I agree. My point is that the western position is to point to the form of the referendum as bad, and then leap from there to say that the conclusion is the one they wanted. No matter how bad your argument that the sun is coming up tomorrow, it is still coming up.
Russia did wrong, and I think it’s fair to say that we can’t get an accurate gauge on how the people of Crimea feel about what happened. I think focusing on the needs of the people affected rather than on a war of words with Russia means that you achieve better results, regardless of whether the people of Crimea would have voted the same way in a fair referendum or not.
What if he does? What if we’re dealing with a situation where some dictator invades a neighboring country, bombs it out and says “now it’s up to you, the rest of the world, to fix what I broke, and make this place pay good taxes to me”? It’s not sustainable. Some sort of setup where basic humanitarian needs may be ensured anywhere in the world, no-questions-asked is a nice utopia, but we’re nowhere near that, and I don’t think random acts of charity towards international actors who refuse to play even by the existing rules would help it come along.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. It’s a question of affirming that international law matters, rather than establishing moral superiority. If we think in those terms, international law is a non-starter, as @Phrenological says. It devolves into a cynical whataboutist race to the bottom - “You did something bad, so I can do that as well” - “No, what you did just now was worse, so I’ll do it too” - etc. Without law, there is no point of reference from which to claim that something is wrong - what is right is whatever the guy with the biggest stick says it is.
I’m not sure what a “western position” is, though the consensus of the UN and western (and non-western) governments is that Russia illegally invaded and annexed part of a sovereign nation. The referendum is really irrelevant.
I think the legal issue of a nation illegally invading an annexing a sovereign nation is a real and very serious concern that needs to be taken deeply seriously as well as being concerned about the interests of the Crimean people. If Crimea can be invaded and annexed without any notable response, that’s probably going to result in outcomes that are bad for the people of Crimea and many other places around the globe in the long term with an erosion of international law that managed to keep what tenuous peace we had. For the short term, the people there are living under a new regime that’s certainly no better and probably worse than their previous regime.
Isn’t it sustainable? What about in our own nations? Should we try to pick up the pieces after criminals break things or should we say that would just encourage crime? People behave better when they believe they will be cared for rather than worse.
Why are there expansionists in the first place? Why would a person want their country to control more territory rather than less? Why would a person want to have more things rather than fewer? My suggestion is to completely deny the expansionist his narrative that expansionism has accomplished anything. Show them that no one is impressed. People taking over territory want to be feared strongmen.
I don’t even agree that we have a tenuous peace. What peace?
Peace because Germany hasn’t been to war with England in 70 years? That’s not some amazing milestone never before achieved, it’s a coincidence that has happened many times in the past. The same kind of economic turmoil leading to racist populism that eventually led to the second world war is alive and well in England, in Poland, in the US, in tons of places. The kind of reaction to aggression through treaties that started the first world war is exactly what we are talking about here: Russia was aggressive towards Ukraine, we’re allies with Ukraine so we have to respond and three generations from now people will look back and think, “What the fuck was that all about?”
Anyway, I’ve laid out my plan for dealing with Ukraine that I think would discourage further action and allow us to free the people of Crimea from Russian rule - if that’s what they even want - within about 30-40 years. I have not seen any other proposal for dealing with the situation that looks like it could achieve results as good as those.
What we have to do is what the guy with the biggest stick says. What is right is what people 100 years from now will think in retrospect.
We went from lawlessness to law. We went from war to diplomacy. We went from bad to better. I don’t want to reverse course just because someone else gave it up first.
It sounds like you’re endorsing the exact opposite. Giving up on monitoring the abuses of others by anyone because you can’t personally meet the same standard.
If I can interject, I think this was the important notion now missing. My impression is that the end of the cold war, such as it was, came from Russia running out of steam for its imperial ambitions and so settling for a joint role leading the international community. The ideal was that they could project their influence in spheres like the UN, where they would do things with countries like the US, or more often tell each other not to do things.
This fragile ideal was risked by Bill Clinton to stop genocide in Kosovo, where Russia blocked all intervention by the UN, and he instead invoked the old anti-Russian alliance NATO in its place. It was destroyed under George Bush when the PNAC folks unilaterally announced how the disposition of Kosovo should go, started invading middle eastern countries, and so on without any regard to international anything. And now Russia is doing the same and more, pointing at what the US has been doing to excuse rebuilding its influence by invading one country after another.
Nobody seems to be walking this back. So I think @anon50609448 is very right to say we don’t have enough moral ground to stand high, and even @Nobby_Stiles has a fair point in talking about American leaders thoughtlessly antagonizing Russia. Except then it seems his and his sources’ only alternative is something even worse, thoughtlessly indulging them.
