Russia invades Ukraine

[David]

Putin hasn't taken too kindly to his puppet regime in Kiev being overthrown. Things are going to get pretty nasty if this isn't resolved soon.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/ukraine-warns-russia-military-crimea-intervention-war

A complicating factor is that the wealthy, eastern half of Ukraine is ethnically Russian (this is where Lola comes from) and perhaps a little more disposed to supporting Russian intervention. The western, ethnically Ukrainian part is fiercely nationalistic and contains a lot of pro-EU sentiment. They, in particular, will not take kindly to having their country invaded by the imperial power they won independence from 20 years ago. There'll be conflict in the Russian-speaking parts, too, many of whom might ordinarily seek closer ties with Russia but despise the Putin regime. It's a bit of a mess to say the least.

[stui magpie]

Looks like it has the potential to get really messy.

I'm not clear on how the new regime came to power. Was it an election or a hostile take over?

There certainly appears to be a lot of different things in play. The country has a lot of ethnic russian and russian sympathisers, but clearly wants to remain separate. There's a massive russian military base on it's coast which russia clearly doesn't want to lose control over, the countries economy is basically shot and heavily reliant on russian investment and trade. The new blokes in charge want closer ties to the EU whereas russia wants them to stay in their union.

Then we get all the political posturing. Obama says "Nyet Vladimir", Vlad says "Far kew Barry". The UN postures showing itself to be a toothless kitten yet again.

Could get real messy before it gets better.

[David]

As seems to be the way in that part of the world, Ukraine were under the control of an extraordinarily corrupt leader (Yanukovich) who'd just sold them down the river by initially seeking out closer ties with the EU and then doing an about-face when Vlad said no. After Western Ukrainians protested in Kiev, Yanukovich's forces made the mistake of killing a lot of them, which resulted in more protests and the government finally standing down. Not dissimilar to what happened in a number of Middle Eastern countries a couple of years back. Here's some more background:

Here's a one-sided, but mostly reasonable take on what's happening:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116810/putin-declares-war-ukraine-why-and-what-next

[David]

Relax, guys, Abbott's on the case:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/03/02/16/40/russia-told-to-back-off-by-abbott

(I agree with him here, of course. But why do his observations on foreign politics always sound like borderline-illiterate commenters on a Herald Sun article? And who even refers to the country as "the Ukraine" nowadays? As with most issues, Abbott is stuck in a time-warp)

http://m.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844

[HAL]

I did not even know that his observations on foreign politics sound like borderline-illiterate commenters on a [he or she]Herald Sun[he or she] article do.

[pietillidie]

Given Abbott supported the trampling of the UN all through the Iraq War debacle, and that he disregards the Refugee Convention and dumps asylum seekers on poor countries, anything Abbott has to say on international law is already a farce.

Anything the US has to say is obviously a farce already.

Putin can do what he likes, basically, because there is little moral leadership elsewhere on the planet to call on. Such is the cost of squandering the moral high ground.

[pietillidie]

[Tannin]

With Putin in charge, expect the worst. That man is a 24-carat menace to humanity, and he'll do anything for a heroic picture opportunity. What better picture opportunity can you have than a war?

[David]

[HAL]

Does it like him too?

[pietillidie]

[Tannin]

[David]

I have to respectfully remain sceptical about the value of "moral high ground" in the sphere of international relations. All that matters here is blocs and alliances: Russia and the US can't agree what time of day it is and seemingly line up on opposing sides of pretty much every issue of note. Iraq may have exacerbated that situation, but it was probably small-fry compared to Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia in the '90s and, as Malcolm Fraser suggested in The Guardian, agressive expansion of NATO. As some have pointed out, the Cold War was always on the backburner (apologies for the dreadful mixed metaphor!).

What's most telling here I think is that the usual suspects are lining up with the US (UK, Australia, Western Europe) while Russia and China work together to exercise their security council veto. The Iraq war hasn't shifted the game board much if at all. The situation was broadly similar on Iraq, where Russia might have had something of a "moral high ground", and Syria, where they quite clearly didn't. What I mean is that Kerry is preaching to the converted on one side and falling on deaf ears on the other, and that would have been the case regardless of the "morality" of the issue at hand.

I'm not of course arguing that diplomacy isn't a huge resource and that diabolical foreign policy decisions can't damage it. But it's unclear to me just how damaged the US's diplomatic clout actually is; the election of a president who opposed the Iraq war surely counting for something, you would think. But even if that hadn't been the case, the US would have still held a whip hand because they're a superpower and they can more or less do as they please, just like Russia and China. "Immoral" decisions won't cost them greatly because other countries depend on them and will want them onside in the long run.

As for Abbott, I suspect we have a lot more to lose because of our uneasy presence in the south-east Asian region, medium power status and role as the US's lapdog. There, I think, real damage can be done by antagonising our neighbours. Such are the dynamics of power.

[pietillidie]

^That last bit gets closer to reality, but now apply it to every single country on earth. The US didn't parade Howard's support for Iraq because it needed a dozen more military vehicles. It needed to convince the weight of public opinion at home, amongst allies, and amongst the swing vote countries.

You totally overestimate these "blocks"; not only do they often lack internal support, especially for serious conflict, but there are many proximate parties that could be convinced either way. Lumping Germany in with Europe on this, for starters, is misleading.

In any case, the argument need extend no further than the US themselves; internal support even for "just" war there is at an all-time low due to the Iraq disgrace.

("The moral high ground" is really a metaphor for what is a persuasive public relations argument based on many variables, none less than being able to trust the judgement of the side you support, and ensuring they won't end up being Bush-level destructive scum).

[pietillidie]

As if on cue, some US idiot engages in epic hypocrisy while apparently keeping a straight face: