.
Different things went on before the invasion took place.
Click to expand...

The gross violations of human rights were as much the pretext of the invasion of Iraq as the protection of Russians in Crimea is the pretext for the Russian invasion.
 
Perun said:
The US and its coalition attacked and invaded Iraq in 2003 without any sort of provocation or justification, for the sole purpose of maintaining its position of power. It's exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
Forostar said:
There had been gross violations of human rights in Iraq.
Click to expand...
And what did the US led invasion lead to? Gross violations that continue to this day by the US!

Forostar, come on, the differences are minimal.
 
You're right that we can indeed see that gross violations still continue in several forms. I think we differ on the opinions whether invasions are tolerated and when not (I have seen already difference of opinion on Syria so your positions don't come as a surprise). Also I think we disagree on the definition of maintaining position of power. But all this leads too much away from the point Cried was making: Rhetoric.

Even if the West made mistakes in the past, and perhaps even learned from some, that doesn't mean that there is a law about saying something, or that they should not have the right to say something to (a country of) the East when they step into another country.

I am glad that the West speaks up for a majority of Ukrainian citizens who do not want this interference. The feeling that these people are not left alone because they have to seek out their "internal" affair is imo already worth some rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
I do not think anyone, including the Russians, have accused the Ukrainians of doing anything remotely close to this ... their pretext has no basis at all

Human rights organizations have documented government-approved executions, acts of torture and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.



Mass grave.
  • In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... and the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".[1]
  • Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population.
  • Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities.
  • Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling across country without government permission and expensive exit visas prevented Iraqi citizens from traveling abroad. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi females could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a male relative.[2]
  • The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored[citation needed].
  • Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite Kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 182,000) people, many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after thedemolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms and power stations.[3][4]
  • In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed full-scale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]
  • Also in April 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."[7]
  • After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total and more are being uncovered to this day.[8] While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.
  • Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.
 
Things missing from bearfan's list: Weapons of Mass Destruction that were claimed as the reason for invading Iraq.

And how many of those things would we find in areas with dictators propped up by the US, like Saddam was until he wasn't?
 
Probably others for sure and plenty propped up by the Soviets/Russians.

But, should we really conduct Foreign Policy on a two wrongs (assuming they are wrongs) make a right theory? There is no legit reason for the Russians to be in the Ukraine beyond what is allowed by treaty between the two countries
 
For me it doesn't come down to moral authority. I don't much care what happened in previous situations - I care what is right in this one. What's right is Russia not invading, obviously - and also, if it's what people in the Crimea want, let's get them a plebiscite.
 
Kerry is heading to Kiev, the British Foreign Minister is as well. I would be sending the Defense Secretaries as well ... the more officials going to Kiev, the better IMO
 
According to Svenska Dagbladet, their journalists were chased by a mob of Russian-speaking protesters in Sevastopol, who among other things yelled "Poltava" at the journalists after learning they were Swedish.
 
The Russian stock market is in trouble: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26414285


The rouble fell 2.5% to 36.5 roubles against the dollar and 1.5% against the euro to 50.30.

Stocks on Moscow's MICEX main stock index also fell 9% in early trading.

The Russian Central Bank was reported to have sold up to $10bn (£6bn) of reserves to support the rouble, according to Reuters news agency.

The Russian Central Bank said last month that its international reserves totalled $493.4bn as of 21 February.

The sharp falls came as Russia's central bank hiked its key lending rate on Monday to 7% from 5.5%.

"Now that (Russia and Ukraine) are actually on the verge of a military confrontation investors will start selling Russian stocks with special fervour," analysts at Rossiysky Capital said in a note for investors.

Artem Argetkin, trader at BCS in Moscow, said brokers were trying to close their positions at any price.

"There's a sell-off of everything right now," he added.

James Hughes, chief market analyst at Alpari UK, warned the sell-off would get worse.

"We can expect some very sharp moves in the ensuing couple of days as markets and world leaders look to establish just how much of a threat there is not only to stability in the area but stability across Europe."


I don't really understand what all that means and what the implications are but I can tell it's bad news for Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top