That’s the dichotomy offered. We can escalate tension and bring back the cold war, or America and Russia can work together again and maybe even become friends, if only we could just let slide a few massive violations of international law and human rights! Maybe not even that massive with the right spin (like if Ukraine isn’t quite a real country)! No, instead of this divisive hippy crap, we should make deals. Trump and Putin, you know, are both great at deals. The two of them could each get what they want from each other, and the two countries can march forward together, boots stamping on human faces forever.
The only third way I can see is what you mention here, a return to the ideal of nations that do not act unilaterally but instead through international agreements and law. But right now there is no real push for that, neither country wants to limit themselves to it. I assume things aren’t scary enough yet.
I think we should be friends with the current Russian regime in the same way as Mandela thought that black people in South Africa should be friends with the Apartheid regime. That’s my third option.
While I’m too tired to address most of this, I will say that the post-WW II trends of moving away (to some degree) with colonialism, moving towards international law (which we have yet to fully realize), and moving towards mutual economic dependence have done a lot to decrease the scale and severity of global conflicts, though they certainly haven’t ended them. International law is a framework for non-military resolutions of international conflicts. Allowing any nation to so egregiously violate and erode international law is not a step towards the goal of peaceful reconciliation of the inevitable international conflicts that have and will continue to arise, but a step towards an even more conflict-ridden globe than what we have. There might be other approaches that could also help, as with yours, but they are doomed to failure without that framework, since Putin’s not just posturing over territory, he’s taking territory that’s valuable for resources and strategic military position - it has inherent value to his goals rather than just being something to stroke his ego.
a very true remark. the sad part is that you could replace Putin with Bush and Crimea with iraq* and is it still true: the invasion was planned to finance itself with Iraqi oil and “This is the guy who tried to kill my father.” was a very egoistical reason to start a war.
* or the red/green German government with chancellor Schröder and Kosovo for that matter
I think we have to give up on the idea that it is up to us to “allow” or to not “allow” the actions of Russia. There are lots of dimensions to compliance with law. If you want a high rate of compliance with law you need to have the population buy into the value of the law. People need to understand why we have that law, agree that it should be there, and disapprove of violations of it. Almost no one obeys the law because they actually believe in the law as a valuable concept.
Punishment is one of the weakest factors in whether or not people obey law, and generally the severity of the punishment is far less important than the certainty of it. Our ability to create certainty of punishment for large powers like the US and Russia is basically zero.
There is no reason to do anything. All of it is to serve another end. Resources, military position, for what? The regress is only backstopped by a personal vision of what is important, whether you call that ego or something else.
If taking over territory caused the world to see you as a pathetic kid throwing a tantrum rather than as a dangerous strongman, if it meant you got ridicule for your inability to control your emotions rather than praise for your success from one of America’s two major party presidential candidates, then the attraction of doing it would wane massively.
Maybe I take my, “imagine everyone is four” approach to solving problems too far.
Absolutely. While the US has had a very spotty record prior to and after W, the Bush presidency was a low mark in the erosion of respect for and adherence to international law (not just with invading Iraq, but also in defying the Geneva conventions in advocating for torture, etc.).
So you object to expressions of Russian identity that conflict with your Westernized, Atlanticized, decadent opinion of what national identity should be?
It depends what you mean by “we.” If you mean “the US,” then certainly it’s incoherent to suggest one nation uphold something that’s necessarily and inherently upheld internationally. If by “we” you mean the global community, then I vehemently disagree. International law is inherently tied to the consensus of the global community (which is part of why it’s currently fragile and incomplete).
If taking over territory secured valuable resources, and was useful in establishing a better military position to coerce neighbors and expand influence for economic gain (as with Crimea), I think there would be leaders who would be pleased to pursue it even if their populace didn’t think it made them look great. With Russian state controlled/censored media it’s easy enough to bring the people around regardless.
Anyway, all my ranting about peace and turning the other cheek aside, on the actual issue of Trump’s knowledge of Ukraine, @art_carnage had it right about 400 posts ago:
Because that’s what our social status seeking monkey brains find rewarding, at least in some people. And the social status seeking monkey brains of others can’t help but be impressed. Or, if you don’t like evo psych, it’s part of human nature. I don’t think these qualities are up for negotiation, unfortunately. And if you insist they could be educated away, it still means that before we can solve the problem of imperialism, we must first somehow instill one set of values to people all over the world, which rather begs the question.
